Supporting fathers after separation or divorce: implications for practice

Based on a review of divorce-related parenting

programmes and their impact and effects on

fathers (O’Brien & Philip, 2012)

Dr Georgia Philip, University of East Angliag.philip@uea.ac.uk

Context: what kind of services are potentially available to separated fathers?

• Expansion and expectation of mediation (removal of legal aid

from private law) & compulsory MIAM (Mediation Info &

Assessment Meeting)

• Reform of Child Maintenance Service (Child Maintenance

Options)

• Children’s Centres – expectation to include and engage fathers

• Contact Centres – levels of supervision

• Parenting courses – e.g. The Separated Parents Information

Programme (CAFCASS, National Family Mediation, Relate)

• Online resources – information, guidance, template agreements

etc. (e.g. One Plus One; Gov. initiative: ‘Sorting Out Separation’)

What did the review involve?

• Evaluations & reported findings from divorce-related parenting

programmes aimed exclusively at, or including fathers, and which

focus on improving parent-child and coparenting relationships

• Included a range of evaluation study designs, including experimental

(e.g. control or comparison groups) and qualitative (e.g. descriptive, or

based on experiences/satisfaction & self-reporting)

• Peer reviewed or commissioned evaluations published between

2005-July 2012

• Not restricted to the UK, but published in English

29 publications were initially identified. From this, 18 peer reviewed

articles and one commissioned report met all the criteria for

inclusion resulting in 13 interventions.

The programmes/interventions:

• 13 programmes were identified (and had been evaluated)

• 9 are American, and one from the UK (SPIP), New Zealand,

Australia and Israel

• 1 programme aimed directly at fathers; 6 aimed at individual fathers

and mothers; 3 involved couples and 3 focused on whole families

• Some focus on parent education; some more therapeutic or psych-

educational; some focus on mediation process and some combine

elements.

• Variation in: duration & intensity, court-affiliation, format/delivery

• Certain common aims: increase awareness of impact on children;

reduce inter-parental conflict; improvement of co-parenting; improve

outcomes for children

General findings:

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Parental conflict Coparenting Child's internalising

Nu

mb

er

of

pro

gra

mm

es

re

po

rtin

g e

ffe

ct

Impact: Number of programmes reporting improvements in family relationships after participation (N=13)

Findings related to fathers

Indications/inferred evidence of:

Reduction of interparental conflict, as reported by fathers: including

reduction in ‘conflict in the presence of children’ or reduction in

depth and breadth of conflict issues

Improvements in perception/practice of coparenting for fathers

Benefits for children (of fathers’ participation): reporting that children

experienced improved emotional availability of their fathers

Reported benefits to men’s adjustment/wellbeing (e.g. feeling

supported, perception of ‘fairness’ over caring arrangements)

Limitations of the evaluation evidence

• Only 4 evaluations had a control/ appropriate comparison group with

follow-ups limiting the ability to identify whether benefits were related to the

programme, the passing of time or other unobserved factors.

• A significant number of evaluation studies involved small sample sizes,

underspecified inclusion criteria and high rates of attrition

No consistent consideration and analysis of gender as part of evaluating

the potential impact. In a significant minority of evaluations there is no

distinction made between fathers or mothers, with mother and father measures

routinely not analysed separately and the term ‘parents’ being used to present

and discuss all findings

Little clear or comprehensive information on men’s parenting or father-

child relationships, or on fathers’ coparenting perceptions or

behaviours. Even where programmes involved goals related explicitly to

father involvement, such as Dads For Life, these were sometimes not

captured in the evaluation

Insights: in search of the ‘active ingredient’

Involving both fathers and mothers in the intervention: The question is not

“whether to intervene with fathers or with couples, but, in either approach, how

to involve both parents in the intervention programme” (Cowan et al, 2006: 677)

Perspective taking: The opportunity to see/hear the perspective of the ‘other

parent’ was commented on as a valuable tool in facilitating conflict reduction

and increasing parents’ capacity to focus on the needs of children. Perspective

taking was commented on by some fathers as a benefit of being in a mixed sex

group

Impact of direct input from children: Powerful ‘wake-up call’ or ‘light bulb

moment’ or a way of making difficult issues around managing and reducing

parental conflict more ‘palatable’ – commented on by both fathers and mothers

Palatability and ‘feeling safe’: The importance of how and when to introduce

delicate conflict/relationship management material; making content ‘palatable’

may contribute to perceived ‘levelling of the playing field’ where fathers felt more

empowered but also more able to listen to views that differed from their own

(McIntosh, Wells & Long, 2007)

Other practice issues to consider:

• Father visibility – collecting and using

demographic data & disaggregation by gender

• Recruitment – court/community; ‘hard to reach

fathers’; active ‘father-targeting’ strategies;

universal or ‘specialised’ services

• ‘Risky Fathers’ – screening; balancing welfare

needs/rights of fathers, mother & children;

service gap?

Recommendations from our review:

Improving routine administrative & demographic data about

fathers

Incorporation of analysis by gender of parent into evaluation

design

Further development and application of father-related indicators

Further conceptual work on family restructuring and coparental

relationship adjustment after separation and divorce

Undertaking more formative evaluation and feasibility studies

Increased collaboration between research institutions and

practitioners in both statutory and voluntary sectors

References:• Bayley, J, Wallace, L M & Choudhry, K (2009) Fathers and parenting programmes: barriers

and best practice, Community Practitioner, 82 (4), 28-31

• Brown, L, Callahan, M, Strega, S, Walmsley, C & Dominelli, L (2009) Manufacturing ghost fathers: the paradox of father presence and absence in child welfare, Child & Family Social Work, 14, 25-34

• Burgess, A. (2009) Fathers and Parenting Interventions: What Works? London: Fatherhood Institute

• Coltrane, S. (2004), The Paradox of Fatherhood: predicting the future of men’s family involvement. In Vision 2003: contemporary family issues. Minneapolis, Minnesota: National Council on Family Relations

• Collier, R & Sheldon, S (2008) Fragmenting Fatherhood: A Socio-legal Approach, OR: Hart Publishing

• Department for Education & Ministry of Justice (2012) Co-operative Parenting Following Family Separation: Proposed Legislation on the Involvement of Both Parents in a Child's Life

• Featherstone, B (2009), Contemporary Fathering, Theory, Policy and Practice, Bristol: The Policy Press

• Featherstone, B (2010) ‘Writing fathers in but mothers out!!!’ Critical Social Policy, Vol.30 (2) 208-224

• Jones, R, Burgess, A & Hale, V (2012), ‘The Fathers’ Journey: a survey of help-seeking behaviour by separating and recently separated fathers’, All Parliamentary Group on Fathering.

• Lamb, M.E., ed. (2010), The Role of the Father in Child Development, 5th ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons

References:

• Maxwell, N, Scourfield, J, Featherstone, B, Holland, S & Tolman, R (2012) ‘Engaging fathers in child welfare services: a narrative review of recent research evidence, Child and Family Social Work, 17, pp160-169

• O’Brien, M. (2011) “Fathers in challenging family contexts: a need for engagement” Men in Families and Family Policy in a Changing World Report New York: United NationsDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/ family/docs/men-in-families.pdf

• Philip & O’Brien (2012), Supporting Fathers after separation or divorce: evidence and insights, Centre for research on the Child & Family

• Philip, G (2013) ‘Relationality and moral reasoning in accounts of fathering after separation or divorce; care, gender and working at ‘fairness’, Families, Relationships & Societies, Vol.2, No.3, pp409-424

• Roskill, C, Featherstone, B, Ashley, C & Haresnape, S (2008) Fathers Matter Volume 2: Further findings on fathers and their involvement with social care services: Family Rights Group

• Scourfield, J. (2006), The challenge of engaging fathers in the child protection process. Critical Social Policy, vol. 25, No. 2 (May), pp. 440-449

• Stega, S. & others (2008), Connecting father absence and mother blame in child welfare polices and practice. Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 30 (July), No. 7, pp. 705-716

• Trinder, L, Smith, S, Bryson, C, Purdon, S, Coleman, L, Houlston, C & Reibstein, J (2011) ‘The Separated Parents Information Programme: Current Effectiveness and future Potential, Family Law vol. 41, September, 2011, 998-1002

• Walters, J., (2010) ‘Working with Fathers, From Knowledge to Therapeutic Practice’, UK: Palgrave Macmillan

•