1. Commuting between parental households The moderating effect of family complexity on the association between custody arrangement and psychological child well-being
Sofie Vanassche. An Katrien Sodermans & Koen Matthijs
Research Group Family & Population. CeS0. K.U.Leuven

2. Introduction
1995 & 2006: changes in the Belgian family law favouring co-parenting and joint custody
Consequence: increasing amount of children living partially in the household of the mother and the father
Manifest function: frequent contact with both parents
Latent (dys?)function: more complex family configurations
Continuity - stability debate
Research question: Is the relationship between custody arrangement and psychological well-being depending on the complexity of the family situation?
Presence of stepmother/father
Presence of step/half siblings

3. Conceptual model Parent-child relationship + + Joint custody Child
wellbeing ?
Complexity
family situation + -

4. Data: LAGO Adolescents (age 12-18) Questioned within schools:
3 Flemish provinces
Different educational systems
Distribution different educational tracks in line with Flemish population
Paper-pencil-questionnaire
Yearly repeated to expand sample
Currently 2 rounds completed. 3rd round started
Contains detailed information on family composition, family relationships, material and immaterial wellbeing, attitudes, personality, …
In case of divorced/separated parents: detailed information on both parental households

5. Research sample
25% of total sample experienced parental divorce or separation
=> Research sample of 856 adolescents for whom we have information on their custody arrangement following parental divorce/separation
Custody arrangement (based on residential calendar):
Always with mother (100%): 309 (36%)
Mostly with mother (67-99%): 270 (32%)
Joint custody (33-66%): 191(22%)
Mostly with father (67-99%): 38 (4%)
Always with father (100%): 48 (6%)
51% of mothers lives together with new partner
58% of fathers lives together with new partner

6. Independent variable: complexity and joint custody
IV 1: Complexity of family configuration:
Measured as number of step/half relationships
Range 0-4
Cumulative score according to presence of:
Stepmother living in the household of the father
Stepfather living in the household of the mother
At least 1 stepsibling living in the household of mother or father
At least 1 halfsibling living in the household of mother or father
IV 2: Joint custody:
dichotomous variable
0 = fulltime residential parent (mother or father)
1 = commuting between two parental households

7. Independent variable 1. Single mother 2. Single father
IV 3: Extended family situation
% (N) A
1. Single mother
20% (187)
2. Single father
4% (33) B
3. Mother & stepfather
18% (167)
4. Father & stepmother
3% (38) C
5. Single mother   single father
11% (105) D
6. Mother& stepfather   single father
12% (107)
7. Single mother  father & stepmother
14% (128) E
8. Mother & stepfather  father & stepmother
18% (164)
complexity
commuting

8. Dependent Variables Feelings of depression Life satisfaction
CES-D 8: 8 items (Jowell et all. 2007)
Range 0-24
Distribution:
50% scores between 0 and 6
40 % scores between 7 and 13
10% scores more than 13
Life satisfaction
“How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your life in general”?
Range 1-10
31% between 9 and 10
49% between 7 and 8
13% between 5 and 6
7% lower than 5

9. Intermediate variable: parent-child relationship
Network of Relationship Inventory (Furman & Buhrmester. 1985)
Range 0-36
If missing: imputation (controlled in model)
Different according to custody arrangement:
MOTHER FATHER
Always with mother (100%):
Most of time with mother:
Joint custody (33-66%):
Most of time with father:
Always with father (100%)

10. Control variables Time past since divorce in years Age (mean=15,4)
Ranging between 0 & 18 years (mean = 7,7 years)
If missing: imputation (controlled in model)
Age (mean=15,4)
Sex of child (ref=boys): 42% boys – 58% girls
Education level highest educated parent:
Low: 322 (38%)
High: 450 (53%)
Missing (controlled in model): 84 (9%)
Frequency of financial problems:
Never or rarely: 516 (60%)
Often or always: 309 (36%)
Missing (controlled in model): 31 (4%)

11. Results depression (1)
DEPRESSION (0-36)
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Intercept
7.64 (0.31)***
11.97 (0.57)***
9.10 (1.56)***
Complexity (Number of step/half relationships)
0.22 (0.15)
0.13 (0.14)
0.22 (0.14)
Joint custody
0.06 (0.33)
1.03 (0.34)**
1.19 (0.35)***
Relationship with mother
-0.12 (0.02)***
Relationship with father
-0.14 (0.02)***
-0.13 (0.02)***
Age
0.08 (0.09)
Sex (ref=boy)
1.08 (0.31)***
Low educational level parents (ref = high)
0.20 (0.32)
Frequent financial problems (ref = never/rarely)
1.70 (0.32)***
Time past since divorce
-0.02 (0.04) N
844
841 R²
0.003
0.11
0.16
Interaction between number of step/half relationships and joint custody not significant

12. Results life satisfaction (1)
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Intercept
7.23 (0.14)***
4.75 (0.24)***
5.75 (0.66)***
Complexity (Number of step/half relationships)
-0.12 (0.06)°
-0.06 (0.06)
-0.12 (0.06)*
Joint custody
0.06 (0.14)
-0.34 (0.14)*
-0.41 (0.15)**
Relationship with mother
0.08 (0.01)***
Relationship with father
0.06 (0.01)***
Age
-0.04 (0.04)
Sex (ref=boy)
-0.35 (0.13)**
Low educational level parents (ref = high)
-0.22 (0.14)
Frequent financial problems (ref = never/rarely)
-0.64 (0.13)***
Time past since divorce
0.05 (0.02)** N
825
816 R²
0.004
0.17
0.21
Interaction between number of step/half relationships and joint custody not significant

13. Results depression (2) DEPRESSION (0-36) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Intercept
7.85 (0.35)***
12.15 (0.60)***
8.91 (1.58)***
Family situation (ref=one single parent)
One single parent and stepparent
0.18 (0.50)
-0.02 (0.48)
0.24 (0.48)
Single parent  single parent
-0.27 (0.58)
0.79 (0.58)
1.03 (0.57)°
Single parent  single parent and stepparent
0.09 (0.47)
1.01 (0.47)*
1.22 (0.47)**
Single parent and stepparent  single parent and stepparent
0.43 (0.51)
1.18 (0.50)*
1.77 (0.51)**
Relationship with mother
-0.12 (0.02)***
-0.11 (0.02)***
Relationship with father
-0.14 (0.02)***
-0.13 (0.02)***
Age
0.10 (0.09)
Sex (ref=boy)
1.11 (0.31)***
Low educational level parents (ref = high)
0.25 (0.33)
Frequent financial problems (ref = never/rarely)
1.68 (0.33)
Time past since divorce
-0.02 (0.04) N
829
826 R²
0.002
0.11
0.16

14. Results life satisfaction (2)
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Intercept
7.30 (0.15)***
4.79 (0.25)***
5.81 (0.67)***
Family situation (ref=one single parent)
One single parent & stepparent
-0.44 (0.22)*
-0.27 (0.20)
-0.45 (0.20)*
Single parent  single parent
0.01 (0.25)
-0.36 (0.24)
-0.43 (0.24)°
Single parent  single parent and stepparent
-0.25 (0.20)
-0.57 (0.19)***
-0.71 (0.20)***
Single parent and stepparent  single parent and stepparent
-0.23 (0.22)
-0.45 (0.21)*
-0.76 (0.21)***
Relationship with mother
0.08 (0.01)***
Relationship with father
0.06 (0.01)***
0.05 (0.01)***
Age
-0.04 (0.04)
Sex (ref=boy)
-0.38 (0.13)**
Low educational level parents (ref = high)
-0.19 (0.14)
Frequent financial problems (ref = never/rarely)
-0.69 (0.14)***
Time past since divorce
0.04 (0.02)* N
811
802 R²
0.006
0.17
0.22

15. Combination custody arrangement & good relationship with parents
Results controlled for number of step/half relationships, age, sex, educational level parents, financial difficulties and time past since divorce
‘No good relationship with both parents’ if NRI mother < 20 or NRI father < 16 (that is if one of the parent-child relationship variables is less then average)

16. Conclusion
Increased complexity (either by bi-location or step relationships) is negatively associated with child wellbeing
Residential relationship means a better parent-child relationship, associated with higher child wellbeing:
indirect positive effect of joint custody on child wellbeing
The increased complexity associated with shared residence leads to a negative association with child well-being after controlling for relationship with parents
direct negative effect of joint custody on child wellbeing

17. Conclusion
Positive and negative effect of joint custody balance each other out (in bivariate analysis)
Ideal scenario: good relationship with both parents without complexity of bi-location
Questions:
Need for more child-oriented joint custody arrangements (e.g. bird nest residence, kangaroo residence, …)?
Evidence in favor of sole custody, combined with maintaining good relationship with both parents?