This page includes links to a number of journal articles which are relevant to this topic. While these articles contain many interesting points, the author of this report does not necessarily agree with all of this material. It is included for the benefit of the reader, to assist them in drawing their own conclusions on issues raised.

Conflict between parents who have separated is a very common phenomenon, one might even say it is the 'norm'. It is inevitably detrimental to the children's emotional well-being and needs to be understood if it is to be reduced. There have been a number of studies done which highlight the typical sources of interparental conflict (Amato, 1993; McMurray & Blackmore, 1993; McMurray, 1992; Arditti, 1991; Weston, 1989; Seagull & Seagull, 1977). These have found, among other things, that non-custodial parents (NCPs) often experience difficulty in making arrangements with their ex-spouse to visit their children. In light of this difficulty, which they often see as being primarily the fault of the custodial parent, there is some resentment over paying maintenance. As one article put it, they see it in the same vein as "taxation without representation" (Arditti, 1991, p.108). According to one study (McMurray & Blackmore, 1993), a number of NCPs chose to remain unemployed in preference to working, knowing that a large percentage of their pay would be deducted for tax and child-support payments. (see also Appendix 1)

Studies also found that NCPs tended to drop out of the children's life over time. One reason offered for this was that they found it preferable to the alternative of dealing regularly with the hurt involved in not being a 'real' or custodial parent. As one mother said: "It was easier not to have her because then I didn't have to face reality that she wasn't with me all the time."(McMurray, 1992, p. 143). Non-custodial fathers (NCFs) reported frustration and resentment over the apparent anti-male bias in the courts which awarded custody to the mother rather than to the father*, even if the mother's lifestyle exposed the child to immoral or illegal activities (McMurray & Blackmore, 1993).

*see http://www.vix.com/pub/men/custody-divorce/goodparent.html for an example of this. (Click "Back" to return here, though!)

 All this frustration, sorrow and resentment leads to more conflict between parents, which has proven to have a negative effect on the children involved (Amato, 1993). It also hampers the development of the post-separation relationship between the NCP and the children: "Interparental conflict...was identified by [non-custodial] mothers...as the most important issue influencing their ability or inability to maintain warm and loving relationships with their children". (McMurray, 1992, p.141).

Studies suggested that rather than resolving family disputes in the courts, parents should be assisted by mediation and counseling services. There is a lot to be said for this as the adversarial model of the legal process of settling disputes is quite likely to add fuel to the fire of post-separation conflict and makes a 'loser' out of at least one of the parties involved. Many of the studies uncovered also recommended that courts award joint custody to both parents more often ( McMurray, 1992; Arditti, 1991). To assist in this process, more needs to be discovered about the nature of interparental conflict, however, as joint custody models require a great deal of cooperation between parents in order to work smoothly (Weston, 1989; Amato, 1993; McMurray & Blackmore, 1993).

Towards that end, then, of discovering the root source of post-separation conflict, this study sought to unravel what mystery exists in the nature of the post-separation relationship. Although it was expected that many of the issues raised in previous studies would be reiterated by subjects of this research, it was thought that there may be more subtle factors at play, such as gender identities and the different ways in which men and women approach relationships, particularly difficult relationships (Thompson, 1993; Gerstel, 1988; Diedrick, 1991). Another of the aims of this study is to enable the shedding of light on the experiences of non-custodial parents to assist in greater community understanding of the situation.

Subjects were initially sought using snowball sampling. Eight subjects^*, six male and two female, were recruited by this method (Appendix 2), interviewed face to face and recorded on audio tape. They were middle- and working-class Australians who lived in Queensland. They were predominantly Caucasian. Most of the subjects indicated that they were on a modest income. They were all, or had been at some stage, Non-Custodial Parents (NCPs), which is to say, they had children with whom they had not resided for some period of time.

*The preliminary research undertaken as part of a University course requirement was obliged to be completed in two months. This being the case, a less than optimum number of subjects were able to be recruited.
All but one of these subjects had either one or two children, (the other had a total of four children from two marriages). All subjects had been married to the other parent and half reported that they had initiated the separation themselves (both the NCMs and two of the six NCFs). The length of time of cohabitation by the parents prior to separation ranged from two to eighteen years. Eleven of the thirteen children of the combined subjects were male. There appeared to be a trend that suggested that most of the marriages had dissolved when the youngest child was either in h/is first year or about seven years old. This may be indicative of the strain on a marriage of new babies, and children going through significant developmental change.

Subjects were interviewed in their own homes. Interviews were audio-taped and were of no more than an hour's duration each. After ascertaining some basic facts about the subject's children and marital history, open ended questions were asked, such as "Tell me about your experience of being a non-custodial parent." It was the intention of the interviewer to extract a narrative from the subjects (Appendix 3).

Due to the shortage of NCMs available for interview at short notice, additional subjects were located via the Internet. Four American NCMs replied to a list of questions, similar to those asked in the face to face interviews, which were sent to them by email. Three replied to subsequent questions which asked for elaboration on certain points. All subjects in this group had become NCPs in the last four years (Appendix 4).

The data were analysed thematically in order to discover common trends in the subjects' experience.

It was found that the results of the present study corresponded with the results of previous research: Subjects reported frustration and anger over matters relating to access and child-support payments (McMurray, 1992; McMurray & Blackmore, 1993).

"You're basically a money making machine for the system. You're never going to have any money left over out of the child-support system to... get a life going yourself."*

"She lets me have him but it's under her terms... that's the...thing that...annoys me... I've planned ahead a few times and I've had to cancel my plans for her plans."

*see also http://www.hky.com./money.html (click "Back" to return here, though!)

 NCFs complained of the anti-male bias in the court system (McMurray & Blackmore 1993)

"Initially I had the children. After a period of time, my wife came back and picked up the kids and took them with her, which meant I really didn't have a leg to stand on...apart from paying out forty-odd-thousand dollars to try and win a court battle that I couldn't win. There was no real option...[because 'the system' says] 'the kids should be with their mother'"

and NCMs felt obliged to justify their non-custodial status* to people they met (McMurray, 1992; McMurray & Blackmore 1993).

"I still get people, especially men, I suppose, say to me 'How?! How could you let your kids go?!'...I can't make people understand it. I don't try to anymore...[When] people ask me where the kids are...I just say '...They're with their Dad.'"

"When people discover that my daughter doesn't live with me all the time they automatically think that there is something wrong with me, that I did something wrong"

*see also http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~lavietes/momlac.htm (click "Back" to return here, though!)

 There was some concern expressed by a number of NCPs about the welfare of their children, be it at the hands of the custodial parent, the custodial parent's new partner or the legal system, although three of the six NCFs stated that they were satisfied with their ex-partner as a mother. There was also evidence that effective communication went a long way towards reducing interparental conflict, which concurred with the results of McMurray (1992).

Another theme which emerged from the interviews was that non-custodial parenting is virtually 'non parenting'. Access arrangements usually involve the children staying with the NCP every second weekend. Many subjects found this to be an inadequate arrangement.

"It's not a good way to see the kids.You have them for a night, you do one thing, and then they're gone"

"You haven't got any meaningful time with the kids, it's really...more dump time...You're just sort of like a baby sitter."

Almost all subjects made complaints against the Child Support Agency, which was found by them to be insensitive and irrelevant to their personal situation in its practice of using a set formula to work out how much money was to be paid. The subject who had been unemployed for two years had a debt of ten thousand dollars calculated against his name, he says based on false information about his past income. It is conceivable, in the light of findings from previous studies (McMurray, 1992; Ardittie, 1991) that this debt inhibits him from establishing a financial base for himself, perpetuating his economic dysfunction.

It became apparent during the course of the interviews that there is a lack of understanding on both sides as to what the situation is like for the other party. This led, particularly the NCFs, to suspect the motives of the other parent. Some were convinced that their ex-wives were only interested in being parents so that they could get money, others felt that they were being manipulated and that their ex-wife was using h/er power as the custodial parent to control them.

"I find it difficult to understand where she's coming from. She wanted me to go down at one stage and live in their house and look after [my son] for... two weeks and I said 'I'm not going to do it!'... It's just like she's sort of trying to get me back there."

"He just reckoned I was a total 'suck', 'sucking the system' and 'bludging off of them and bludging off of him' and I used to 'go out and party all the time' [which was untrue]"

"Now that...I'm happy...I think she's jealous or something."

"What happens is somebody's got the children, you know and may not be openly - they use that as a lever to control the relationship in some way... It may be just in terms of getting you to take care of the kids on a particular time and if you don't want to do that then, well, you can't see the kids, that sort of control..."

"I'm quite sure that there are fathers out there, as well as mothers, who really rort the system."

The reverse was also true however, in that NCFs also reported feeling misunderstood:

"You bury [your feelings after the separation from wife and children]. You bury it and then you get to a point where the other party looks at you and says 'you don't care, you never really wanted the kids anyway and you're just, you're someone who doesn't care, wants to get on with their own life and doesn't want to pay out any money' but you've just locked everything up because you've just got no options."

"Males have feelings too...and often those feelings are really deep and powerful... They might be different, or [women] might not be able to see them, but they're still there, absolutely, without any doubt at all... A lot of that anger and that sort of stuff is from that perspective, because [there] just doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement that they've got any feelings about their children or...about what goes on there...Often men in their actions, the way that they've dealt with the situation, it appears that way too, but I've never met or talked to a male who has not had strong, powerful emotions and feelings about their children and what's gone on in those relationships and how that relationship has broken down and what's gone on afterwards...They're just not getting heard at all in some way..."

There were a number of reports of strife and contention in the Australian interviews, but the worst of it was evidently in the past for most subjects. This was not the case for the American non-custodial mothers who expressed terrible grief and pain.

"There is no way of conveying the heartache that I feel everyday...I miss everything [about being the children's custodial parent] and am conscious of every second I will never get back. I miss the feeling that everything is going to be O.K. because it will never be O.K. again."

The American NCMs appeared to more closely resemble the Australian NCFs than the Australian NCMs in that they spoke of powerlessness and of a manipulative ex-spouse using the children against them. No corresponding American male subjects were able to be recruited for the research, but the literature presented on the Internet by American non-custodial fathers indicates a climate of considerable emotional turmoil. (Appendix 5). Financial burdens placed on the American NCPs seemed to be their major source of distress, so perhaps the Australian standards with, comparatively, quite a supportive social security system, are more favourable in that respect. Two of the American mothers had lost custody of their children after filing for more child support, saying they had found it difficult to survive on the amount of money they received and were now, as NCPs, required to pay more to their ex-husbands than they had themselves received when they were the custodial parent.

See also http:/www.nh.ultranet.com/~lavietes/lostkids.htm

On a positive note, four of the Australian subjects reported that they now had workable relationships with their former spouses. Although in all cases there had been strife and turmoil between ex-partners in the post-separation period, these four had come to see their relationship with their ex-spouse, in regard to raising their children, more or less as a partnership. In all cases this was attributed to a turning point in their relationship involving either an act of forgiveness or an overt and genuine effort to end the bitter strife and to find a resolution that was beneficial to both parties. This event was generally initiated by the custodial parent, whether male or female. This is how three of those subjects described this occurrence:

"It was only six months ago that she came here...and said "Had I known then what I know now, I wouldn't've left, will you forgive me?" I went "Yeah, yeah, OK". I asked for forgiveness too then...So we've sort of come to terms, you know, she comes visiting here quite often..."

"He was going to get back at me, as far as maintenance went, said 'Right! It's your turn to pay!'... And then he went totally about face...We went out to lunch one day and discussed it and he said 'Just hear what I've got to say... I'm going to withdraw the maintenance order on you totally cause I've decided that the boys would benefit, there'd be a lot less conflict between us if you can get on with your life and make some sort of life for yourself'... and I didn't see that when I was on the other side, receiving the maintenance... We've come to a lot better understanding. I can actually talk to him about my problems and he understands better than anybody because I spent six years with him, and he'll tell me about problems in his relationships..."

"We just talked about it and decided what we thought would be appropriate... and that process has gone on over the years for quite a long time now and I guess the major parts of that process have been acceptance of the rights of each of us to have our own lives... and for me, forgiveness towards her... towards what's happened and... trying to do what's best for the children... and trying to get contact that's healthy between us... We either fight for the rest of our lives or we get on with it and enjoy our lives and... give the children the opportunity to know both of us and to understand both of us and to have lives that are fulfilling as well, for them."

It would seem that some degree of post-separation emotional healing must take place before ex-partners are able to cooperate. This is made more difficult in cases where there exists a history of violence and abuse. Family counselling might be of use in diffusing hostility, whereas court battles are likely to increase it.

As it is the custodial parent who, by all accounts, has the upper hand in post-separation parenting, it is they who are in a position to facilitate the restoration of non-custodial parent/child relationships (although considerable effort needs to be made on the part of the NCP as well if there is to be a successful result), and to ease the pressure regarding access arrangements and child-support payments. While single parent families usually struggle with financial burdens and benefit from the financial support of the NCP, they are often unaware of the emotional strain which the NCP bears and is reminded of each time s/he is compelled to pay regular amounts of money to the family of which s/he is no longer a part.

Previous studies have found that custodial parents often complain that NCPs do not visit their children enough, whereas NCPs report feeling that the custodial parents discourage them from maintaining contact ( Weston 1989). This discouragement can be subtle and unintentional or overt and deliberate. In some cases, it might even be imaginary, but the result is often the same: the NCP feels shut out of the situation and so avoids it. It might be assumed that there is something in the dynamic of separated couples with children which leads to apparently uncooperative behaviour from either or both parents. It is likely that there are a few factors involved.

First is the typically adversarial nature of the early post-separation relationship, where partners have become enemies and highlight each other's shortcomings in an effort to complete the process ( Schuldberg & Guisinger, 1991). Two people who were close, lived together, shared some degree of trust, planned a future, produced a child or children who were the embodiment of their union, sever their bond, usually with a great deal of emotional pain, but are forced to continue their association and communicate with one another in order to share the parenting of their children. Unless the non-custodial parent chooses to refrain from seeing the children for a substantial period of time, the traumatic emotion associated with the separation does not have a chance to resolve and dissipate as it would were there no children involved (Bursik, 1991). If a custodial dispute ensues and is taken to court, the legal system exacerbates this situation by its requirement that one pit one's case against the other, using any means available to win, usually at the expense of the other.

Deeper and more primal than this, though, is the parental instinct to protect one's young from outsiders and enemies. In many instances of divorce and separation, the ex-partners become as enemies. A conflict is then set up in the mind and heart of the custodial parent who wants to both protect their child/ren from invading enemies (of which the non-custodial parent has become one) and to cater to their child/ren's needs, which includes allowing the relationship between the child/ren and the non-custodial parent to develop in a constructive way. Which instinct is paid the most heed may depend on the nature of the post-separation relationship, and the extent to which the ex-partner presents as an enemy of the restructured family unit. If the conflict and hostility between the two parents is sufficiently reduced, the custodial parent's protective instincts can be set at ease, enabling him or her to focus on the positive aspects of the child/ren's relationship with the other parent. The custodial parent may then feel able to enter into a post-separation partnership with their ex-spouse in the rearing of their children. This might apply equally well to the non-custodial parent who mistrusts the custodial parent, convinced that their child/ren is/are either not being adequately cared for, or who are being brought up in a way that s/he does not agree with.

Finally, part-time parenting is not the model that has traditionally been presented to previous generations. Each new parent tends to follow their own parents' example to some extent, perhaps despite the strongest intentions to do otherwise, and this example does not usually include regularly handing one's children over to people who are no longer one's friend, to be dealt with at that other person's discretion. This runs contrary to the very notion of 'family'. Family members are encouraged to unite and harmonise, to conform to an established family 'norm'. If the child/ren receive regular indoctrination into a different family, the ex-spouse's family, there is a sense in which the original family bonds are weakened and the child no longer 'belongs' to that family in quite the same way. It is understandable that the custodial parent would be (subconsciously) resistent to this happening, but also understandable that the non-custodial parent experiences the detriment of this phenomenon much more acutely. This could be part of the reason behind the documented 'distancing' effect where NCPs drop out of their children's lives over time (Ardittie 1991, p 109): they find that the family bonds have not been nurtured and they and the child no longer seem to 'belong' together.

Joint custody, although it would seem on the surface to be the most equitable arrangement where both parents are capable of being responsible for young children and are able to cooperate with one another, is uncharted territory in this society. For it to be successful in the future, assuming that the nuclear family continues to decline at the current rate, men will need to become more involved in the childrearing process from the time that their children are born, more part-time work and work done from home will need to be made available to allow both parents to attend to both family and professional needs, and attitudes about what it means to be a parent might need to change.

Is a parent the 'owner' of children, or their 'manager'? Perhaps it could be said that all children are 'just visiting' both their parents in the time that they are in their care - there is a great deal of talk these days about setting the ones that we love 'free'. This might be a difficult concept for primary-carers to put into practice, however, even if it proved to be beneficial, for two reasons. Firstly, the task of sole-parenting requires strong leadership skills to be summoned. This involves being in a position of authority and control, preferrably free from constant challenges. Secondly, the extraordinarily demanding nature of child rearing requires that the level of committment necessary to do the job properly is rewarded by some measure of loyalty and kinship from the recipient of that care, namely the child.

Where there is great emotional investment in relationships, such as exists in relationships between parent and child, it is typical for people to want to gain control over the situation in order to ward off potential emotional pain. Where parents are set against one another, however, it is difficult to conceive of both of them being in a position of control simultaneously: at least one party must compromise and defer to the other, to some degree, or prolong the battle. What would be preferable to this, though, is for both parties to amicably negotiate a system which works for both of them and the children.

Post-separation relationships are difficult to negotiate. There is fear and mistrust on both sides, and a general lack of understanding. This study has found that if such relationships are to reach a stage where both parties are treated with respect and consideration, they are served well by non-threatening communication, a "burying of the hatchet" and forgiveness. In the climate of post-separation discord, a failure to see things from the point of view of the other leads to both parents developing fears and insecurities based on their assessment of the motives which might be behind the behaviour of their ex-partner.

The part-time-working, joint-custodial, separated-parent society, alluded to in the discussion section, may be a scenario for the future, but for the present, one subject's recipe for a healthy post-separation relationship was this:

"In a nutshell it's absolutely to do with forgiveness...and...acceptance of the situation as it is and for an acknowledgment that we both have lives...of our own that we're entitled to...and the children are part of that,...they're intertwined, whether we like it or not...We either fight for the rest of our lives or we get on with it and enjoy our lives and...give the children the opportunity to know both of us and understand both of us."

After all, unlike the modern marriage bond, these relationships are till death they do part. 

This report is based primarily on data gathered from Non-Custodial Parents. To further explore the nature of conflict between estranged parents, input is also needed from parents who have undertaken the various other categories of custodial status. Parents who live alone with their children (or with their children and other/s who are not the child/ren's other parent) on a full-time (custodial parent) or part-time (joint custodial parent) basis are invited, in addition to parents who do not live with their children (non-custodial parents), to add their thoughts on the subject. To read the thoughts of others visit the Penny for Your Thoughts page. If you would like to have your thoughts and opinions included, please send an email to resolve@tpgi.com.au.

Amato, P. R. (1993) "Contact with Non-custodial Fathers and Children's Wellbeing" in Family Matters, No. 36, Dec., pp. 32-34.
Arditti, J. A. (1991) "Child Support Noncompliance and Divorced Fathers: Rethinking the Role of Paternal Involvement" in Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Vol. 14, Nos. 3-4, pp. 107-119.
Bursik, K. (1991) "Correlates of Women's Adjustment During the Separation and Divorce Process" in Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol 14, 3-4, pp. 137-162.
Diedrick, P. (1991) "Gender Differences in Divorce Adjustment" in Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Vol. 14, Nos 3-4, pp.33-60.
Gerstel, N. (1988) "Divorce, Gender, and Social Integration" in Gender & Society, Vol. 2, No. 3, Sept., pp. 343-367.
Hopper, J. (1993) "The Rhetoric of Motives in Divorce" in Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 55, Nov., pp.801-813.
McMurray, A. (1992) "Influences on Parent-Child Relationships in Non-custodial Mothers" in Australian Journal of Marriage & Family, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 138-147.
McMurray, A. & Blackmore, A. M. (1993) "Influences on Parent-child Relationships in Non- custodial Fathers" in Australian Journal of Marriage & Family, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 151-159.
Riessman, C. K. (1989) "Life Events, Meaning and Narrative: The Case of Infidelity and Divorce", in Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 743-751.
Schuldberg, D. & Guisinger, S. (1991) "Divorced Fathers Describe Their Former Wives: Devaluation and Contrast" in Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Vol. 14, Nos. 3-4, pp. 61-87.
Seagull, A. A. & Seagull, E. A. W. (1977) "The Non-Custodial Father's Relationship to his Child: Conflicts and Solutions" in Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, Summer, pp. 11-15.
Thompson, L. (1993) "Conceptualizing Gender in Marriage: The Case of Marital Care" in Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 55, Aug., pp.557-569.
Weston, R. (1989) "Divorced Parents and Child-related Orders" in Family Matters No. 25, Dec., pp. 23-25.
Williams, G. (1984) "The Genesis of Chronic Illness: Narrative Re-construction" in Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 175-200.

Furstenberg, FF Jr & Nord, CW (1985) "Parenting Apart: Patterns of Childrearing After Marital Disruption", in Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, November, pp 893-900.
Leonard, S (1995) "Love Stories", Psychology Today, Nov/Dec, pp 43-45
Ochiltree, G (1987) 'The sometimes forgotten parents', Family Matters, 19, pp. 23-25.
U.S. Census Bureau (1995) Statistical Brief: Who receives child support?http://www.census.gov:80/ftp/pub/socdemo/www/chldsupp.html
Weston, R (1990) "After Separation: Financial Wellbeing of Children and Parents", Family Matters No. 26, April, pp 25-27.

Appendix 1

 This link has unfortunately become outdated. A replacement is being sought.

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

1. How many children do you have?
2. What ages are they?
3. Were you married to their mother (father)?
4. For how long?
5. How long have you been separated for?
6. Who initiated the separation?

The interviewer then offered a probe such as: "Now I want to get as full a picture as possible about, first of all your experiences of being a non-custodial parent and also how you feel (felt) about your dealings with your child(ren)'s mother (father). I want you to talk freely, so first of all, tell me about your experience of being a non-custodial parent."

The subjects were then encouraged to talk about whatever issues were important to them. Most subjects spoke freely and few questions were required. Two of the subjects repeatedly asked for more prompts, saying "next question", or "your turn", but didn't necessarily follow the path that those prompts suggested.

Finally, when it was decided that the interview had gone as far as it could go at that time, subjects were asked if they had anything they would like to add.

Appendix 4

Appendix 5

 Similarly, these womens'websites demonstrate the developing male/female antagonism over the issue of separated parenting.

 Mothers Under Siege

 Father's Rights" Groups: Beware Their Real Agenda

NB: These links do not have a return link to this page. To return to this site after viewing, click on the "Back" button on your browser (located beneath the file menu on Netscape).