Children’s Health Matters in Custody Conflicts—What Do We Know?

Abstract

This chapter covers the topic of research about available empirical knowledge regarding the relationships of joint physical custody, interparental conflict, and the wellbeing of children, based on a selection of recent publications from child psychology and developmental research perspectives. Addressing various objectives—such as the enhancement of the child’s feeling of protection, acknowledgement, influence, and hope—the author identifies a need for allowing children to express and explore their feelings and experiences. The chapter gives an overview of how children are affected by long duration parental conflicts and the different types of support that are required. This contribution concludes with the observation that, the means of effectively supporting children in custody conflicts must be further developed and researched. The author concludes by presenting suggestions for supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children in custody conflicts.

2.1 Introduction

Family patterns, gender equality, female rights, and the possibilities of raising children as a single parent have changed and developed in many countries over the last few decades. More children than ever before are experiencing parental divorce or separation, and custody conflicts are also on the rise. Understanding the implications of divorce for children is vital for parents, professionals, and researchers, with a growing interest in the matter of joint custody and its effects on the lives of children.

In many Western countries, the everyday life of divorced parents and their children is increasingly characterized by joint custody, shared parenting, and shared residence for children. These practices are gaining acceptance as a post-divorce solution for families and are promoted by legislation in many countries, although they are far more common in northern European countries such as Sweden and Norway.¹ Many studies have investigated how such arrangements relate to children’s general adjustment, wellbeing, mental health, and development. To briefly summarize, the studies show that while both positive and negative outcomes have been found for parents and children, most children seem to gain from joint custody, yet it cannot be regarded as a one-size-fits-all solution.²

However, the impact of post-divorce interparental conflict on children in the context of joint custody or custody conflict is rarely the subject of empirical investigations, even though parents, children, and professionals often assume and report that such conflict has a negative effect on children’s wellbeing. These circumstances are sometimes a delicate and time-consuming question for the practitioners, clinicians, and courts involved in the processes designed to find workable solutions for children and parents following divorce. The conditions of joint custody that facilitate or interfere with the wellbeing of children are complex matters that should be identified, explored, and conceptualized in more detail.³ Implications for preschool-aged children are of particular interest, since these children are known to be more vulnerable to stressors such as parental conflict and particularly influenced by changes in everyday environment. Additionally, there is a need to elaborate on strategies and instruments for the evaluation of risks for the wellbeing and development of children, and the tools used to ensure that the voices of children are heard in the context of custody conflict.⁴

This chapter aims to provide a brief overview of available empirical knowledge regarding the relationships of joint custody, interparental conflict, and the wellbeing of children, based on a selection of recent publications from child psychology and developmental research findings on or discussing the associations of these perspectives. A further aim is to highlight suggestions for supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children in custody conflicts.

2.2 Joint Custody and Implications for Children

Many studies have shown that divorce is associated with lower levels of general wellbeing for parents and children. However, the reactions and implications associated with divorce are found to be quite varied. A common perspective among researchers and clinicians is that although divorce might be followed by disruption and crisis, most individuals—both children and parents—can adjust over a couple of years. However, as reflected in the rising number of studies on the subject, the increase of joint custody arrangements for children has stimulated interest in whether these circumstances mitigate or worsen the impact of divorce for children. The existing body of research focuses on the wellbeing of children and parents living in these circumstances. Several meta-analyses and research reviews have been published that contribute valuable knowledge and overview.⁵

Based on empirical findings and practical experiences, there seems to be a consensus that most children benefit from joint custody. However, while this arrangement is broadly supported, the empirical evidence does not provide a clear picture. One major issue is the background and characteristics of parents involved in joint custody who choose to participate in studies. It has been noted that these parents are more likely to have:

• High levels of education

• High socio-economic status

• Low levels of interparental conflict

• A low degree of psychiatric problems

• High levels of active paternal parenting pre-divorce

• Close residence to each other after divorce.

Accordingly, the positive findings that support joint custody should be understood in this context.⁶ In short, joint custody is more likely to be applied—and more likely to succeed—when the parents have a good chance of cooperating. Consequently, their children will benefit from such conditions.

Joint custody and shared residence not only enable children to maintain close relationships with both parents, but also increase the child’s access to psychological, social, and economic resources from two caregivers. Several studies focusing on general mental health, self-esteem, and degree of stress and adjustment, show that children in joint custody are better adjusted than children in sole physical custody.⁷ The results also confirm that children can develop and maintain secure attachment relationships to several caregivers and benefit from access to more than one ‘safe haven’.⁸

In cases of joint custody, stronger bonds between fathers and children have been shown, when compared with traditional, sole (mothers’) physical custody. However, the association between father-child contact and wellbeing of children was found to be dependent on the degree of paternal involvement before divorce. According to some findings, only when the father’s pre-divorce degree of involvement was medium to high, could the positive effects of children’s wellbeing be noticed post-divorce. Hence, it was assumed that post-divorce arrangements reflect the quality of pre-divorce relations and that active fathers are more likely to practice joint custody.⁹

2.3 Joint Custody and Implications for Parents

Parents’ wellbeing is the strongest mediator for the wellbeing of children; thus, when trying to understand post-divorce implications for children, it is relevant to explore the implications for parents when it comes to separation and arrangements of joint custody. However, this area has been studied far less than the perspective of children, there is a lack of consensus in research and an ongoing discussion among experts.¹⁰ Advocates for shared physical custody argue that this arrangement decreases interparental conflict and strengthens gender equality structures. Those who disagree highlight findings that show conflict can linger and even escalate post-divorce, as joint custody challenges parents’ flexibility, planning opportunities, and ability to cooperate continuously as the needs of their children change according to development and age. Interparental conflict might also interfere with child-parent relationships and evoke emotional insecurity. Experiencing interparental conflict may cause children to feel afraid, insecure, and caught between parents. Interparental conflict can also negatively affect caregiving capacities and increase the risk of children being drawn into conflicts. In addition, the proper function of the joint arrangement entails financial costs (for example, for double sets of children’s furniture, clothing, and other items) and preferably close residence.

Parents with joint physical arrangements report being more satisfied compared to those with sole custody. Fathers are more likely to be satisfied, while the satisfaction of mothers decreases with higher incidence of interparental conflict, safety concerns for children and oneself, and court-imposed arrangements.¹¹ Other studies show that poor parental adjustment after divorce is associated with conflict between ex-spouses. Parents in conflict with joint custody have more concerns regarding their children’s and their own safety. A recent Swedish qualitative study revealed that most parents were pleased with the joint arrangements, with the clear exception of couples experiencing ongoing conflict.¹² Finding a new partner appears to be beneficial for divorced individuals, as it is associated with better general adjustment and, in many cases, improved financial situations.¹³

While most children gain from joint custody and shared residence, it is obvious that the model and practical arrangements must be tailored to the complex combination of needs of the individual child and parental conditions. There is no such thing as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution when it comes to joint custody.¹⁴

2.4 The Interrelationships of Joint Custody, Interparental Conflict, and the Wellbeing of Children

It is well known that intense and chronic conflict in any form, verbal or physical, between parents is a major stressor that negatively affects children’s mental health and wellbeing. When interparental conflicts occur frequently and with intensity, the risk increases for negative outcomes in children. Despite these clear indications, only a few studies have investigated how post-divorce interparental conflict is related to the wellbeing and mental health of children in the context of joint custody. However, there are studies that show the combination of high levels of post-divorce conflict and joint custody, is strongly related to negative implications for wellbeing and mental health in children. These results have contributed to the assumption that joint custody, in the context of high-level conflict, has the potential to be harmful.¹⁵

In a recent research review, Harold & Sellers summarize the developmental areas in children shown to be negatively affected by interparental conflict within intact households and/or parental separation/divorce¹⁶:

• Sleep—Disturbances in sleep patterns in children are assumed to indicate impact of stress on neurobiological function. Sleep problems that emerge early tend to persist in later development.

• Externalizing—Symptoms of aggression, conduct problems, and temper tantrums are the most common outcomes in studies of impact of interparental conflict for children.

• Internalizing—Symptoms of withdrawal, inhibition, low self-esteem, anxiety, depression, and suicidality are associated with ongoing conflicts between parents.

• Academic performance—Deficits in attention, perception processes, general academic outcomes, and classroom problems.

• Social and interpersonal relationships—Negative impact on social and interpersonal skills, social competence, and problem-solving. Increased level of parent–child conflict.

• Physical health—Reduced physical growth, fatigue, abdominal stress, and headaches. Increased risk behaviour, including tobacco use, substance abuse, and early sexual activity.

Harold & Sellers conclude that parental conflict is an early risk factor that elevates the probability for development of child psychopathology.¹⁷ They suggest an integrated and dynamic framework to organize understanding of the interplay of interparental conflicts and parenting processes with neurobiological, psychological, cognitive, and emotional processes in the child. This model can guide practitioners in assessment and establishment of targets for intervention.

Despite the problematic findings, professionals and researchers still disagree whether joint custody can be the best solution—even for high-conflict parents. Existing studies are methodologically, contextually, and conceptually heterogeneous and of varying quality. Moreover, some studies show little or no increase of negative effects for children as a result of post-divorce interparental conflicts. The contradictory results are interpreted to mean that the benefit of having access to both parents could outweigh the costs of conflict-related stress for children. This is assumed to be particularly valid when the quality of parenting is ‘good enough’. Further, there are differing opinions concerning whether children are exposed to less or more conflict when living in shared residence and with high levels of parental conflict. Finally, other findings show that children who experience above-average degrees of interparental conflict have about the same levels of mental health problems as children living in sole physical custody. These results might indicate that the custodial arrangement is not the main issue, but rather the parents’ ability to manage divorce and co-parenting.¹⁸

Obviously, further research is needed to improve our understanding of these diverse associations. The degree of child exposure to interparental conflict and the features of conflict must be investigated, as well as how implications of conflict relate to age, developmental level, gender, and other characteristics of the child and the overall context.¹⁹ Perspectives of risk should be carefully evaluated, because stress and adversities during early years can have long-term implications for future general development in children. The developing brain is especially vulnerable to stress, particularly for children up to about seven years of age.²⁰

2.5 Preschool-Aged Children, Joint Custody, and Interparental Conflict

The suitability of joint custody for preschool-aged children, especially those under the age of four, is a subject of disagreement and debate among experts and researchers. Limited empirical evidence has been presented for how infants, toddlers, and young children are affected by shared residence. Questions about overnight stays, time cycles of visitation, and separation are specifically discussed, as well as this age group’s need for stability and continuity in relationships and everyday routines.²¹

Based on the central significance of attachment theory and the emphasis on quality of interaction between young children and parents, there is an urgent need for thorough evaluation of custodial and residential arrangements for preschoolers. The recommendations from most attachment theory researchers and clinicians concerning preschool children, are that children’s regular attachment relationships are of crucial importance and should be supported whenever possible, while longer separations should be avoided. Further, researchers emphasize that the capacity of children to develop simultaneous secure attachment relationships must be ensured.²²

A recent study of the living arrangements of three-year-old children in Sweden, showed that those living with joint custody after divorce had better mental health than children living with only one parent. However, when accounting for co-parent quality, child mental health was very similar across the different arrangements, including cases of children living in intact families.²³

Divorce and separation during the first years of childhood are substantial, stressful circumstances at a delicate time for both children and parents. Hence, it should be acknowledged that parenting in this context is challenging, and temporary support might be required to enhance adjustment to new family structures and circumstances. Stress affects parental sensitivity, which in turn, is predictive of the development of attachment relations; it also affects parenting skills and emotional availability. The emotional quality of parent–child relationships during the divorce process can affect child adjustment after divorce.

In cases of a less involved, non-resident parent and questions of visits and possibly overnight stays, the current advice is to arrange the situation with great flexibility and ample opportunity for the child and non-resident parent to adjust gradually to each other. It is recommended that, the younger the child, the shorter the time cycles of separation from the regular caregiver. It is also emphasized that attachment is one of several aspects of child-parent relationships. Current contact and visitation, including the opportunity to be involved in care and play, can support child development, and contribute to the foundation of a secure future child-parent relationship.²⁴

Attachment theory and research is often applied by professionals (such as social workers, child protection services, and courts) in different settings, for example, to evaluate and provide testimony regarding custody questions in family court. Unfortunately, misconceptions in this regard are common and sometimes result in misapplications of knowledge. A policy paper on attachment perspectives in child protection and custody issues was recently published by a considerable number of attachment researchers.²⁵

The policy paper emphasizes three attachment principles to improve practice:

• Children’s need for familiar and non-abusive caregivers;

• The continuity of good-enough care; and

• Children’s access to a network of attachment relationships.

2.6 Supporting Children Living with Interparental Custody Conflict

Child-rights organizations, (such as, the Children’s Welfare Foundation and Save the Children), have highlighted the many complex challenges for children experiencing high interparental conflict in the context of joint custody, and the importance of meeting the specific needs of these children. The significance of evaluating safety for children and parents and careful assessment of information concerning violence in this context is emphasized.²⁶

There is an evident need for further development of risk assessment tools in this area. Adult intimate-partner violence, violence and abuse towards children, and general developmental risks for children must be addressed.²⁷ Additionally, robust knowledge about how the experiences and opinions of children can be systematically collected in investigation and assessment are not available. Guidelines for professionals about questions such as the age at which children should be involved in these matters and available models for child interviews are still lacking. Children’s right to raise their voices, to be listened to and involved in practical solutions after divorce are often overlooked. Existing qualitative child interview studies suggest that it is more important than ever for children with adverse experiences in their families, such as abuse, neglect, and violence, to be able to express their will and opinions directly to investigators, social workers, and courts.²⁸

Studies have found a dose-response relationship regarding children of divorce: the number of adversities to which children are exposed, is a predictor of their ability to adjust after the divorce. Stressful events such as moving to a new location, changing preschools or schools, or separation from friends and relatives seem to be especially disruptive. Repeated and extensive changes are particularly stressful. Hence, minimizing the number of stressful events and making thorough, stepwise preparations can help children adapt.²⁹

Other factors that can facilitate children’s adjustment include the use of active coping skills, that is, supporting a child’s problem-solving capacity, encouraging them to seek social and emotional support, and enhancing self-regulation strategies in stressful and emotional situations. Strategies can be encouraged in the home as well as in cooperation with preschool and school staff. The significance of peer interaction, social support from contact with friends, teachers, siblings, and parents can facilitate adaptation post-divorce. However, empirical knowledge regarding these circumstances is still limited.³⁰

Several supportive programmes for children experiencing divorce have been developed. Most of them offer age-appropriate information and psychoeducation about divorce and the opportunity to explore, express, and understand emotional reactions associated with the approaching changes. Although the programmes have not been systematically evaluated to any great degree, they seem to be beneficial and appreciated by many children. Information regarding specific interventions for children experiencing complex circumstances, such as, interparental conflicts, joint custody, shared residence, and visitation are lacking in the scientific literature.

Experts and other adults often emphasize that children experiencing divorce and interparental conflict might need, and gain from, therapeutic interventions. This option is not always readily available; mental-healthcare services often assign lower priority to problems in children related to what can be considered as mainly parental problems. While this might be the case, numerous clinical examples demonstrate how exposure to problematic divorce, interparental conflict, and (in some cases) violence, trigger and exacerbate psychological and psychiatric problems in children. Among clinicians, it is also known that in children, severe problems originating from other sources can be suppressed or disguised by interparental conflict.

Working with children and parents in the context of joint custody and interparental conflict can be challenging. Parents might not realize that they or their child need support or therapy; they might see no need to promote the perspectives of the child, or the co-parent could be resistant to the idea.³¹ Because the autonomy of children is limited, the therapist must treat the matter of child privacy with great care. Agreements concerning information and transparency must be clarified with all parties involved, including the authorities responsible for child protection and child welfare—to assure a trustful cooperation with the therapist. Children might not always have the capacity to grasp complex situations, but they have the right and are often able to contribute thoughts, opinions, and ideas about how their everyday life and important relationships should be arranged.

Interventions specifically targeting parents and children living in the context of joint custody and interparental conflict are still rare, but some initiatives are under way to design tailored support and preventive approaches. Some programmes focus on parents of intact households or in the context of separation; others address domestic violence. Family therapy models use various approaches, mainly systemic and psychoeducational, and conflict mediation is often offered. Children participate in some of the interventions, but the dominating idea seems to be that children will benefit from improved parental support—an assumption that requires more investigation, and study of other dimensions of effects. Although most programmes are poorly evaluated, parents often appreciate them.³²

Recently, a mentalization-based programme for parents in entrenched conflicts over their children was developed and assessed in a pilot study.³³ The model aims to reduce hostile conflicts between parents and mitigate the damaging effects of interparental conflict on children. The primary focus of mentalization-based interventions is about making sense of the feelings experienced by each parent, particularly how negative assumptions about the other parent’s intentions can lead to anger, misunderstandings, and conflict. Further, the intervention highlights the perspective of the child, and how children can communicate their needs. This approach is assumed to develop the capacity to regulate the intense effects in the context of separation and distress and reduce impulsive and destructive behaviours. The results of the pilot study were promising and parents taking part in the intervention reported fewer feelings of stress and depression, less expressed anger towards their ex-partner, and improvements in their children’s emotional and behavioural difficulties.

2.7 Conclusions

Research and experience show that no post-divorce custody and residential arrangement exists to suit all children and parents. Arrangements must be tailored to the individual needs of children and parents and modified as children’s relationships with parents develop, and as child developmental status and parents’ circumstances change. The quality of co-parenting has been shown to be a key determinant of child mental health for children with divorced parents, which shows why tailored parental support is central. This requires flexibility and cooperation from parents, professionals, the courts—and children.

Available research and evaluation show that many aspects and interrelationships of custody arrangements remain unidentified, and several central questions remain unanswered. Most important is the need to explore the voices and experiences of children who have dealt with interparental conflicts, joint custody, and shared residence. Qualitative and longitudinal studies must be made to understand children’s opinions, needs, hopes, and thoughts derived from living in various divorce-related circumstances. The effects of relationships with friends, siblings, relatives, and foster parents in the context of joint custody and interparental conflict also warrant detailed evaluation. Available knowledge and research about implications of adversities, stress, and trauma for children—particularly the youngest and most vulnerable—must be better integrated into services. In addition, it is important to develop effective models for safe and secure visitation between children and non-resident parents, as well as efficient support for children who are reluctant to have contact with a parent. Finally, children’s exposure to different forms of violence requires improved assessment and understanding. Flexible strategies for strengthening child safety that do not involve removing children from parents’ care or disrupting relationships—unless absolutely necessary—must be developed in close cooperation with the individual child and the caregivers.