Child Support Noncompliance and Divorced Fathers: Rethinking the Role of Paternal Involvement

by Joyce A Arditti

SUMMARY

Contents of This Page

Introduction
Visitation
Coparental Relationship
Custody
Conclusions and Policy Implications
References

Introduction

Back to Contents

Concern about the divorce experience often revolves around the financial adequacy of custodial mothers and their children. Figures vary with regard to how many children actually receive child support, and as to what the financial situations of their custodial mothers and noncustodial fathers may be. Weitzman (1985) reports that 71% of custodial mothers experience a downward financial spiral after divorce while 43% of divorced fathers experience an improved financial situation. An investigation sponsored by the Office of Child Support Enforcement reports that of the 8.7 million single mothers living with children under the age of 21, 58% were awarded or had an agreement to receive child support payments and 46% were due payments in 1983. Of those due payments, one-half received the full amount due, one-quarter received partial payment, and one-quarter received no payments (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1985). Another report indicated that in 1985, approximately half of the women with ordered support awards received the full payment (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1986). Clearly, for many women following divorce, the high noncompliance rate contributes to an insecure and unstable financial situation (Buehler 1989).

The problem of child support noncompliance has become so serious in terms of its economic implications for custodial mothers and children that Congress has passed Child Support Enforcement Amendments which require states to institute programs to deduct support from fathers' paychecks and tax returns. The underlying argument for enforcement legislation is that lax child support enforcement is the root cause of fathers' nonpayment and that implementing stronger enforcement procedures is the only way to insure that men will fulfill their support obligations (Weitzman, 1988). This perspective, while receiving support among some researchers and policymakers, ignores underlying social, emotional, and interpersonal factors that may contribute to men's resistance to pay child support.

Chambers (1983), in contrast to Weitzman's perspective, believes that an absence of financial responsibility on the part of many divorced fathers is rooted in the typically devitalized or distant relations between noncustodial fathers and their children, rather than in weak enforcement policies. He asserts that a sense of responsibility grows from a sense of attachment and that attachment is nurtured by quality interaction. Generally it is very difficult for noncustodial fathers to develop and sustain vital relationships with children and they begin to feel less and less a part of their children's lives. Subsequently, child support orders are often experienced as a form of "taxation without representation" for many divorced fathers (Chambers, 1983, p. 287). Back to present study

In a similar vein, Haskins (1988) comments that the popular view of all noncustodial fathers as "brazen" and "unconcerned" is too simplistic. He found that in his sample of fathers only two reasons - unemployment and mother's failure to spend money on children - were cited as justification for not paying support (1988). In a study on single fathers, Grief (1985) explores the issue of child support noncompliance noting a number of reasons fathers give for not paying support (p. 124): (a) Harsh economic conditions and unemployment; (b) Fathers believe the judge has been biased toward the mother and has set an unreasonably high amount to be paid - especially when the ex-wife works and is making a decent salary; and (c) Fathers frequently claim they are not paying child support because their visitation rights have been withheld or made difficult to arrange.

In sum then, despite the wide citation of the number of children not receiving child support, not enough is known about the characteristics and conditions that might be related to fathers' child support payments. This gap in the literature can partially be attributed to an overemphasis on the financial or economic aspects of child support and a relative absence of psychosocial analysis. Salkind (1983) observes that noneconomic factors have been the least well studied and child support continues to be the province of economists and lawyers. Furthermore, research documenting the experience of divorced fathers in general is relatively scarce in comparison to the wealth of literature about mothers and children. Such information is crucial for effective policy recommendations and legislative action. Enforcement programs are often ineffective, costly, and may have unintended consequences. For example, in a study examining the impact of current child support reform, Nichols-Casebolt (1986) found that such reform, while improving the financial conditions for custodial families, had the unanticipated effect of actually increasing poverty for noncustodial families.

The purpose of this discussion is to explore the issue of child support compliance within the context of the fathers' divorce experience by considering the broader issue of post-divorce paternal involvement. A more comprehensive explanation of why many noncustodial fathers fail to pay support may lie in a broader pattern of distancing and increasing noninvolvement. Longitudinal studies by both Hetherington, Cox, and Cox (1976) and Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) document this pattern of withdrawal after divorce, especially with regard to visitation. Grief (1979) also substantiates increasing noninvolvement on the part of fathers and concludes that the father's loss of influence over the child is self-reinforcing and negative which in turn contributes to greater paternal withdrawal from the child. Koch & Lowery (1985), summarizing the available research on noncustodial fathers, state that many fathers withdraw from their families physically, emotionally, and financially, often at considerable emotional cost to most men. Back to Present Study

In considering explanations other than poor enforcement for many men's failure to pay child support, it is important to acknowledge evidence that a discrepancy may exist between mothers' reports of fathers' involvement and fathers' own report of their activities. Weitzman (1985) found that in her sample, the median report by fathers was that they saw their children weekly, whereas mothers reported those same fathers as seeing their children less than monthly. Another study by Goldsmith (1980) found that fathers reported significantly more involvement with their children than custodial mothers corroborated. This included the overall frequency of reported contact and paternal involvement with various activities. Some of the research suggests that child support payment may also be underestimated in some cases due to the heavy reliance on mothers' reports. Fathers tended to report paying more child support than mothers reported receiving. For example, 79% of the men surveyed in Tropf's (1980) study reported never missing one payment of support. Wright and Price (1986) also report a parallel discrepancy between ex-spouses' reports of child support payment. Seventy-two percent of the fathers they surveyed reported that they always paid their child support on time, while less than half of the mothers (41%) reported that they received their support on time.

The above discrepancies are important because nearly all the Census Bureau statistics on divorce and child support are based on interviews with mothers (Haskins et al., 1987, unpublished manuscript). Subsequently, most of the statistics used by researchers, policymakers, and the media may be inaccurate or at least reinforce a particularly dim picture of child support compliance and visitation patterns. It is possible that divorced fathers are more involved than previously believed based on the heavy reliance on mothers' reports and the absence of information about divorced fathers' participation in parenting.

In the following discussion, three areas of concern, father's visitation, the coparental relationship, and custodial arrangement, are considered as they relate to child support compliance and overall paternal involvement. Current research suggests that these factors are interrelated and have direct and indirect effects on compliance. In the applied realm, the consideration of these factors are significant in that they give professionals various points of intervention to encourage father involvement and postdivorce adjustment for all family members. In the policy realm, the consideration of factors associated with child support compliance within the context of father involvement may lead to more effective and informed decisions with respect to child support legislation enforcement policy, and divorce laws in general.

Visitation

Back to Contents

Information regarding visitation may be the most important link to understanding the dynamics of child support compliance. It is relatively well known that fathers tend to decrease the frequency and duration of their visits over time (Furstenburg et al., 1983; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1976; Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980). Moreover, contact with the noncustodial parent is crucial for children's psychological adjustment and emotional well-being (Hetherington et al., 1976; Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980; Emery, Hetherington & Dilalla, 1984). What remains relatively unexplored is the relationship between visitation and children's economic well-being. Although intuitively it seems that visitation and child support would be related, given that paternal involvement is multifaceted, empirical validation of this potential association is scanty. There is some evidence that suggests a link between frequent or satisfying visitation patterns and child support payment (Chambers, 1979; Furstenburg et al., 1983). The direction of influence is unclear - that is it is unknown as to whether fathers who support their children financially feel more obligated to attend to their "investment" or whether fathers who have more frequent contact with their children somehow are "reminded" to financially support them. Wallerstein and Huntington (1983) emphasize the importance of visitation with respect to child support compliance. Although there may be many confounding factors, in their sample of 55 families, they found that over time, the link between visitation and child support payment becomes more profound. Furthermore, the frequency was discovered to be less important than the pattern and duration of each visit - child support was found to be highly correlated with weekend and overnight visits. However, it should be recognized that frequent or regular visitation may not necessarily reflect a loving or concerned father. It is possible that the impact of visitation on child support may be mitigated by the quality of the father-child relationship. Wallerstein and Huntington note that the significant link between a loving father-child relationship and good child support over the years was striking. Thus it may be that visitation - to the extent that it is associated with loving father-child relations - is related to good support.

Coparental Relationship

Back to Contents

Much of the concern regarding noncustodial fathers' involvement centers on the quality of the relationship between former spouses and this has bearing on the issue of child support compliance. Koch and Lowery (1984) suggest that the coparental relationship between ex-spouses is a key determinant in the level of overall postdivorce paternal involvement. Wright and Price (1986) offer some evidence supporting a direct link between good relations between ex-spouses and child support compliance. They examined the relation of attachment between former spouses, the quality of their coparental communication, and compliance with court-ordered payment of child support. Results suggested that divorced persons who continue to have some level of attachment to their former spouse and who view their current relationship with the ex-spouse as being of good quality, reflect a family pattern in which the father has a stronger desire to fulfill his responsibility to maintain financial support of his children even if he does not have custody. Koch and Lowery (1984) and Kurdek (1986) also suggest that the coparental relationship has a direct effect on child support compliance finding that the level of parental conflict is related negatively to the regularity of payments. Wallerstein and Huntington (1983) however, were unable to find a significant link between child support payment and relations between former spouses.

Perhaps the impact of coparental relations may be better understood in terms of its indirect influence. Other research points to the fact that co-parental relations have an important role in determining visitation patterns and fathers' feelings of warmth for their children. Recall in the previous section the positive association noted between visitation, warm father-child relations, and child support payment. Burke (1985) reported that the most important predictor of noncustodial fathers' warmth for and involvement with their children was the relations between ex-spouses. In general, hostile relations between ex-spouses and little discussion regarding childrearing are negatively associated with father involvement and contact with children (Ahrons, 1983; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1976; Lund, 1987). Furstenburg (1988) however, found that the quality of relations between former spouses had only a modest effect on the level of participation by the noncustodial parent. In fact, he attributes situational factors such as geographical distance between fathers' residence and children's residence as being more important in determining the level of postdivorce involvement between fathers and children.

It may be then that coparental relations (as mitigated by situational factors such as geographic distance) are important in two ways. First, fathers may directly associate payment with what they are feeling for their ex-spouses. For although it is "child support" it is paid to the mother - the former spouse - and negative feelings could arouse a resistance to pay that spouse and an inability to separate children's needs from personal animosity. Conversely, positive or cooperative sentiments would arouse no such hostility or resistance to pay a former spouse and perhaps serve as an incentive to continue to provide support. Second, coparental relations may be important to the extent they facilitate or restrict visitation and good father-child relations, good coparental relations may serve to foster physical and emotional paternal involvement which in turn is associated with child support payment.

Custody

Back to Contents

Another variable which may have significance in terms of child support compliance and to paternal involvement in general is legal custody status and subsequent satisfaction with that status. Although an increasing number of fathers are awarded joint-legal custody and a small number of fathers are awarded sole custody, in the overwhelming majority of cases custody of children is awarded to the mother (Buehler, 1989; Furstenburg, 1988; Grief, 1979). This may contribute to stressful postdivorce relationships and a lack of incentives for fathers to pay child support. Salkind (1983) notes a paradox with respect to modern expectations about fathering. There is a conflict between the encouragement and social pressure for fathers to participate fully in childrearing and yet the "denial" of equal parenting in the event of marital dissolution. He sees an arrangement that gives one parent (usually the mother) total control over visitation as placing the custodial parent in a position of control and power. This places the other parent (usually the father) in a position of powerlessness leading to stress and emotional withdrawal. Salkind emphasizes that it is important to remember that father absence for the child is also child absence for the father. Current custody practices tend to be insensitive to this notion of "child absence" and the emotional well-being of fathers - especially those fathers who were active and involved in parenting before the divorce. Salkind believes that if fathers are emotionally supported following divorce, it is more likely they will provide financial support.

There is some evidence that joint custody status can be positively and significantly related to overall paternal involvement (Bowman, 1983; Grief 1979; D'Andrea, 1983). Generally, joint custody is an arrangement whereby both parents are vested with equal legal authority for making important decisions pertaining to the welfare of their child(ren) and stipulates greater parity with regard to child care than sole custody. Sole custody restricts the noncustodial parent's legal right of child access to that visitation set out by the court (Hyde, 1984; Roman and Haddad, 1978). Overall, joint custody fathers tend to be more satisfied with their custody status than noncustodial/visitation fathers and more frequent contact with children is found to be associated with satisfaction of custody status (D'Andrea, 1983; Grief, 1979). Furthermore, joint custody fathers report greater perceptions of being close with and having greater influence on their children than visitation fathers (D'Andrea, 1983; Grief, 1979). However, it is important to recognize that when joint custody is entered into under duress, satisfaction levels may be even lower than for sole-custody families (Felner and Terre, 1987). Back to present study

It seems then, that a different kind of psychological involvement may grow out of the opportunity to take care of or parent one's children rather than "visiting" them. Recall that Wallerstein and Huntington (1983) note the significance of the emotional quality of the father-child relationship in terms of contact and financial support. Greater psychological involvement stemming out of joint custody arrangements may facilitate emotional closeness between divorced fathers and their children and thus more frequent and compliant child support payments.

Conclusions and Policy Implications

Back to Contents

It is clear that we need to learn more about the conditions and situational factors that may facilitate different facets of post divorce paternal involvement. More research is needed which examines the divorce experience from the perspective of the father in order to better understand the dynamics of postdivorce paternal involvement and further explore the linkages between custody, the coparental relationship, visitation, and child support compliance. The existing evidence concerning these factors is somewhat fragmented in that research generally conceptualizes child support payment apart from visitation and emotional issues. What evidence does exist in the literature regarding these phenomena seems to point to a more comprehensive approach.

The importance of linkages between financial support and other kinds of involvement lies in the ability to intervene at one level and influence other positive outcomes. For example, it is possible that a more positive approach (and one that will be more welcomed on the part of divorced men) would be to legally facilitate father-child contact through more explicitly liberal visitation policies or varied custodial arrangements. There is evidence that suggests divorced men are generally unsatisfied with their visitation schedule, would like to see their children more frequently, and often believe that their visitation is interfered with by their ex-spouses (Haskins et al., 1987). If child support from fathers is in part contingent on the quality of the postdivorce relationship they have with their children, to advise anything other than a policy that facilitates father-child contact would be self-defeating and destructive to the postdivorce adjustment for all members of the family.

Joint custody may be an effective policy for insuring that child support payments are made. Although there is some controversy as to the appropriateness of this kind of arrangement and its impact on the psychological viability of joint custody awards (Ahrons, 1980; Grief, 1979). Buehler (1989) notes a pervasive, but unsubstantiated, idea in the literature is that joint custody only works well if former spouses have a positive coparental relationship. For example, Luepnitz (1982) found that even when parental conflict was high, children in joint custody families reported higher levels of self-esteem than children in either paternal or maternal custody families. Buehler speculates that based on the available research, it may be that an active relationship with both parents serves to mitigate the harmful effects of parental conflict on children's well-being. For many families, joint custody is an arrangement that will facilitate the healthy development of children without sacrificing the integrity of the noncustodial parent. It also allows both parents to seek a fuller life outside of parenting because major childrearing responsibilities (including financial) would be shared.

The literature also suggests other points of intervention in terms of the influence of the coparental relationship on both visitation (Ahrons, 1983; Hetherington et al., 1976; Koch and Lowery, 1985; Lund, 1987); and child support payment (Wright & Price, 1986). In many cases, the adversary system may promote or exacerbate conflict and hostility between parents. And to the extent that the adversary process promotes conflict and poor coparental relations, it seems to be detrimental to children in divorce (Scott & Emery, 1987). Because of increasing dissatisfaction with the adversary system, there has been increased interest in alternative methods of resolving child custody disputes, visitation problems, and developing equitable settlements. Divorce mediation has emerged as the major alternative to either litigation or out-of-court negotiation between attorneys (Scott & Emery, 1987). In divorce mediation, divorcing parties meet with an impartial third party to identify, discuss, and hopefully settle the disputes that result from marital dissolution (Scott & Emery, 1987). At this time, the states of California, Delaware, and Maine have enacted mandatory mediation legislation requiring that all parties requesting a custody or visitation hearing first attempt to settle the dispute in mediation. Several other states have mediation services available to couples who voluntarily wish to use them (Freed & Foster, 1984). Divorce mediation reduces the adversarial nature of the divorce process, encourages cooperatives, and promotes the subsequent exploration of options other than traditional custody and visitation arrangements. Bahr (1980) found that the use of divorce mediation as opposed to litigation led to more satisfaction with respect to custody arrangements, financial settlement and the decision to divorce in general. Divorce mediation could be central to a package of policies aimed at promoting postdivorce paternal involvement and financial responsibility.

A system of divorce in which professionals attempted to facilitate a cooperative coparental relationship could prove to be very cost-effective not only in terms of the positive effect such cooperation could have on child support compliance but also in reducing court costs and legal fees. Scott & Emery (1984) point out that in evaluating the cost effectiveness of mediation, it is important to distinguish between the private costs for the divorcing spouses and public costs as calculated in terms of court time. In terms of the private cost of mediation, the overall expense is not much different from the cost of litigation (Bahr, 1981b). However in terms of whether mediation is effective in reducing public costs, evidence does suggest that divorce mediation can successfully divert a large percentage of cases from the more expensive custody hearing. Furthermore, agreements are reached more quickly in mediation and mediated agreements ten to last longer (McIsaac, 1982). Fiscal analyses of several court-based programs project that mediation reduces costs (as a function of court time) by 10%-50% (Bahr, 1981a).

Facilitating and encouraging parental involvement on the part of divorced fathers may be an easier, more effective approach to insuring that children receive their child support than enforcement. Enforcement may actually have negative effect in terms of further alienating fathers from their children. Perhaps the place of enforcement should be a last ditch effort for those divorced fathers who do not respond to other types of legislation. Of course, this kind of philosophy is in contrast to the underlying argument of universal enforcement whereby all noncustodial parents who are ordered to pay child support automatically have that amount of money deducted from their paycheck - similar to the Social-Security system. However, such a system, while perhaps benefiting those children whose fathers would not pay child support otherwise, overlooks those fathers who voluntarily comply and poses risks for individual privacy. Furthermore, universal enforcement does not address the problem of psychological disengagement over time of most divorced fathers from their children.

If, as a society, we embrace more severe enforcement policies, we also need to temper this change with policies addressing other aspects of the postdivorce situation. This includes considering more than simply the child's and custodial mother's financial needs and recognizing fathers' needs. As a society, we should be alarmed by the downward financial spiral of custodial mothers and their children. But a secondary issue which has remained relatively unexplored, is the almost inevitable disengagement of divorced fathers from their children and the utilization of policies which seem to promote and reinforce fathering from the periphery. The widespread noninvolvement of divorced fathers in parenting may have direct and indirect consequences in terms of children's emotional and financial well-being. Rather than simply focusing on financial responsibility, it is important to recognize that father involvement is multifaceted - financial (child support), physical (visitation), and emotional (feelings of closeness with children) - and that these different aspects of involvement are most likely interrelated. Policies and interventions promoting more liberal visitation rights, divorce mediation, and joint custody may be instrumental in fostering father involvement, represent viable alternatives to the majority of current postdivorce arrangements, and challenge the underlying philosophy of enforcement policy. Back to present study

References

Back to Contents

Ahrons, C (1980) 'Joint custody arrangements in the postdivorce family', Journal of Divorce, , 3, pp 189-205.
Ahrons, C (1983) 'Predictors of paternal involvement postdivorce: Mothers' & fathers' perceptions', Journal of divorce, 6, pp 55-69.
Bahr, S J (1980) Divorce Mediation: An evaluation of an alternative divorce policy Unpublished manuscript, University of Utah.
Bahr, S J (1981a) 'An evaluation of court mediation: A comparison in divorce cases with children' Journal of Family Issues, 2, pp 39-60.
Bahr, S J (1981b) 'Mediation is the answer', Family Advocate, pp 32-35.
Bowman, M (1983) 'Parenting after divorce: A comparative study of mother custody and joint custody families', Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 578A.
Buehler, C (1989) 'Influential factors and equity issues in divorce settlements', Family Relations, 38, pp 76-82.
Burke, M (1985) 'Factors affecting the relationship of the non-custodial father and his children', Paper presented to the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Dallas, Texas.
Chambers, D (1979) Making Fathers Pay: The enforcement of child support, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chambers, D (1983) 'Child support in the twenty-first century', In J. Cassetty (Ed.), The Parental Child-Support Obligation (pp. 283-298). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
D'Andrea, Ann (1983) 'Joint custody as related to paternal involvement and paternal self- esteem', Conciliation Courts Review, 21, pp 81-87.
Emery, R, Hetherington, M and Dilalla, L 'Divorce, children, and social policy', In H. Stevenson and A Siegal (eds), Child Development Research and Social Policy (pp 189-266), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Felner, R D & Terre, Lisa (1987) 'Child custody dispositions and children's adaptation following divorce', In Lois Weithorn, (Ed), Psychology and Child Custody Determinations, University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln.
Freed, D J & Foster, H H (1984) 'Divorce in the fifty states: An overview', Family Law Quarterly, 17, pp 365-447.
Furstenburg, F F, Peterson, J L, Nord, C W and Zill, N (1983) 'The life course of children of divorce: Marital disruption and parental contact', American Sociological Review, 48, pp 656-658.
Furstenburg, F (1988) 'Marital disruptions, child custody, and visitation', in Kamerman, S & Kahn, A (Eds), Child Support: From Debt Collection to Social Policy, pp 277-305, Beverly Hills:Sage
Goldsmith, Jean (1981) 'Relationships between former spouses: Descriptive findings', Journal of Divorce, 4, pp 1-20.
Grief, G (1985) Single Fathers, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Grief, Judith (1979) 'Fathers, children, and joint custody', American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 49, pp 311-319.
Haskins, R (1988) 'Child Support: A fathers view', in Kamerman, S & Kahn, A (Eds), Child Support: From Debt Collection to Social Policy, pp 306-327, Beverly Hills: Sage.
Haskins, R, Richey, T, Wicker, F (1987) Paying and visiting: child support enforcement and fathering from afar, Unpublished Manuscript.
Hetherington, M, Cox, M & Cox, R (1976) 'Divorced Fathers', The Family Coordinator, 25, pp 417-428.
Hyde, L (1984) 'Child custody in divorce' Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 35, (1).
Koch, M & Lowery, C (1984) 'Visitation & the noncustodial father' Journal of Divorce, 8, pp 47-65.
Kurdek, L (1986) 'Custodial mothers' perceptions of visitation and payment of child support by noncustodial fathers in families with low and high levels of preseparation interparent conflict' Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1, pp 307-323.
Luepnitz, D (1982) Child Custody, Lexington, MA: D C Heath.
Lund, M (1987) 'The noncustodial father: Common challenges in parenting after divorce', in Lewis, C & O'Brien, M (Eds), Reassessing Fatherhood, pp 212-224, Beverly Hills: Sage.
McIsaac, H (1982) 'Court-connected mediation' Conciliation Courts Review, 21, pp 49-56.
Nichols-Casebolt, A (1986) 'The economic impact of child support reform on the poverty status of custodial and non-custodial families', Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, pp 875-880.
Roman, M & Haddad, W (1978) The disposable parent, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Salkind, N J (1983) 'The father-child postdivorce relationship and child support', in J Cassetty (Ed), The Parental Child-Support Obligation, pp. 173-192. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Scott, E S & Emery, R E (1987) 'Child custody dispute resolution: The adversarial system and divorce mediation', In Lois Weithorn (Ed.), Psychology and Child Custody Determinations, pp. 23-56, University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln.
Tropf, W D (1980) 'The nature of relationships divorced men maintain with their first families', (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, 1980), Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 875A.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1985) 'Child Support & Alimony: 1983', Current Population Reports, Series P. 23, No. 141. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1986) 'Child support and alimony; 1985', Current Population Reports, Series P. 23, No. 152, Washington D C: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wallerstein, J S & Huntington, D S (1983) 'Bread and roses: Nonfinancial issues related to fathers' economic support of their children following divorce', in J Cassetty (Ed.), The Parental Child-Support Obligation pp. 135-155, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Wallerstein, J S & Kelly, J (1980) Surviving the breakup: How children and parents cope with divorce, New York: Basic Books.
Weitzman, L (1985) The divorce revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America, New York: Free Press.
Weitzman, L (1988) 'Child support myths and reality', in S Kamerman & A Kahn (Eds) Child Support: From Debt collection to Social Policy pp 251-276, Beverly Hills: Sage.
Wright, D & Price, S (1986) 'Court-ordered child support payment: The effect of the former spouse relationship on compliance', Journal of Marriage & the Family, 48, pp 869-874.