1. Co-parenting over time The impact of legislative changes on the incidence and predictors of joint custody Divorce Conference - Valencia Saturday 16th of October 2010 An Katrien Sodermans Koen Matthijs Research Group Family & Population. CeS0. K.U.Leuven

2. Evolutions in the area of child custody Changed evaluation of parental role –From mother as primary caregiver towards equality of parents –“The parental couple survives the conjugal couple” (Villeneuve-Gokalp, 2009) Changes in Belgian custody legislation (as in many Western countries) –1995: Joint legal custody –2006: Joint physical custody (as preferred residential model) Joint custody: assumed beneficial effects on child well-being (Meta- analysis of Bausermann, 2002): –Maintaining parent-child relationship –More parental involvement –Better financial resources  Consequence: Increased number of children in bi-location, commuting between the household of mother and father after divorce = shared residence

3. Consequences of joint physical custody Be careful with a selection bias! Selection of higher social class-families into shared residence Predictors of shared residence: –Higher income, higher educated parents –Lower parental conflict –Less children, more often boys Studies about the effects of shared residence for the well-being of children are mostly based on the situation where the residence type was a “free choice” In Belgium: “shared residence” became the standard. RESEARCH QUESTION: Did predictors of shared residence change due to legislative changes in 1995 and 2006?

4. Data and sample “Divorce in Flanders” dataset (19/07/10) 1819 divorced individuals with at least one child at the time of the divorce Independent observations Random selection of one partner from each dissolved marriage 801 fathers (44%) and 1018 mothers (56%) Separated (started living separately) between 1973 and 2009 Selected child: –Between 0 and 40 years old at time of separation (mean age: 9,4) –954 boys (52%) and 865 girls (48%)

5. Dependent variable: Residence type  Residence type at time of separation (unless temporary arrangement of one year or less) Classification typeN% Shared residence (min. 1/3 of time with mother and father)30718 Mother residence (min 2/3 of time with the mother)110164 Father residence (min 2/3 of time with the father)17210 Flexible residence (No set arrangement, child decides)1308

6. Independent variables Divorce cohort: based on year of starting living separately Educational level Divorce cohortN% 1970-199552529 1996-2005101156 2006-200927115 FatherMother N%N% Low (lower secondary school)5172948027 Medium (higher secondary school)7724372740 High (higher education)5042859533

7. Independent variables Parental conflict How much conflict was there between you both after the decision to definitely break up? Give a number from 0 (no conflict) to 10 (a lot of conflict). ConflictN% Low (score 0-2)58732 Medium (score 3-7)56031 High (score 8-10)66437

8. Results: Incidence of joint physical custody 1970-19951996-20052006-2009 Shared residence92029 Mother residence776250 Father residence81013 Flexible residence688 N496951253 Chi² = 68,19; p<0,0001 Distribution (column %) of residence type per divorce cohort  Flexible residence omitted from further analyses

9. Results: Factors associated with shared residence 1. Education of father 1970-19951996-20052006-2010 SharedMotherFatherSharedMotherFatherSharedMotherFather Low 74026182736142630 Med 374145384638494339 High 5719294427 383130 N 4637238186577987412633 Chi² 38,639 (p < 0,0001)24,834 (p < 0,0001)5,570 (p=0,23) Distribution (column %) of father’s educational level per residence type and divorce cohort

10. Results: Factors associated with shared residence 2. Education of mother 1970-19951996-20052006-2010 SharedMotherFatherSharedMotherFatherSharedMotherFather Low 243443162340101321 Med 374032434138494546 High 392724413623414233 N 4637737186583967312633 Chi² 5,309 (p=0,26)21,099 (p=0,0003)3,062 (p=0,55) Distribution (column %) of mother’s educational level per residence type and divorce cohort

11. Results: Factors associated with shared residence 3. Sex of the child 1970-19951996-20052006-2010 SharedMotherFatherSharedMotherFatherSharedMotherFather Boys 575553565159515239 Girls 434547444941494861 N 4638338186587987412633 Chi² 0,130 (p=0,94)2,830 (p=0,24)1,820 (p=0,40) Distribution (column %) of sex per residence type and divorce cohort

12. Results: Factors associated with shared residence 4. Age of the child (at time of separation) SharedMotherFatherN ’70-’95 6,05,27,3442 ’96-’05 7,18,114,2852 ’06-’10 8,412,014,6228 Median age of children per residence type and divorce cohort

13. Results: Factors associated with shared residence 5. Family size 1970-19951996-20052006-2010 SharedMotherFatherSharedMotherFatherSharedMotherFather 1 child 4844343231293524 2 children 4441475348 505355 3+ children 915181523 152321 N 4638138186585987412633 Chi² 2,758 (p=0,60)4,60 (p=0,33)4,004 (p=0,41) Distribution (%) of number of children per residence type and divorce cohort

14. Results: Factors associated with shared residence 6. Conflict between ex-partners 1970-19951996-20052006-2010 SharedMotherFatherSharedMotherFatherSharedMotherFather Low 48284234273332 36 Medium 283024333234304136 High 244234334034382730 N 4638238186587987312533 Chi² 10,720 (p=0,03)5,030 (p=0,28)3,300 (p=0,51) Distribution (%) of conflict level per residence type and divorce cohort

15. Results: Change in predictors of shared residence Logistic regression models for shared residence per divorce cohort (ref = mother residence) ‘70-’95 ‘96-’05’06-’10 Coeff.Odd ratio Coeff.Odd ratio Coeff.Odd ratio intercept-4.61***--1,90***--0.70- Education father (ref=low)Mid High 2.04** 3.32*** 7.67 27.53 0.21 0.97*** 1.23 2.65 0.59 0.92° 1.81 2.52 Sex of child (ref=girl)Boy 0.31 1.36 0.221.24 0.331.40 Age of child at separation 0.04 1.05-0.04*0.96-0.14***0.87 Family size (ref=1 child)2 3+ -0.43 -1.07° 0.65 0.35 0.09 -0.45 1.10 0.64 -0.26 -0.49 0.77 0.61 Parental conflict (ref=high)Low Mid 1.14** 0.64 3.12 1.90 0.44* 0.17 1.55 1.19 -0.08 -0.57 0.92 0.57 N joint custody /mother residence Chi² (df) R² (adjusted) 43 / 350 48.4 (8) 0.12(0.23) 180 / 565 38.39 0.05 (0.08) 72 / 122 30.65 0.15 (0.20) *** p<0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; ° p < 0.10

16. Summary of results Education of father Before 1995: higher incidence of joint custody with high and middle educated fathers After legislative changes in 1995 and 2006: effect of education decreased  Legislative changes have led to cumulative diffusion process of joint physical custody from high to low SES Age of the child at separation Effect of age increased over time Before 1995 no effect, after 1995, joint custody more often with younger children  Evidence that custody decisions are now more in the interest of the child? (Maintaining good parent-child relationship especially important with younger children)  Or measurement issue? Sex of the child Before 2006 higher incidence of joint custody with boys (bivariate results) After 2006: no association with sex of child  Joint custody used to be popular for higher educated fathers with sons!

17. Summary of results Family size Before 1995: lower incidence of joint custody in large families Since 1995: effect of family size decreased  Confirmation for normalisation process: joint custody became the new standard, whatever the composition of the family Parental conflict Before 1995: joint custody especially in low-conflict divorces Since 1995  decreased association between conflict and joint custody Since 2006: the opposite trend becomes visible: more joint custody in middle and high conflicted families (bivariate results).  Link with diffusion of joint custody to lower ses-families?  Joint custody as “victory” in court? “Having the children” as a goal?  Joint custody to avoid alimony payment?

18. Discussion -What will be the consequences of the diffusion process regarding joint custody from high to low ses (and from low to high conflict couples), given the fact that joint custody -is an expensive arrangement (housing, transport, double equipment) -requires higher parental communication/cooperation skills -Are the positive effects of joint custody for children, reported in many research, conditional upon the socio-demographic profile of the parents (higher SES, lower conflict)? -Is it desireable that joint custody is ‘promoted’ by the law as standard model?