Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effect of Joint-Child-Custody Legislation on the Child-Support Receipt of Single Mothers

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Family and Economic Issues Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to the preponderance of single mothers on public assistance, delinquent child support has been a contentious political issue in the U.S. We examine whether joint-child-custody reform affects the child-support receipt of single mothers. We use variation in the timing of joint-custody reforms across states to identify the effect of joint custody on the child-support receipt of single mothers. Joint-custody enactment raises the probability of receiving child support for all single mothers by 8%. The effect on all single mothers is driven by the effect on divorced mothers, as separated and never-married mothers are unaffected by joint-custody reform. We conclude joint-custody reform confers the most benefit on divorced mothers and their children, particularly those who do not receive public assistance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Statistics referenced from the U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement. Data used to generate the report come from the April 2006 Current Population Survey Child Support Supplement http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-234.pdf.

  2. Ibid.

  3. See Kelly (1994) and Buehler and Gerard (1995) for a discussion of the BIOC standard.

  4. Mimura (2008) reports single head-householders are significantly more likely to experience economic hardship than married head-householders.The policies adopted by federal and state governments to combat the economic harship faced by single mothers include the child-support-enforcement program (Lerman 1993; Freeman and Waldfogel 2001; Sorensen and Hill 2004), the Earned Income Tax Credit (Bok and Simmons 2002; Mammen et al. 2009), and Child-Care-Assistance Programs (Forry 2009).

  5. For example, Garasky and Stewart (2007) find that increased visitation by non-resident fathers decreases the probability that children experience food insecurity, and Eldar-Avidan et al. (2008) find stronger relationships between the noncustodial parent and child reduces negativity from financial contribution on both sides.

  6. Increasing child-support receipt is important for single mothers, as single mothers often suffer financially following divorce. In particular, Sanders and Porterfield (2010) show that single mothers, who are heads of households, accumulate fewer assets.

  7. For these mothers, child-care subsidies could help raise their standard of living (Forry 2009). Child-care assistance is more likely to be awarded to rural, low-income single mothers who were employed (Mammen et al. 2009). In addition, rural, low-income single mothers receive consistent support from their families (Son and Bauer 2010).

  8. See Bertrand et al. (2004) and Angrist and Pischke (2009) for more information on adjusting standard errors for the DD estimator.

  9. We also estimate models with an additive index of the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) reform variables as in Huang (2002) and Huang et al. (2003). The CSE index is not statistically different from zero in any specification. The inclusion of the additive CSE index does not materially affect the estimated effect of joint-custody reform. In addition, we check the sensitivity of our estimates to the inclusion of additional state-level controls, including real per-capita income, the demographic make-up of the population, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) participation rates, and other family-law reforms, and we find that the estimated effects of joint-custody reform are not materially affected by the inclusion of these variables. As such, we do not report these results. The chosen empirical specification is comparable to recent work by Sorensen and Hill (2004).

  10. We calculate the percent change in the probability of receiving child support by using the predicted values for the probability of receiving child support when the variable Joint-Custody Reform is set equal to zero and one, while all other right-hand-side variables are held at their mean values.

References

  • Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arditti, J. A., & Keith, T. Z. (1993). Visitation frequency, child-support payment, and the father-child relationship postdivorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 699–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argys, L. M., & Peters, H. E. (2001). Interactions between unmarried fathers and their children: The role of paternity establishment and child-support policies. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 91, 125–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argys, L. M., Peters, H. E., & Waldman, D. M. (2001). Can the Family Support Act put some life back into deadbeat dads? An analysis of child-support guidelines, award rates, and levels. Journal of Human Resources, 36, 226–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beller, A. H., & Graham, J. W. (1993). Small change: The economics of child support. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 249–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bok, M., & Simmons, L. (2002). Post-welfare reform, low-income families and the dissolution of the safety net. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 23, 217–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bound, J., Baker, D. A., & Baker, R. M. (1995). Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 433–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinig, M., & Buckley, F. (1998). Joint custody: Bonding and monitoring theories. Indiana Law Journal, 73, 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buehler, C., & Gerard, J. M. (1995). Divorce law in the United States: A focus on child custody. Family Relations, 44, 439–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cancian, M., & Meyer, D. (1998). Who gets custody? Demography, 35, 147–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Boca, D., & Ribero, R. (1998). Transfers in non-intact households. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 9, 469–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eldar-Avidan, D., Haj-Yahia, M. M., & Greenbaum, C. W. (2008). Money matters: Young adults’ perception of the economic consequences of their parents’ divorce. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29, 74–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forry, N. D. (2009). The impact of child care subsidies on low-income single parents: An examination of child care expenditures and family finances. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30, 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. B., & Waldfogel, J. (2001). Dunning deliquent dads: The effects of child support enforcement policy on child support receipt by never married mothers. Journal of Human Resources, 36, 207–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garasky, S., & Stewart, S. D. (2007). Evidence of the effectiveness of child support and visitation: Examining food insecurity among children with nonresident fathers. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28, 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunnoe, M. L., & Braver, S. L. (2001). The effects of joint legal custody on mothers, fathers, and children controlling for factors that predispose a sole maternal versus joint legal award. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofferth, S. L., Forry, N. D., & Peters, H. E. (2010). Child support, father-child contact, and preteens’ involvement with nonresidential fathers: Racial/ethnic differences. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31, 14–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C. (2002). The impact of child support enforcement on nonmarital and marital births: Does it differ by racial and age groups? Social Service Review, 76, 275–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C., Han, W., & Garfinkel, I. (2003). Child support enforcement, joint legal custody, and parental involvement. Social Service Review, 77, 255–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, H. (1988). Silent revolution: The transformation of divorce law in the United States. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, J. B. (1994). The determination of child custody. Future of Children, 4, 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerman, R. I. (1993). Policy watch: Child support policies. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7, 171–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mammen, S., Lass, D., & Seiling, S. B. (2009). Labor force supply decisions of rural low-income mothers. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30, 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mimura, Y. (2008). Housing cost burden, poverty status, and economic hardship among low-income families. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29, 152–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monna, B., & Gauthier, A. (2008). A review of the literature on the social and economic determinants of parental time. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29, 634–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neelakantan, U. (2009). The impact of changes in child support policy. Journal of Population Economics, 22, 641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, C. R., & Startz, R. (1990a). Some further results on the exact small sample properties of the instrumental variables estimator. Econometrica, 58, 967–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, C. R., & Startz, R. (1990b). The distribution of the instrumental variables estimator and its t-ratio when the instrument is a poor one. Journal of Business, 63, 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, J., & Thoennes, N. (1988). Supporting children after divorce: The influence of custody on support levels and payment. Family Law Quarterly, 22, 319–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roff, J. (2008). A Stackelberg model of child support and welfare. International Economic Review, 49, 515–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, B. R. (1989). Child support guidelines: Economic theory and policy considerations. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 10, 345–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, C. K., & Porterfield, S. L. (2010). The ownership society and women: exploring female householders’ ability to accumulate assets. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31, 90–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seltzer, J. A. (1991). Legal custody arrangements and children’s economic welfare. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 895–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seltzer, J. A. (1998). Father by law: Effects of joint legal custody on nonresident rathers’ involvement with children. Demography, 35, 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seltzer, J., & Maralani, V. (2001). Joint legal custody and child support payments: Are there lasting custody effects. California Center for Population Research On-Line Working Paper Series, 1–38.

  • Son, S., & Bauer, J. W. (2010). Employed rural, low-income, single mothers’ family and work over time. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31, 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, E., & Hill, A. (2004). Single mothers and their child-support receipt: How well is child-support enforcement doing? Journal of Human Resources, 39, 135–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staiger, D., & Stock, J. H. (1997). Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica, 65, 557–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfers, J. (2006). Did unilateral divorce rates raise divorce rates? A reconciliation and new results. American Economic Review, 96, 1802–1820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors and acknowledgements are listed in alphabetical order. We thank Charles Baum, E. Anthon Eff, Greg Givens, Adam Hogan, Chien-Chung Huang, Travis Minor, Mark Owens, Adam Rennhoff, and Joachim Zietz for their assistance and helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Finance, Jennings A. Jones College of Business, Middle Tennessee State University, 1500 Greenland Drive, Murfreesboro, TN, 37132, USA

    Brandeanna D. Allen

  2. Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Wisconsin—La Crosse, 1725 State Street, La Crosse, WI, 54601, USA

    John M. Nunley

  3. Department of Economics and Finance, Meinders School of Business, Oklahoma City University, 2501 North Blackwelder Road, Oklahoma City, OK, 73106, USA

    Alan Seals

Authors
  1. Brandeanna D. Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John M. Nunley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alan Seals
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John M. Nunley.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

Table 7 Logit estimates for the effects of single-mother controls on the child-support receipt of single mothers
Full size table
Table 8 Logit estimates for the effects of state-level controls on the child-support receipt of single mothers
Full size table
Table 9 Logit estimates for the effects of single-mother controls on the child-support receipt of single mothers who receive public assistance
Full size table
Table 10 Logit estimates for the effects of state-level controls on the child-support receipt of single mothers who receive public assistance
Full size table
Table 11 Logit estimates for the effects of single-mother controls on the child-support receipt of single mothers who do not receive public assistance
Full size table
Table 12 Logit estimates for the effects of state-level controls on the child-support receipt of single mothers who do not receive public assistance
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Allen, B.D., Nunley, J.M. & Seals, A. The Effect of Joint-Child-Custody Legislation on the Child-Support Receipt of Single Mothers. J Fam Econ Iss 32, 124–139 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-010-9193-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-010-9193-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation