Custody After Divorce

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

"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 elipses in the above quote are not merely removing redundant or explanatory material. They remove the researchers' "buts". In fact the above 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."
In addition, 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.
"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.

-- 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.

You can read more at the Liz Library.

Related Posts :

Sphere: Related Content

1 advocates for peace:

LetsGetHonest Jan 11, 2010 3:42:00 PM  


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

Pearson & Thoennes have been profiting from family distress and publishing about it for decades. Their organization "Center for Policy Research" (6 key personnel run it) should be studied as a model of how to set up a virtual nonstop cashflow from the Federal Government by posing questions, answering them, proposing demonstrations (on unsuspecting low-income parents stuck in the family court -- or child support -- system) and then evaluating them, and in general, it appears to be a GREAT business model. . . . . These two crop up as cited in practically every realm of expertise that is needed to prevent a decent parent from maintaining an honest livelihood after divorce.

Also, along with this, look at (if I have the acronym translated right here) Policy-Studies Institute. Both (if I have it right) are headquartered walking distance from each other in Denver, Colorado. The more you read, the more shocked you will be.

Thanks also for pointing out that not all summaries are legitimate. I just finished (recently wading through a 10-pager, with about 100 cites, on a New York Courts site. They quote each other, taking turns, and when they run out of cites, start repeating (half the footnotes read "ibid.") This one dealt with mandatory parenting education programs.

I didn't realize these folks had branched out into "Orthopsychiatry." I guess once an expert, perennially an expert, in any field whatsoever, in some circles.

This will continue so long as conferences, publications, decisions, legal processes, and decisions affecting children (including the decision to abduct, abuse, traffic, or expose to violence by one parent towards another, decisions to make a farce of the words "child support enforcement" and so forth) are made by people who cannot be directly held accountable for the damages they do to others.

When the collaboration is this extensive, it takes a REAL brave (or dumb) professional to risk his or her profession, if not life, to "out" them. The "outing" is probably better done by individuals like (if I may say "us") who have already lost so much, the only way out is UP.

Have a nice day, and keep blogging!

Pray the Devil Back to Hell



  © Blogger template 'Perfection' by 2008

Back to TOP