ROBERT BAUSERMAN and JOINT CUSTODY

    A Critique of "Child Adjustment in Joint-Custody Versus
    Sole-Custody Arrangements: A Meta-Analytic Review"

    By Trish Wilson, © 2002.
    All rights reserved by author

    Robert Bauserman wanted desperately to support joint custody over sole custody, yet he did not have the material to make such a leap. He was rather ambivalent and vague throughout his report while actually analyzing the studies. Robert Bauserman's text is indented in black. Trish's comments and research cites are in royal blue.
    Child Adjustment in Joint-Custody Versus Sole-Custody
    Arrangements: A Meta-Analytic Review
    Robert Bauserman
    AIDS Administration/Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
    http://www.apa.org/journals/fam/press_releases/march_2002/fam16191.html

    The author meta-analyzed studies comparing child adjustment in joint physical or joint legal custody with sole-custody settings, including comparisons with paternal custody and intact families where possible. Children in joint physical or legal custody were better adjusted than children in sole-custody settings, but no different from those in intact families. More positive adjustment of joint-custody children held for separate comparisons of general adjustment, family relationships, self-esteem, emotional and behavioral adjustment, and divorce-specific adjustment. Joint-custody parents reported less current and past conflict than did sole-custody parents, but this did not explain the better adjustment of joint-custody children. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that joint custody can be advantageous for children in some cases, possibly by facilitating ongoing positive involvement with both parents.

    A meta-analysis is the statistical analysis of the analytical results of existing studies on a given topic. Bauserman did not create his own, new study on the subject. He looked at existing research.

    One major error in his meta-analysis was in not adequately defining joint custody, especially joint physical custody. Joint physical custody, for instance, does not equal "50/50 parenting". The children in a joint custody situation could spend as little as 25 - 35% of the time with the parent who would otherwise be noncustodial, which really isn't all that much different from sole custody. It is also not a "one size fits all" proposition. Variations in families and schedules were not taken into account. There is no differentiation between parents who split or rotate custody of their children as opposed to other forms of joint custody. In split custody, for example, mom has primary physical custody of one child and dad has primary physical custody of another. Children who rotate, for example, spend one year, one month, or one week with dad and then switch the same period of time with mom. All of these scenarios are highly disruptive for children, yet they are not discussed at all.

    Selection of Studies - Garbage In, Garbage Out

    During the past 20 years, an increasing body of research evidence on the adjustment of children in both types of custody settings has developed, and some reviewers have specifically compared child adjustment in joint- and sole custody settings (e.g., Johnston, 1995; Twaite & Luchow, 1996). These reviewers presented varying conclusions: some argued that the research literature unequivocally supports joint custody (Bender, 1994); others argued that variables such as parental conflict are more important than custodial arrangement in determining child outcomes (Twaite & Luchow, 1996) and that joint custody is likely to be inappropriate in high-conflict situations (Johnston, 1995). Still others presented mixed findings in which no single custody arrangement can be assumed to be preferable (Kelly, 1993). Such reviews are subject to a number of potential problems: selective citation of studies; reporting results consistent with the reviewer"s perspective, combined with minimization or nonreporting of inconsistent results; focusing on statistical significance rather than on the magnitude of the relationship between variables; and failure to examine study characteristics as moderators of results.

    Bauserman's method of selection omitted qualitative studies and permitted only studies that compared joint custody and sole custody households. He ignored the larger, credible, qualitative studies such as those conducted by Judith Wallerstein that have come out against joint custody in favor of small, early studies (some unpublished) and doctoral dissertations. Those smaller studies have numerous flaws such as small sample sizes, weak methods of contacting parents and children (like one hour phone calls with adolescents (see Buchanan below)), lack of conclusions (more research needed), and not correcting for the self-selection of families who had chosen joint custody because they were amicable and had low levels of conflict to begin with. Misrepresentations of many of these same studies have circulated on fathers' rights web sites and mailing lists for many years. For a more detailed critique of those studies, please see Those Joint Custody Studies - Debunked

    His method of selection alone severely limited his scope. It left him a total of 33 studies, 11 published and 22 unpublished. 21 of the unpublished studies were doctoral dissertations. Out of his two and 1/3 pages of references, only about 25 of the studies were dated post 1990. Two of those were the same study reported in two different publications. Some of those studies dated back to the '50s, '60s, and '70s - a time when joint custody was exceedingly rare and primarily unobserved. He did not mention that studies prior to the mid-1980s involved rare couples who tended to have higher incomes, higher education, who had only one child, not much interpersonal conflict, and they chose joint custody because they wanted to make it work. Those were not representative of most divorces, yet he cited them to support his contention that joint custody is far superior and preferable to sole custody. It is not possible for him to conclude his analysis in favor of joint custody due to the problems and lack of consistency of those studies. He tries to play down how joint custody exacerbates conflict by ignoring the findings and flaws of the existing studies. He even admits that the flaws exist. However, he ignored those flaws and misrepresented data in order to do exactly what reviewers have criticized the other researchers of doing: he has reported results consistent with his own favorable view of joint custody. This is important to point out because Bauserman has a history of misrepresenting data.

    He states below for the second of two times that joint custody cannot be proven to be the causal factor in better child adjustment -- yet that doesn't stop him from roundly supporting joint custody in exactly that fashion. (Bold added.)

    [I]t was hypothesized that on average children in joint-custody arrangements would demonstrate better adjustment than children in sole-custody arrangements. Although the suggested hypothesis (and subsequent hypotheses) is directional, all statistical tests were based on appropriately conservative two-tailed probabilities. As noted previously, joint custody cannot be proven to be the causal factor in any such difference.

    According to "The Impact of the Custody Plan on the Family,": "[I]n the absence of information about the family dynamics at the time of the divorce, it is impossible to know if the initial custody plan itself has an impact on later custody behavior or if the initial custody order is simply an indicator of other dynamics in the family that are crucial in determining the father's level of contact with the children following the divorce."

                        "The Impact of the Custody Plan on the Family: A Five-Year Follow-Up. Executive Summary.Statewide Office of Family Court Services, Administrative Office of the Courts, State of California. Margaret A. Little, Ph.D., Los Angeles County, Family Court Services; Hugh McIsaac, Directory. May 1991
    "The authors conclude that because their sample of joint custody arrangements included relatively wealthy families with fewer children and cooperative relationships at the time of divorce, the findings cannot support increased imposition of joint custody arrangements."

                        American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60(2): 233-249., citing Pearson, J., and N. Thoennes. 1990. "Custody After Divorce: Demographic and Attitudinal Patterns." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60(2): 233-249
    Based on the reasoning that joint custody is more beneficial than harmful because it provides a higher degree of ongoing support and resources from both parents than other custody arrangements, it was hypothesized that joint custody children would be relatively better adjusted than paternal custody children. It was further hypothesized that joint-custody and intact-family children would be relatively equal in level of adjustment because both groups are maintaining ongoing relationships involving frequent contact with both parents.

    A secondary goal of the current review was to examine how theoretically relevant characteristics of participant populations and of studies might moderate the relationship between custody arrangements and outcomes. For example, some critics of joint custody have expressed concern that this arrangement will expose children to ongoing parental conflict, resulting in more stress and adjustment problems. Thus, wherever possible joint-custody and sole-custody groups were compared on levels of conflict between parents either now or in the past, and conflict level was examined as a moderator of adjustment differences. Although interparental conflict might reduce potential benefits, joint custody parents may experience lower levels of conflict at the time of divorce than sole-custody parents, which allows them to enter into joint-custody arrangements to begin with. The potential confounding role of conflict is also considered. Other researchers have claimed that children in sole custody arrangements are better adjusted when living with the same-sex than with the opposite-sex parent (e.g., Warshak, 1986), a variation of the family-composition perspective on the effects of divorce. Given that most sole-custody arrangements involve maternal custody, boys might therefore show more benefit than girls in a comparison of joint and maternal custody. Thus, one variable coded as a potential moderator was the proportion of boys in each study's sole-custody and joint-custody groups. It was hypothesized that the benefits of ongoing involvement with both parents would be robust, such that better adjustment for joint custody children would be found even when controlling for a variety of participant and study characteristics as potential moderators.

    "It was hypothetized?" "Might be?" "Would be?" "Might reduce?" "May experience?" "Theoretically?" Assumptions of this sort are specious and inappropriate, especially when appearing in an ostensibly "scientific" report.

    Recent research has shown that joint custody exacerbates conflict. In relying on those earlier studies done when little was known about joint custody and when it was trendy, Bauserman ignores findings such as this:

    J. Pearson and N. Thoennes,"Custody After Divorce: Demographic and Attitudinal Patterns", American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 60, 1990.

    This study is one of many that has been misrepresented by joint custody and fathers' rights advocates to support joint custody. Here is what is most often quoted on fathers' rights sites about this study:

    "Consistent with other studies of joint and sole custody [citations], our joint legal and residential noncustodians were decidedly more involved with their children following divorce than were noncustodians in sole custody arrangements. . . . Lastly, respondants in joint custody arrangements wre more apt to perceive their exsopuse as having a good relationship with the children and to report satisfaction with that person's performance as a parent."

    " . . . conflict between divorcing parents in our sample did not appear to worsen as a result of the increased demand for interparental cooperation and communication in joint legal or joint residential custody arrangements. To the contrary, parents with sole maternal custody reported the greatest deterioration in the relationships over time."

    The ellipses are not there by accident. The missing text is important in that this study does not support joint custody at all. In fact, the study found that joint custody parents reported the lowest satisfaction with the legal agreement one year after the child custody order.

    In addition, the researchers pointed out that:

    "Families with joint custody-joint residential arrangements had parents with the highest education and household income levels at the time of separation compared to families with other custody types... these findings reflect the higher financial cost of maintaining two residences for children and the more flexible work schedules of high-earning parents."

    Also:

    Most parents with joint custody-joint residential arrangements (70 percent) also had only one child, compared to about one-third to one-half of parents with other custody arrangements.

    As far as the effect of custody type on parental cooperation after divorce, the authors found that most parents opting for joint custody, and particularly joint residential arrangements, were relatively friendly and cooperative before and after divorce and thus concluded that postdivorce relationships were a reflection of predivorce characteristics, not the type of custody arrangement.

    Children in joint physical or legal custody were better adjusted than children in sole-custody settings, but no different from those in intact families.

    More positive adjustment of joint-custody children held for separate comparisons of general adjustment, family relationships, self-esteem, emotional and behavioral adjustment, and divorce-specific adjustment. Joint-custody parents reported less current and past conflict than did sole-custody parents, but this did not explain the better adjustment of joint-custody children. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that joint custody can be advantageous for children in some cases, possibly by facilitating ongoing positive involvement with both parents.

    According to "The Impact of the Custody Plan on the Family," joint custody parents, especially mothers, report dissatisfaction with joint custody as opposed to parents with sole custody. When entered into via litigation rather than amicable agreement, studies have shown that "highly conflicted families may be unable to overcome their animosities sufficiently to make joint custody a viable option for them."

    The same report found that initial physical custody orders awarding the mother primary custody demonstrate a great deal of stability over time. The overwhelming majority of these families reported that the children still reside with the mother at the time of the interview. Joint physical custody plans show more fluidity; only 36% of those with an initial custody order of joint physical custody reported in 1989 that the children still reside with both parents.

    Researcher Joyce Arditti found that "when joint custody is entered into under duress, satisfaction levels may be even lower than for sole-custody families." (Felner and Terre, 1987).

                        "Child Support Noncompliance and Divorced Fathers: Rethinking the Role of Paternal Involvement," Arditti, Joyce A, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage,Vol 14, Nos 3-4, pp. 107-119, 1991 by The Haworth Press. http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/resolve/ncpreport/arditti(1991).html
    Buchanan, Maccoby, and Dornbusch (1996) classified factors affecting children's postdivorce adjustment into three categories: loss of a parent, interparental conflict, and diminished parenting (in which the quality of parenting from the custodial parent deteriorates, typically during the first 2 years after divorce).

    Bauserman is referring to Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1996). Caught between parents: Adolescents experience in divorced homes. Child Development, 62, 1008-1029.

    This study does not favor joint custody over sole custody. It looked into how adolescents adapt to different custody and visitation arrangements. The primary focus of the study was on "characteristics of post-divorce families - the adolescents' relationships with each parent, their experiences in each household, and their coordination of life in two households."

    Among the findings that Buchanan et al. did make, however, were that children who maintained closer relationships with their custodial (or primary residential) parent seemed to be more well-adjusted than children who did not.

    Most of the data were gleaned from one hour telephone interviews with the adolescents themselves. Unless they have a basis for comparison of lifestyles, or there are severe problems such as abuse, children are going to characterize their own lot in a contented light. While the findings indicating adolescent recilience may help to put to rest the doomsday notions of children and divorce, the limited nature of the telephone interviews left many questions unanswered.

    Buchanan et al, and other researchers have found that "the effects of divorce on children occur largely through the effects of inter-parental conflict on children, both before and after the divorce (Amato & Keith, 1991; Amato & Rezac, 1994; Amato, Loomis, & Booth, 1995; Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1991; Camara & Resnick, 1988, 1989; Emery,1982; Kline, Johnston, & Tschann, 1991; Long, Slater, Forehand, & Fauber, 1988; Rutter, 1971).

    The researchers did observe confirmation of other researchers' findings that shared custody arrangements over time tend to drift into more traditional sole custody arrangements.

    Eleanor Maccoby (and Robert Mnookin) have studied joint custody for more than two decades. Although generally favorable towards joint custody, they have acknowledged its great shortcomings. Moreover, Maccoby found that "maternal custody arrangements appear to be more stable than other arrangements."

    What Maccoby and Mnookin Have Actually Said About Joint Custody....

    McLanahan (1999) found that father absence due to divorce is associated with less school achievement for both boys and girls, more labor market detachment (i.e., unemployment) for boys, and early childbearing for girls. The impact of father absence seemed to be mediated by several variables, including loss of parental resources (less involvement and supervision), loss of financial resources, and loss of community resources (the broader network of social involvement, interaction, and support obtained from each parent).

    Despite being roundly debunked for over twenty years, mother-blaming "fatherlessness" statistics continue to be trotted out in order to blame single and divorced mothers for all social ills. They are currently fueling draconian welfare reform. Hetherington found that "two-thirds of children from divorced families exhibit no negative effects." The only truly "fatherless" children are those of widows. The fathers of these "fatherless" children were present for some period early in their lives and for a wide variety of reasons are no longer in the picture. Poverty and job status are two key factors regarding positive child outcomes in single mother homes. Positive child outcomes are not contingent on the mere the presence or absence of a father.

    Despite the increased interest in fatherhood and the widespread belief that fathers' involvement with their children is important, there is little evidence to support this belief. The empirical research has lagged behind the public forum, perhaps because of the limited data available on father involvement.(Garfinkel, McLanahan and Hanson, 1998).

    Investigations of the limited data on father involvement have shown wide variation in financial contributions and contact with children. About one-third of fathers do contribute financially and maintain regular contact with their children and the remainder of fathers are much less involved (Garfinkel, McLanahan and Robbins, 1994). Child support does appear to have positive effects on children's educational attainment (Garfinkel, McLanahan and Robbins, 1994) but there is little evidence that contact between non-residential fathers and children makes a difference (Furstenberg, Morgan and Allison, 1987; King, 1994; McLanahan, Seltzer, Hanson and Thomson, 1994).

                        Father Involvement, Child Health and Maternal Health Behavior, Julien Teitler, School of Social Work Columbia University, July, 2000.

    In a meta-analysis of 63 studies of nonresident fathers' role in children's well-being, Amato and Gilbreth (1999) found that authoritative parenting and feelings of closeness between father and child related to well-being. In addition to child support payments, authoritative parenting by the father was the most consistent predictor of outcomes including school achievement, externalizing (behavioral) problems, and internalizing (emotional)problems.Notably, joint custody (and joint physical custody in particular) is relevant to many of the issues raised by Buchanan et al. (1996), Amato and Gilbreth (1999), Hetherington et al. (1998), and McLanahan (1999). For example, ongoing and frequent access to both parents may mitigate potential effects of parental absence as seen in sole-custody households, and access to the households and resources of both parents may reduce economic stress and disadvantage for the child.

    He's referring to Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and children's well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 557-573.

    None of the cited researchers has directly correlated "ongoing and frequent access" to parents, particularly fathers, and well-child outcomes in this manner. Bauserman omits that Amato and Gilbreth found that the fathers' frequency of contact was the least significant predictor of child outcomes.

    About "Authoritative Parenting"...

    Amato and Gilbreth defined "authoritative parenting" as "setting rules for children, monitoring their behavior, and dispensing discipline when children misbehave." Later in the paper he extended his definition to include "helping with homework, working on projects together, providing noncoercive discipline." They actually found that " the combination of high (child) support with a moderately high level of noncoercive control - authoritative parenting - is the parenting style that best predicts children's positive development." The type of authoritative parenting matters. They wrote that "parental control is harmful, however, if it is enforced with coercive punishment, such as hitting."

    In addition, mothers, not fathers, do most of the authoritative parenting. Contrary to popular belief, "fathers are not the main disciplinarians of their children; mothers are, particularly in the early years."

                        Yogman, M. W., Cooley, J., & Kindlon, D. (1988). Fathers, infants, and toddlers. In P. Bronstein & C. P. Cowan (Eds.), Fatherhood Today: Mens Changing Role In the Family. (pp. 53-65). New York: John Wiley & Sons

    Amato and Gilbreth came to the same conclusion. They found that fathers tended to take on "fun" activities with their children. "Because fathers have limited time with their children, they want to ensure that their kids enjoy themselves. Consequently, many fathers go out to eat with their children, or take their children to movies or amusement parks, but do not engage in authoritative parenting practices, such as helping with homework, talking over personal problems, or explaining the difference between right and wrong. Furthermore, nonresident fathers tend to be more permissive and indulgent than other fathers. Because these men fear that their relationships with children are tenuous, they often are reluctant to set firm rules or to discipline their children for misbehavior. In general, the activities shared by many nonresident fathers and their children may be enjoyable, but these activities, in the absence of authoritative parenting, contribute relatively little to children's development."

    About "Frequency of Contact" With The Father...

    They found that frequency of contact did not guarantee that children would succeed in school or that they would not have behavior problems. In fact, they wrote that "there is very little evidence to support the notion that frequent contact between nonresident fathers and children is good for children. Although some small-scale clinical studies suggest that father involvement after divorce helps children, most large-scale studies do not agree."

    Sara McLanahan (perhaps the leading expert on single-parent families in the United States) wrote that "contact with nonresident fathers has no detectable benefits for children."

    About Child Support and
    Income Disparity Between Joint Custody Households...

    Amato and Gilbreth found that child support payments helped children to thrive much more so than frequency of paternal contact. Valeria King came to the same conclusion: "Divorced fathers help their children more by consistent payment of their child support than by the number of visits made to their children."

                        King, Valeria, "Divorced Fathers Make Strongest Impact With Child Support," Penn State, http://www.psu.edu/ur/archives/news/divfathers.html

    Other researchers have noted great income disparity between households in joint custody situations. They've also noted that the earliest joint custody cases frequently involved amicable divorces that included fairly wealthy families who often had only one child. These couples freely chose joint custody with the intention of making it work. These parents would have worked together in raising their children regardless of the form of child custody they chose. Joint custody itself does not inspire parents to "cooperate" with each other. Other factors in the relationship dynamic contribute to successful parenting, not the form of custody chosen by the parents or imposed by the court. Two researchers who have described joint custody in this manner are ... Maccoby and Mnookin ... the same whose research Bauserman cites to support his misrepresentations of joint custody.

    Maccoby and Mnookin: "Fewer child support awards are ordered in joint physical custody cases; there is a greater income differential between fathers' households and mothers' households post-divorce in joint custody situations than in sole custody situations; and fathers with joint custody are more likely to have higher incomes relative to their ex-wives than fathers in situations of maternal custody."

                        Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). DIVIDING THE CHILD: SOCIAL AND LEGAL DILEMMAS OF CUSTODY. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Nord and Westat: "The authors conclude that because their sample of joint custody arrangements included relatively wealthy families with fewer children and cooperative relationships at the time of divorce, the findings cannot support increased imposition of joint custody arrangements."

                        Christine Winquist Nord and Laura Spencer Loomis Westat, Inc., ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY: SELECTED CHILD SUPPORT ARTICLES citing Pearson, J. and N. Thoennes. 1988. "Supporting Children After Divorce: The Influence of Custody on Support Levels and Payments." Family Law Quarterly, 22(3): 319-339.

    J. Pearson and N. Thoennes: The authors did not find that joint custody increased child support compliance. Child support compared among sole custody and joint custody. Joint custody shown to produce much better compliance in child support payments to the mother. However, at the time, joint custody was rare and chosen by amicable parents who wanted to make it work. They had higher educations, higher salaries, and most often only one child. Joint custody also severely limits or even completely eliminates the child support obligation. The amounts to be paid were considerably lower than that due sole custody parents. A joint custody order alone did not inspire a father to comply with a child support order. At that time, the Census Bureau indicated that 90% of the time child support was paid in time and in full between joint custody couples. However, joint custody accounted for only 7.8% of all custody orders.

                        J. Pearson and N. Thoennes. The Judges Journal, Winter, 1986.

    All of this is certainly a far cry from the way Bauserman has presented existing joint custody research, particularly Amato and Gilbreth. Later in his "analysis," When Bauserman later refers to Amato and Gilbreth, he buries this important admission, cited below (bold added). It's the first of two times in his paper that he makes such a statement, but both comments are buried so deeply that they are easily missed.

    Amato and Gilbreth's (1999) meta-analysis of nonresident father involvement showed that closeness to the father and authoritative parenting by the father were positively associated with behavioral adjustment, emotional adjustment, and school achievement. Joint-custody children showed better adjustment in parental relations and spent significant amounts of time with the father, allowing more opportunity for authoritative parenting. The findings for joint legal custody samples indicate that children do not actually need to be in joint physical custody to show better adjustment, but it is important to note that joint legal custody children typically spent a substantial amount of time with the father as well. Importantly, a causal role for joint custody cannot be demonstrated because of the correlational nature of all research in this area.

    In the end, Amato and Gilbreth recommend moving towards joint custody not because of the benefits it ostensibly provides for children, but to "increase men's motivations to be good parents." This recommendation runs counter to their own reference to Judith Wallerstein's 1992 study of cases where joint custody was ordered to resolve custody disputes: "Three and one-half years after separation, these couples were experiencing considerably more conflict and less co-operative parenting than were couples for whom joint custody was the first choice of each parent." He should have listened to his own findings when he wrote that "the most important thing is not how often fathers see children, but what fathers do when they are with their children."

    More on Paul Amato

    Contacts with researchers in the field identified an additional study, which has since been published (Gunnoe & Braver, 2001).

    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 & Human Behavior, 25, 25-43.

    Gunnoe & Braver evaluated 273 families, controlling for 28 variables that influence a predisposition to agree on joint legal custody. Controlling for these factors, children in joint legal custody families had more time with their fathers and fewer adjustment and behaviour problems.

    This study does not support joint custody. Sanford Braver, who has lobbied on behalf of joint custody and fathers' rights for many years, alternately refers to joint legal and joint physical custody without differentiating between the two. Joint legal custody is the most common form of joint custody ordered by the court. It does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with joint physical custody. One parent may be assigned primary residential custody (sole physical custody) while both parents have joint legal. Joint legal custody is not about time and residence. It means that both parents rather than a sole custodian have legal responsibility for major decisions related to the child, including medical, schooling, and religious instruction. Whenever possible, it is advised that parents consult with each other when making these decisions.

    Despite his overall support for joint legal and physical custody, Braver has reluctantly admitted to its shortcomings.

    "There is simply not enough evidence available at present to substantiate routinely imposing joint residential custody the limited analyses other researchers have performed don't strongly recommend it be imposed either."
    (Page 223 in Divorced Dads)

    "If each parent is empowered by joint legal custody and is allowed involvement in the full variety of child rearing activities, few parents or children will feel deprived. A parent overly concerned that he see his child exactly the same amount of time as his ex-spouse becomes more of an accountant than a parent. Furthermore, this strict accounting of time can also set the stage for many future arguments, when arrangements must be changed because of extenuating circumstances, which routinely come up. Finally, such arrangements are often transitional. As children get older, they frequently don't want to switch households so often. In short, insisting upon strict equality of time spent with the child may be in the weaker parent's interest but it is rarely in the child's."
    (Page 224 in Divorced Dads)

                        What The Experts Say: Scholarly Research on Post-Divorce Parenting and Child Well-Being; Report to the Washington State Gender and Justice Commission and Domestic Relations Commission, Diane N. Lye, Ph.D., June, 1999, Chapter Four, Section Five, What The Experts Say About Joint Physical Custody.
                        http://www.courts.wa.gov/parent/chap4.htm#A15

    PAUL AMATO ON JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY

    In joint legal custody, both parents have legal rights and responsibilities for children, and children spend a significant portion of time with both parents. When parents can cooperate, this arrangement would appear to be optimal for all parties. Not only are both parents able to retain an important role in their children's lives, but children benefit from the combined input of two parents. But when parents are unable to cooperate, it may place children at considerable risk. Under these conditions, joint custody may lead to more contact between fathers and their children, but may also maintain and exacerbate conflict between parents.

                        Amato, Paul R., Contact With Non-custodial Fathers and Children's Wellbeing, "Family Matters", No. 36, Dec, pp. 32-34, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, Australia.
    Johnston, J. R., Kline, M., & Tschann, J. M. (1989). Ongoing postdivorce conflict: Effects on children of joint custody and frequent access. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 576-592.

    This study does not support joint custody

    Direct Quote:

    "While there was no clear evidence that either joint or sole custody promotes better child adjustment (and there were no differences found between effects of mother-only and father-only custody), a link was consistently found between frequency of visitation/transitions between parents and maladjustment.

    "Children shuffled more frequently between parents were more exposed to and involved in parental conflict and aggression and were more often perceived by both parents as being depressed, withdrawn, uncommunicative, and/or aggressive. These findings, the authors note, are consistent with the findings of other studies."

    This study found that familial conflict post-divorce harms children.

    [H]igh conflict families typically have members who are experiencing emotional difficulties, communication problems, and much stress (e.g., Cherlin et al., 1991; Coysh, Johnston, Tschann, Wallerstein, & Kline, 1989; Hetherington, 1989; Tschann, Johnston, & Wallerstein, 1989). Therapeutic techniques are needed to address the many behavioral, emotional and systemic difficulties that high conflict families experience (e.g., Johnston & Campbell, 1988; Saposnek, 1985, 1986a), to assist in the resolution of parental conflict so legal issues can be settled.

    Tschann and other researchers have found that "the effects of divorce on children occur largely through the effects of inter-parental conflict on children, both before and after the divorce (Amato & Keith, 1991; Amato & Rezac, 1994; Amato, Loomis, & Booth, 1995; Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1991; Camara & Resnick, 1988, 1989; Emery, 1982; Kline, Johnston, & Tschann, 1991; Long, Slater, Forehand, & Fauber, 1988; Rutter, 1971).

                        "What Have We Learned From 30 Years of Research on Families in Divorce Conflict?", Elizabeth M. Ellis, Ph.D., Atlanta, Georgia. For the Trowbridge Foundation.
    Stahl referenced Kline, Johnston, and Tschann when he wrote that "[i]n general, a history of aggression and conflict in the family has been strongly and consistently associated with emotional, behavior, and social problems in children. While children from these families have more adjustment problems than normally expected, the range for individuals is broad. Kline, Johnston, & Tschann (1991) and Johnston (1994) suggest that a good parent-child relationship can buffer children from interparental conflict."

    He also noted that "[s]chool-aged children are much more likely to have a range of reactions, starting with guilt. Children of this age often feel responsible for the conflicts of their parents. They show a greater frequency of externalizing (aggressive or delinquent) and internalizing (withdrawn or anxious) behaviors. This is a group that is highly susceptible to school problems, regression, and poor self esteem (Johnston, Kline, & Tschann [1989]). When there is violence associated with the high-conflict, boys in particular are at risk for delinquent acting out."

                        "Personality Traits of Parents And Developmental Needs of Children in High-Conflict Families", Philip M. Stahl, Ph.D.; excerpted and adapted from Philip Stahl's books "Complex Issues in Child Custody Evaluations" (1999) and "Parenting After Divorce" (2000).
    Janet Johnson and her colleagues compared children in court-ordered joint custody with children in sole-custody homes. In both situations, the parents were in "entrenched conflict."

    This study showed that under these circumstances frequent shuttling between both parents in joint custody "is linked to more troubled emotional problems" in children than the sole-custody arrangement.

    Additionally, Johnston, Kline and Tschann found that children who have more frequent access to both parents are more emotionally troubled and behaviourally disturbed than those with less access.

    But "conflict" does not necessarily mean "confrontation." (The suggestion in the father's rights writeup, above that conflict can be solved by, e.g. merely having the parents exchange children at school is an example of commonly held misperceptions about "conflict.") These results -- that children were more troubled and disturbed the more frequent the access -- held true regardless of whether inter-parental aggression was present (note that all families in this study were involved in custody and access disputes).

    Additionally, the researchers reported that "The more contact children have with two warring parents, the more emotionally troubled the youngsters were and the more behavior problems they had. These children were living in a constant state of anxiety and tension, constantly moving between two enemy camps."

    More From Janet Johnston:

    Joint custody is especially harmful when one of the parents is abusive, rigid, manipulative, or angry that he is divorced.

                        Janet R. Johnston, "Children's Adjustment in Sole Custody Compared to Joint Custody Families and Principles for Custody Decision-Making," 33 Fam. and Conciliation Cts. Rev. 415 (1995).
    Coding of Studies

    For each study, the following information was coded:
    ...(j) sex of first author, coded from the first name of the author...
    Only 6 had a male first author, whereas 26 had a female first author (author sex could not be determined for one study, due to an ambiguous name; see Table 1).

    Why is the gender of the authors so important? Did Bauserman believe that women be less supportive of joint custody than men simply because they were women? That certainly was not the case, since both male and female researchers found pros and cons with joint custody. He also did not contact the author with the "ambiguous name" to determine that author's gender. Such unwarranted bias influenced his analysis.

    Conflict
    Measures of current conflict were coded from 14 studies and included such measures as the Straus Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979); the O'Leary-Porter Overt Hostility Scale (B. Porter & O'Leary, 1980); Ahrons's scales for various dimensions of parental conflict, communication, and support (Ahrons, 1979, 1981, 1983); and various author-created items or scales for parents (and sometimes children) to report on such constructs as discord, hostility, cooperation, and conflict over custody or other issues. [Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence:

    The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-86.]

    One of the methodologies he had used to code for current conflict was Straus's problematic and much-criticized Conflict Tactic Scales. This is the same scales used by men's and fathers' groups to support their contention that men and women are equally abusive. Bauserman used existing coding methods plus some undetermined and undescribed scales of his own to measure adjustment (behavioral, emotional, self-esteem, family relations, academic/scholastic, /divorce-specific.) Bauserman has a history of committing methodological and statistical error.

    Who Is Robert Bauserman?

    If Robert Bauserman's name sounds familiar, it is likely not due to his shoddy "analysis" of joint custody. Since 1998, Bauserman had received a great deal of unwanted attention from the mainstream press, child welfare groups, and Christian right pundits for another "analysis" he had co-written with Bruce Rind and Philip Tromovitch: "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples," Psychological Bulletin, July 1998 [http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm]]

    The general public may have heard of this "analysis" by its popular name: The Rind Study.

    The authors claimed that "the assumptions of most mental health professionals, legislators, law enforcement personnel, media workers, and the lay public that sexual relations defined as CSA (child sexual abuse) cause intense harm pervasively for both boys and girls are vastly exaggerated."

    Think that's bad? It gets worse.

    They also wrote the following: "One possible approach to a scientific definition, consistent with findings in the current review and with suggestions offered by Constantine (1981) , is to focus on the young person's perception of his or her willingness to participate and his or her reactions to the experience. A willing encounter with positive reactions would be labeled simply adult-child sex, a value-neutral term. If a young person felt that he or she did not freely participate in the encounter and if he or she experienced negative reactions to it, then child sexual abuse, a term that implies harm to the individual, would be valid. Moreover, the term childshould be restricted to nonadolescent children ( Ames & Houston, 1990 ). Adolescents are different from children in that they are more likely to have sexual interests, to know whether they want a particular sexual encounter, and to resist an encounter that they do not want. Furthermore, unlike adult-child sex, adult-adolescent sex has been commonplace cross-culturally and historically, often in socially sanctioned forms, and may fall within the "normal" range of human sexual behaviors ( Bullough, 1990 ; Greenberg, 1988 ; Okami, 1994 ). A willing encounter between an adolescent and an adult with positive reactions on the part of the adolescent would then be labeled scientifically as adult-adolescent sex, while an unwanted encounter with negative reactions would be labeled adolescent sexual abuse."

    For a defense of their study in a location where adult sexual abuse of adolescents is more "commonplace cross-culturally and historically," read this paper presented to the symposium sponsored by the Paulus Kerk, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, on the 18th of December 1998.

    Fathers' rights advocates should have looked into Bauserman's previous "research" about children before they loudly touted and promoted his joint custody "analysis." That way, they could have saved themselves loads of embarrassment.

    The Rind Study caused so much embarrassment for the APA that the APA had publicly apologized for publishing it.

    Moral outrage aside, the Rind Study had been criticized by Stephanie Dallam et al. in Psychological Bulletin, 2001, Vol. 127, No. 6 for numerous problems "that minimized CSA-adjustment relations, including use of a healthy sample, an inclusive definition of CSA, failure to correct for statistical attenuation, and misreporting of original data. Rind et al.'s study's main conclusions were not supported by the original data. As such, attempts to use their study to argue that an individual has not been harmed by sexual abuse constitute a serious misapplication of its findings." [http://www.apa.org/journals/bul/1101ab.html]

    These are exact same errors he made with his joint custody "analysis."

    Garbage in, garbage out.

    Robert Bauserman's opinions about children are not to be trusted.

    The following are comments about some of the studies that were included in his meta-analysis. These studies did not favor joint custody over sole custody, yet Bauserman presents them as if they do. Studies that were part of his selected 33 are preceded by an asterisk.

    Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991b). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26­46.

      This study did not support joint custody. It found that "children in intact families with high levels of conflict should have the same well-being problems as children of divorce, and the data supported this hypothesis." More findings by Paul Amato are on this page.

    *Bredefeld, G. M. (1985). Joint custody and remarriage: Its effects on marital adjustment and children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 952-953.

      This study does not support joint custody. Both sole and joint custody children adjusted well to the remarriage of their parent. No significant difference found between the groups. In joint custody situations for parents who had remarried, those parents indicated that they appreciated the time alone with their new spouse.

    *Cowan, D. B. (1982). Mother custody versus joint custody: Children's parental relationships and adjustment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 726.

      Insufficient Sample Size Cowan compared 20 joint custody and 20 sole (maternal) custody families.

    *Glover, R. J. & Steele, C. (1989). comparing th eeffects on the child of post-divorce parenting arrangements. Journal of divorce, 12 (2-3), 185-201.

      This study does not support joint custody. It only suggests that joint custody may convey to children that their parents are committed to them.

    *Granite, B. H. (1985). an investigation ofthe relationship among self-concept, parental behaviors, and the adjustment of children in different custodial living arrangements following a marital separation and/or divorce. Dissertation Abstracts Internationsl, 46, 2232.

      Insufficient Sample Size. 15 joint, 15 maternal sole, 15 paternal sole. No difference in self-concept was detectable among the different homes. The study found that children in intact homes were the most well-adjusted, and that joint custody either damages or otherwise is associated with damaged children's relationships with their mothers. That relationship, and the wellbeing of the primary residential mother, have been shown by numerous later studies to be the most important factors affecting overall child well-being and achievement post-divorce.

    *Isaacs, M. B., Leon, G. H., & Kline, M. (1987). When is a parent out of the picture? Different custody, different perceptions. Family Process, 25, 101-110.

      This study does not support joint custody. It found that in non-conflicted joint and sole custody families there is little measurable difference between a child"s behavior in sole or joint custody.

    *Lerman, I. A. (1989). Adjustment of latency age children in joint and single custody arrangements. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 3704.

      This study did not control for amicable self-selection of joint custody families, or for pre-existing higher conflict resulting in sole custody families. Because of that, its findings on child adjustment have not been replicated by later studies with appropriate controls. And in light of that, this study does not support the imposition of joint custody. The study found conflict to be a significant problem, and subsequent studies have found that imposed joint custody exacerbates that conflict. In addition, the study's assumptions regarding the benefits of father-child contact have not been supported by the findings of subsequent, large-scale studies.

    *Mann, D. J. (1984). Children's adjustment to divorce as related to sole and joint custody. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 948.

      This study does not support joint custody. It found that conflict negatively impacts children.

      A later study by B. J. Mann noted the effects of conflict, rejection (in particular paternal rejection), and inept discipline on boys. Mann, B. J., & MacKenzie, E. P. (1996). Pathways among marital functioning, parental behaviors, and child behavior problems in school-age boys. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 183-191. Examined two marital variables (marital dissatisfaction and overt marital conflict) and two parenting variables (rejection and inept discipline) as predictors of oppositional behavior problems in 50 school-age boys. It was hypothesized that the combination of these marital and parenting variables would provide an effective prediction of child oppositional behavior. The results revealed that the effects of marital dissatisfaction on child oppositional behavior were mediated by paternal rejection. Similarly, overt marital conflict had an effect on child oppositionality through disruptive effects on discipline practices by mothers. The findings are discussed in relation to various etiological models that have attempted to explain the link between marital variables, parenting characteristics, and children's adjustment.

    *Noonan, P. L. (1985). Effects of long-term parental conflict on personality functioning of children of divorce. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wright Institute Graduate School of Psychology, Berkeley, CA.

      Insufficient sample size. Nunan compared 20 joint custody children (ages 7-11) with 20 age-matched children in sole maternal custody.

    Rockwell-Evans, K. E. (1991). Parental and children"s experiences and adjustment in maternal vs. joint custody families. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 1910.

      Insufficient sample size. A study compared 21 joint custody and 21 maternal custody families, with children between the ages of 4 and 15.

    Wallerstein, Judith, Unexpected Legacy (A Twenty-Five Year Landmark Study, Hyperion 2000, p 181-2.

      "The children... whose lives were governed by court orders or mediated parental arrangements all told me that they felt like second-class citizens who had lost the freedoms their peers took for granted. They say that as they grew older and craved independence, they had even less say, less control over their schedules and less power to determine when and where they could spend their time -- especially precious vacation time."

    Articles * Home Page * Links















    . . . . . .