36. Saracho & Spodek 2008. Fathers, the ‘invisible’ parents

Fathers: the ‘invisible’ parents;
Saracho & Spodek (2008)
University of Maryland, USA; University of Illinois, USA

CLICK HERE FOR RESEARCH: This study shows how academics ignore direct involvement with fathers in both traditional and contemporary research:



"...studies have used mothers as the primary source of information about fathers.........”

The authors suggest that children benefit from the natural roles played by a father, such as:

● Communication (listening, talking, showing love);
● Teaching (role modeling, encouraging activities and interests);
● Monitoring (friends, homework);
● Cognitive processes (worrying, planning, praying);
● Errands; Caregiving (feeding, bathing);
● Shared interests (reading together);
● Availability;
● Planning (activities, birthdays);
● Shared activities (shopping, playing together);
● Providing (food, clothing);
● Affection; Protection; and
● Supporting emotionality (encouraging the child).

Saracho and Spodek leave a concluding message for researchers which could be better heeded in the UK:

“Researchers need to evaluate their biases to avoid erroneous perceptions and misleading conceptions. They need to be sensitive and protect their studies from such assumptions and errors. They need to consider methodological and conceptual challenges to obtain an interpretive perspective and a better understanding of fathers’ perceptions of other family members and the contributions and the general expectations that make up good fathering.”

35. Prof. Lamb 2012. McIntosh misleads on attachment

CLICK HERE FOR RESEARCH: Professor Michael Lamb is the Fellow and Director of Studies at Sidney SussexCollege and the Editor of the Journal of Psychology, Public Policy and Law. He is one the world's leading authorities on attachment theory for infants and child development, especially in terms of the benefits for children in developing close bonds to both of their parents. 

Whilst much of John Bowlby's work on attachment has been verified and is applicable today, his views on monotropism, where he believed a child mainly attaches only to one primary caregiver, has been rejected by the scientific community. 

Dr Jennifer McIntosh has become a renowned detractor of shared parenting and appears to have abused an opportunity afforded to her within a Special Review of the Family Court Review. 

Professor Lamb rebukes McIntosh's performance in the editorial:

"The Family Court Review Special Issue, edited by McIntosh, provided a misleadingly narrow view of attachment theory and of previous attempts to explore the implications of that theory and related research for family court professionals. She thus represented Bowlby’s notion of monotropy as though it was an established and accepted fact; neither the research (which shows the idea to be incorrect) nor Bowlby’s own later disavowal of the idea were addressed, although the implications are profound. More generally, the extensive relevant scholarship was ignored and unrepresented, leaving the unchallenged focus on the editor’s own research and on opinions that accord with her own."

The Professor reveals and criticises how Dr Jennifer McIntosh abused her opportunity to edit the special edition of Family Court Review in July 2011. He writes: ".....the FCR special issue under review was dominated by a large number of interviews conducted by the issue editor with people sharing her convictions about attachment research and its implications for parenting plans. Strikingly, none of the interviewees reported new findings or commented thoughtfully on some of the controversial claims and counterclaims that have impeded progress in making attachment theory relevant to the everyday dilemmas being addressed by family courts around the world.

"As a result, the special issue was truly extraordinary, with only two conventional scholarly articles published alongside the transcripts of a series of interviews steered by a special issue editor who saw no need to include dissenting views. This risked misleading professionals who are accustomed to balanced arguments in Family Court Review and might thus mistakenly conclude that there were no alternative extant views of the attachment literature.

"the special issue provided a platform for one viewpoint rather than providing a forum within which a number of scholars could present and discuss research and theory thoroughly and thoughtfully.....In fact, where possibly discrepant views emerged in the interviews, the issues were dropped rather than engaged.

"As a result, readers could well conclude (by virtue of having been misled by Dr McIntosh)* that monotropy was a well-established fact.

"When Bowlby first referred speculatively to monotropy in the middle of the last century, of course, there was no relevant empirical research. However, over the ensuing decades, researchers have actually studied the formation of attachments to both mothers and fathers. All of the relevant research, as reviewed most recently by Lamb and Lewis (in press), suggests that infants in fact form attachments to fathers and mothers at the same time, rather than sequentially.

"For an archival scholarly journal, this was a glaring omission, particularly damaging to the journal’s reputation as a forum for balanced, scholarly presentations."

Professor Lamb's Advice for family law professionals: 

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

• Most children in two-parent families form attachments to both of their parents at the same stage in their development.
• Relationships with both their mother and father profoundly affect children’s adjustment, whether or not they live together.
• Professionals need to be careful when generalising from research which may have involved families in circumstances quite unlike those experienced by the individuals they are trying to assist.

*added by blog owner

34. Beard 2011. The importance of fathers to children

CLICK HERE FOR RESEARCH: The importance of fathers in the lives of their children (2011)

Christopher Beard Bio:

Chris has been working in the field of parental involvement and responsible fatherhood for over 15 years. He is a recognized parent educator who has trained thousands of parents and professionals on why parental involvement, both mom and dad, is vitally important to the healthy development of children of all ages. As a former Program Manager and Director with the Urban League and National Fatherhood Initiative, Chris oversaw various state and federal projects designed to help organizations improve their parental involvement and promote family-friendly policies. He has traveled to over 35 states to work directly with local nonprofits and state agencies to help improve each organization’s capacity to promote effective parental involvement. A seasoned technical writer, Chris also co-authored NFI’s successful fatherhood reentry curriculum called “Inside Out Dad,” which is currently being used in over 300 juvenile and adult correctional facilities across the country in all 50 states.

Beard outlines the benefits of positively engaged fathers to their children: 

"Time, research, and empirical data from grassroots programs have brought clarity to the debate about the importance of fathers in the lives of children. The consensus is that when fathers are positively involved with their children and attentive to their physical and emotional needs, children’s well being increases. Studies now show that children with involved fathers display: better cognitive outcomes, even as infants; higher self-esteem and less depression as teenagers; higher grades, test scores, and overall academic achievement; lower levels of drug and alcohol use, and higher levels of empathy and other pro-social behavior (Horn & Sylvester, 2005). family situations where the dad is simply not in the picture. "

He accepts that, despite the above, fathers are pushed out of their children's lives:

"Public policy discussions have especially been one-sided, choosing to focus attention on codifying paternity and child support issues in state and federal law, largely ignoring the benefits of promoting fathers as caregivers. Consequently, the challenge for those children is to shift the focus of the conversation, not away from the mother’s equally important parenting role, or even away from the father’s financial responsibility to his children, but more toward how shared, involved, committed, and responsible parenting by the father can increase the happiness and wellbeing of the child, and imparts with this advice:

"The challenge moving forward is to continue to support the strengthening of America’s families and build the capacity of those in state organizations committed to empowering fathers to and become full partners in their children’s lives."

32. Fabricius et al, 2011 Parenting time, conflict and effects on children's health

CLICK HERE FOR RESEARCH: William V. Fabricius, Priscila Diaz, Sanford L. Braver, of Arizona State University, produce this latest study dispelling some of the commonly held misconceptions about contact to fathers post divorce:

Paper no 31 destroys some commonly held court myths, i.e: 

Is the quantity or the quality of parenting time more important for children’s outcomes?, 

“Should parenting time be limited in high-conflict families?” 

Responses from the Experts:

“We argue in the present chapter that these long-standing conclusions should be re-examined in the light of new evidence. We present new data on the correlation between quantity of parenting time and quality of parent-child relationships in families with and without severe parent conflict, and we discuss new findings in the health literature on family relationships and children’s long-term, stress-related physical health. We conclude that these new findings indicate that the lingering situation of minimal parenting time with fathers for great numbers of children is a serious public health issue.” 

“Is quantity of time or quality of time more important for child outcomes?” or “Is parenting time or the parent-child relationship more important?” are straw man comparisons that need to be retired from the debate. 

“…….evidence suggests that father-child relationships can be strengthened through increased parenting time in high conflict families as well as in low conflict families and that strengthened parent-child relationships can shield children from some of the effects of parent conflict transitions…”

On the effect of parenting time on the quality of parent – child relationships, the experts say:

“Our model indicates that the quantity of parenting time should impact the quantity of father-child interaction, which in turn should impact the quality (i.e., security) of father-child relationship; parenting time should not impact the quality of father-child interaction (i.e., the fathers’ responsiveness). The vertical line divides the PT scale at 13 – 15 days per “month” (i.e., 28 days). This represents 50% PT with each parent. The father-child relationship improved with each increment of PT from 0% time with father to 50% (r = .51, N = 871, p < .001). From 50% to 100% PT with father the father-child relationship did not show statistically significant change (r = .15, N = 152); At 50% PT it appears that each relationship achieves its highest level of emotional security."

(Which, roughly translated, means the father - child relationship peaks at 50%. The same goes for the mother’s relationship with the child. In other words, any parent who hogs the children for more than 50% is not doing it for any benefit to their own child relationship. Substantially less contact than 50% contact (sadly, the norm awarded in family courts) disaffects the parent child relationship, with the following results:

• serious long-term health risks to children 
• poor levels of emotional security 
• chronic activation of the stress response system, which can damage organs and systems 
• accumulating risk for mental health disorders, major chronic diseases, and early mortality” (Psychological Bulletin) 
• (causing) children (to be) doubly vulnerable to long-term damage to their physical health. 

A straightforward warning from the Experts:

“When we consider that almost 40% of the college students from divorced families that we recently surveyed had had minimal parenting time with their fathers, and ……. see the destroyed relationships those who had minimal parenting time now have as young adults with their fathers, and when we link that with the lifetime health outcomes of young adults who had reported similarly distant relationships with their parents, we should be alarmed at the extent of the personal suffering -- and at the scope of the public health problem – that they represent."

27. Mike White, 2010; Disadvantaged young fathers-to-be

CLICK HERE FOR RESEARCH:   Mike White runs a course for young fathers-to-be and is a director of a community-based organisation working with young parents in Wiltshire, UK

He writes about the successes of his course and similar initiatives to involve young fathers with the pregnancies and rearing of their children.

His advices should bear some consideration at a time when social, legal and UK Government practices do not encourage or require non resident fathers to engage with their children in any way but to contribute financially.

Quotes from Mike White’s paper:

“Attachment theories, in focusing on the mother, tend to underemphasize the role of the father in caregiving.”

“studies have shown that children with active fathers do show greater general sociability and ease with strangers (Frascarolo, 2004), improved cognitive functioning (Nugent, 1991) and fewer behavioural problems (Aldous et al., 1998).”

Mike White’s conclusion:

"Perhaps it is too much to hope that a national pilot project for young dads-to be is funded and properly evaluated to determine its value for young parents, their children and our society as a whole. Such a project would need to run for several years, but those of us who are parents know that parenthood lasts for the rest of our lives. Perhaps, as a nation, we should be developing a longer-term view of the needs of a particularly disadvantaged group of young people and the ways in which we might meet them. It may not be too fanciful to suggest that this intervention might be one way of impacting on the cycle of disadvantage.

"In many cases these young people are the children of parents who have been part of that cycle. By supporting them over a significant period of time, the possibility exists of improving their own life chances, and might also enable their children to break out of that cycle. However, we would need to take a generational view of such an intervention. Of course, the chances of that happening when politicians cannot usually see beyond the next election might present a particular challenge, but perhaps this is the time to encourage them to adopt such a view."