Q"; WWI“ 'HdPI‘ I’M :31“? III! 1' ”4141}. J“: "‘.!;'II" I. A N! yo. )*,;I.I l' H'- '"k/ k ‘ "V: I'I:’ I .’ I I ii» {(II' I» .¢.,,.,1 ~. -!lit‘,,.|vfll ’1'”, , :M' I. ‘I "id’sflrf': I fix“ II“? ... 5"""""Iy.‘. 'I ",_ . ; I I. 'I' I. A: A ’1'}; Inna?» I"! "“’ . ,. . ‘I '9'- :12.» ,:-..-.-:A.“. .’.\ \Itl u“. 4"” I“ I’iQIH .I Iawg"; M {If \‘I ISM , n II} 1':'.'-,‘...I '.M1|.':‘II‘I;?(_:\ WW3: I Ri’ I. ,‘II._: 23:. .:. ( v 'I I I v I ' I éz' 51" hr." I ‘H‘I'Il' " I " '1. .In'.":{: H)’ “LN," 'r"!""""l')'1 I'm :3'&:' 1“”: -..:‘&: ‘1'"515 4 . Iv. II ~ I.«I~.;;-Iff~' .. w ~ u , . ‘ I" \IVII'l” l' :"|' ,. II'. ”I '|' {1" , v '0‘] .'. ' 3" " 3 u- '.I'_ 'j'fiuk "m?” ('1, ' '::' Q". \mfi""'7\\{3' '1'; I. "Hf-fl ,I "|""".""I " — $3 .I" I ‘ "nil ' } "‘ y l I. ,‘I . . .. . JIM . h. ‘ II ‘9' if} ' .f', " "W" NW4}? Mk? 3. 2%., "I _-_I fig I .:" .LI. r ,1: 3px H w, r Iffflfl #fé‘.‘ . ' “2‘33". 1% 6.- 2’14];pr . ,_ \ In. o u. . ~ {I £21.52}! ‘ ‘ I} I “0.“. . I'm:%;~a:::uag\. ‘. .1 x, . . . a v. .. 5 . .- H “.9 » .. . I“ "" n: " “Ts-4.5:. . ' 3 ‘ inn-‘lf'Kf- ‘v . ..I I ' ':. l , . -. - A 'l I; , “.1" I.) :1 I38, ‘2; I' S It .LL. ' E I- mafia I“ :<.1:'~'1L".;-:;’-1 “‘4‘ 7‘ :. '7 M. 35.3: 1 . S" .- ._;__.I ~"'.V“-_ '. -.. ‘:‘. ‘ ' .. ‘ ‘- .. A . ' . - - , A ‘ ‘<- {-1. , .. _ . ' ... A H ‘ K V 5...? . ‘ . r R ’ I oz- :91}. < I. Ivllit 1;}.‘5—7‘ - ' " . " fififwl; « '\ LI"-fl¢" I}: 'I' ' 'I‘ .1 ' " (JAV'J' ' 4135., .t I .g.|rqp DOMQEmm co coaom~nacm ~mu0u one Eco; mucoeoocmccm xocSmnu u a: meemeaomu u a mood m.~ n.m m.me ~.~ m.m m.w~ a.~ n a mom ma we “do ca Nn mm~ cm n z Hmyop uaaam ~anmuma Amanoumz uqamm Mascoamm accumumz acch n coqmmommoa \3 \3 \3 \z \3 \3 \3 naaam amcamsma assumes: ocean Canon Canon ocean . u aoosmae temp2u2muzoo~m3u auoz<3< 139 aces aa.ss ems as.~a a~.- an.ss as.Na as.ms as.~s «all *ana ass ass was *mSS was can own eases as.e as *Na e m ma is e as as sconce; allow al.52 aoN .mm MN am am raw RN an as ummmCEmeo an.ea was sea was Asa son has has sea 2N2 casuaaco coals \3 moao>so mom .NNH mNs mNH Nee *mOH no was as cocoaaco socae o\: mucoseo sweep some Name seas some Home same name some on: can >oz com Asa xm: not com uzummzumuc_ cu occmccu Scoop mama Hwnz "a enz mmnm mmuz sang mauz >u~soflmmao .ammmncoz .ucmicoz cameos; moauomucou o>wwmmm Hmuocmo peacu F — ceaumoaOaucmccoz no; commmm mmua mcuz Anna aaauz ocwmcou acomcoccoz _ _ mnnx mmanz Nmna mcnz mm> oz same mecca same «coca w, _ .11 manm ncnz Nona ooan ucomcou ecomcoocoz — -. _ one amnz mans nsNuz menu sauz Amsmsm co Laos amass: masmsmoos scam soz cessmaamoa so: _ ossawmoa l; aqua mamuz anus oamuz mun mNuz insane co woes masmoaaaa< A.ms2m co..ozv magmoasaae soz _ masmoaaaacoo:_ co ecomzcu ~3e3— Nana mduz Nana ouz “ha .uz N_na qnz _ ”a :_uz >oazcflcmao .cmcxucoz cacoeacu .a:_::oz occzoc_ asauomucou o>ammma >2 accocmc caazu Pl. _ coamsmoxu _ lb codemmaOaucmocoz ace comma: o "a cauz chug NMuz ocomcou ocomcoocoz PI»: J IL mama wouz mfinm an: mo> oz fifiwu ococm Menu boots . _ wmua NNuz Nuna «mnz ocmwcou ocomcoocoz - L _ mum cuz omna onnz ”a muz Amemum mo enov poaamz oaomumooD acom uoz coflumfismom uoz _ manammoa ll— 4 onus oenz anus mmuz "a «“2 insane .0 moo=pm=u a 2.5 3 years > 3 years TIME SINCE DIVORCE “' Maternal Boy (M8) “‘ "" Joint Legal Boy (JtB) -..-.. Maternal Girl (MC) - —— —- Joint Legal GlI‘l (JCS) FIGURE 1. Diagram of Significant 3-way Interaction on Child Variable with Time Since Divorce, Sex and Custody 84 pattern was observed for physical perceived self-competence (p 5 .06). By mothers’ report, joint legal custody children tend to feel that they were the cause of their parents’ divorce (p 5 .07) and to have more sad feelings (p 5 .06) in the groups of two-to-three and greater-than-three-years since divorce, while children in sole maternal custody tended toward the opposite direction. To explicate these results, diagrams for these interactions can be found in Figure 2 on the following page. Three significant 2-way interactions for sex and custody were observed. In groups greater-than-three years since divorce, boys had lpgg sense of control over their lives (p 5 .05) and felt more reliant on external sources for their well-being (or misfortune) (p 5 .05) than girls in similar time since divorce groups (p 5 .05). (See Figure 3.) An important observation in this study was that only one main effect was significant when examining time since divorce with other independent variables such as sex and custody, for the sole maternal and joint legal custody comparisons. Negative perceptions of mother were higher for joint legal custody children (p < .004). However, it is striking that child variables which had been statistically significant in previous analyses were now observed as trends. Table 16 which is located in Appendix F describes all the significant analyses of variance for time since divorce. These results underscore the findings of previous studies, that time since divorce is an important factor in 8E5 shamans) sauce cos; aeosmso new mocosso oocsm sees as accesomamsca >33-N a: ms_:aaz .N u:::_. uuxo>~0 uuz~m “EHF meow) A m memox m_w.m A memos N 1 a P « 4 // Am.A~v 2 so. H gene NHN.mq m mozfiammm Q~o muzam wimp memo» n A memo» new N A memo» N n a P h W / s. c 2.3: d J no. u nose AoA.A n.m Cozuauazou sza Ae.mv d co.m~ cc.c~ oo.n~ 00.x— oo.o~ oo.o~ oo.- oo.~ mN.N om.m mm.N oo.m mN.n om.m e_o uu2_m uz__ memo» n A osoox m.w N A memo» m n _ fl F 1— 4 Am.mwwaa 1:: .1: 25.32e Aa.e_v z so.o u sacs AAA.A u u mozo>_o do >__s~o muzmm uZHP memo» m A memox m_W N A menu» N a_~ - p a . « AS.NV \ .0 a. $3 see. u coed mmd.e u m uuzupudzou a 2.5 3 years > 3 years TIME SINCE DIVORCE EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL £_: 3.197 Prob. : .05 9 P (8 2) (8.5) B 0 P \ \ 7 - G )2 —-‘“’ 6 '— ( o )‘ (606) S L— a _ i = 1 l - 2 years > 2 i 3 years > 3 years TIME SINCE DIVORCE FIGURE 3. Results of Z-Hay Interactions of Time Since Ditorce and Sex with Child Variables 87 the outcome of the post-divorce adjustment process. From a methodological perspective, the longer the time since divorce, the more variability can be expected in life events of children of divorce. Taking into account the history and maturation of the child is usually difficult but particularly salient to this population who may experience many major life changes over a short time span. It argues for the necessity of longitudinal studies (Campbell and Stanley, 1963). C. Comparisons of Remarriage in Joint Lpggl Custody and Sole Maternal Custody As time passes post-divorce, a significant event which alters the structure of the divorcing family is the remarriage of either parent. Hetherington, Cox and Cox (1985) have observed that remarriage has significant and differential effects on boys and girls post~divorce. In a national longitudinal study, Furstenberg, et al., (1983) have noted that the remarriage of either parent, especially mother, and the time since divorce significantly reduced the amount of father visitation and the regularity of his financial support. Given these findings, it was wondered if remarriage might have a differential impact on children. Did a remarried or single parent family household influence the type of adjustment patterns for a boy or girl in sole maternal custody in a different way than in joint legal custody? 88 Mediating Variable: Remarrigge of Mother From the results of the analyses of variance of mother’s remarriage with sex and custody arrangement, significant three-way interactions were found for insecure feelings (p 5 .009) internal locus of control (p 5 .02), activity style of coping (p 5 .02), feelings of abandonment (p 5 .05), and depressive symptoms (p 5 .08). These results are shown in Table 17 which can be found in Appendix F. Utilizing the test of sample effects (Winer, 1971) and least significant differences (Huitema, 1980) procedure, only three variables revealed interactions with significant comparisons. Single mothers of sole maternal boys believed that children were more insecure as a result of the divorce than single mothers of sole maternal girls or joint legal children. In contrast, married mothers of sole maternal boys perceived their sons as less insecure than other children (p 5 .009). Children’s feelings reflect a similar interaction for depressive symptoms. Sole maternal ppyg with single mothers have expressed more depressed feelings than sole maternal girls or joint legal children in the single parent households (p 5 .08). But, sole maternal g555§ with remarried mothers said they were more distressed and depressed than other children. Diagrams in Figure 4 explicate the meaning of these interactions. An additional observation may support the notion that sole maternal custody boys are benefited, but girls are more disturbed by mother’s remarriage. In a significant 3-way interaction, 89 MOTHERS PERCEPTIONS 0F INSECURITY _r_ = 7.369 Prob = .009 MB 18 a 16 : (if?) 10 q (1 ””746 15"“ JtG 4‘5) / ..——- --"' (11.6) (13.1) .12 '4 If 10 4 3” s a Single Remarried Mother Mother ACTIVITY STYLE OF COPING §_: 4.98 Prob : .03 302 '1 3.0 ‘ 2.8 ‘1 2.6 l \\\ 2.4 4 \\.(204) \‘ \ 2.2 " ‘\ Jt G 1 1 Single Remarried Mother Mother DEPRESSION fl : 3.157 Prob. : .08 .50 a ('50) ((26)// .40 4 (.29) 030 ‘1 t..- x/ (.2 L‘ MB .20 / . 'x. \- K .10 1 i, l r T Single Remarried Mother Mother Maternal Boy (MB) Joint Legal Boy (JtB) --------- Maternal Girls (08) ._ ‘_ Joint Legal Girls thG) FIGURE 4. Diagrams of 3-Hay Interactions of Remarriage of Mother, Sex and Custody with Child Variables 90 sole maternal girls showed a propensity to say they had active coping styles for feelings about the divorce in comparison to other children, especially joint legal custody girls, in groups where mother was remarried. This may be interpreted as a defensive strategy of activity to avoid anxiety or painful feelings. Tentative hypotheses for these results are that sole maternal custody boys in single households may be less anxious with a stepfather living in the house while sole maternal custody girls may perceive their mothers as being less attentive and available to them because of the new stepfather, thereby becoming more anxious and depressed. Another interesting comparison is evident from the results of significant two-way interactions which considered the sex of the child and the ‘partnered’ status of mother. The diagrams in Figures 5 (a & b) and 6 on the following pages display these interactions. Remarried mothers’ beliefs on how children were responding to divorce was statistically different for boys and girls than those of single mothers. Remarried mothers saw children as significantly more angry (p 5 .003), more dependent (p 5 .002), more insecure (p 5 .002), more likely to have loyalty conflicts (p 5 .002), and to feel they were the cause of the divorce (p 5 .04). From a child-reported measure, the girls of remarried mothers remarked more frequently that they had greater feelings of sadness (2 g .004), and had a tendency toward lower general self-esteem. In contrast, £31 Nooumou ocm xom .eozooz co possesses: co ocoaeoocos:_ >331N co assassin .cn .:::_. deco >0m 1111111111111 umcuoz Congo: Cosmo: cozacz poacumemm oqocam oo_csoeuz o~::_m 4 m 4 + we 1 N oN a Am.c_v 1 o NN I 1 ~— SN 1 m. I l A. 6N . AA.M_V a mN . N adv 1 m— c soc. u oooo oos.ms u.m Ago. u oooo mon.m u.“ mozHemuu >ha<>oa do mzo_~muuzma mzuzpo: moz_euuu u::uumz— do mzo_pamuzum m:a:_9; Cuzco: cacao: coceoz cacao: ooaccmeom peasam possessor oqmcam b P h P 4 1 a a CA: 1 0.5 mil! 1 me Am.me 1 o.m A~.muw17 .11.:17 .7. 1 As .1..|7 - o.o~ - 2N is.s~ - o as o no.2Ne 1 AN NOD. u mend ONc.o~ n u mozaemum pzmozumwa do mzompmuumud mmuzpoz moo. n oooo onm.o n m mozasueu >euz< do mzoeeouuxeo mmuzaoz xooumou poo xom .emcuoz co somsccoeoz mo acoaeomaos:_ >:31N .o reocccsc .2: cereal Congo: Cosmo: cosponsom ofimcsm L .P A 4 O 0 I1 ad m S o: S o:\v\ 1 \ OH 1\\ 1 we :6:\\ \ :5: 1 R |.\\\‘ L NN o coo. u coca doo.m n a muzaeuuu oammmmuu< do mzoaaaeumeo mmoxaoz ease ................ c9302 c2332 coqcamsox 2.3:.m b Ll _ 4, N.m~ m.m~ a A v A V 0 \ e mN1mww1-y Am ole \ I. o No. n ooao moN.o n a m~z~aano0umou ocm xom .oomaccmsox mascara co acceeoocoa:_ >o31N no manozcoac .N 9::SAA cocoa ........... eczema eczema Awesome: cocoa. gazes. openness: vomAm ccAEWoso: 3.3:.n A1 A n. 111%. A N. 1 :N. AN.3 1 A : .- III.- . AQN v II I. L AUN. Z \I‘ 1 C 13m. 1 N 1 . 3.x 1 AA 11.11p .111 Ao.Ae 1 c I 03. um 1.x. no. u boos vo.A u.m As. H oooo saw.n u a ZOAmmamooo ecz_z:o as wages e<2:a_z_ oocoou oocsoc peatMWEoz vowem a a 3.3 1 GEN \ z AA.VV .111 1 so.N 1 om.N A 11v. Ao.N 1 :Q.A 111.111 so. u oooa mAA.m u a on eo>am uzaooo e>_eo< eczema eczema eczema eczema omaocmeom vocAm ooAccoeom vocdw A A 1 A 1 o.~ :.N z Abnmv Aonwe 1 A.N m.~ IIII'lllll [Dom Dom on Ao.Nv Ao.Ae 1 A.A A.A 1 c.c z o.q mo. 0 none cmN.m n u wuzmhmmzou am>~mumum 4Im see. u scum omm.m u m uuzmpudzou au>Auumud m>~p~zuou 97 (p 5 .008), less of a sense that they had control of events in their lives (2 5 .03), and more depressed feelings (p g .07) in comparison to sole maternal custody children in groups where father is remarried. Diagrams of these interactions are shown in Figure 8. The analyses of variance results can be found in Table 18 which is located in Appendix F. From previous research (Furstenberg et al., 1983), it has been noted that father visitations and regularity of financial support have been reduced significantly by the length of time since divorce, and the remarriage of either parent. In this sample, father’s regularity of support was not significantly correlated with the length of time since divorce or the remarriage of either parent. However, while nonsignificant in a statistical sense, there are indications from the data that father visitation is lower when remarried mothers’ reports are compared to those of single mothers. (Chi square 2.622); df = 1; p g .105). In general, fathers in’this sample were frequent visitors. Forty percent had contact with their children 1-2 times per week. When these fathers, designated as the high father visitation group, were compared to all the other fathers who, by mothers’ report, saw their children bimonthly, monthly, yearly or not at all, a tendency was noted for less frequent father visitations when time since divorce was greater than three % MOTHERS PERCEPTION 0F CAUSALITY FEELINGS 21 - _ Jt. 20 (18.7) _, .. -' 19 - (18.5) ‘_. .- " _....- ,4" 18 — " " l7 — ___> 16 t (16.8) - ———-M (16.2) 15 r L L Y Y . Single Remarried Mother Mother Maternal ............... Joint FIGURE 8. Diagram of Z-Hay Interaction on Child Variable with Custody and Remarriage 99 years 2 g .06). These observations, found in Table 19, are sadly congruent with Furstenberg et al.’s findings.3 Table 19: Chi-Square Analyses of High and Low Father Visitation with Time Since Divorce < 2 years 2-3 years > 3 years High Father 8 15 2 25 Visitation 7.0% 12.3% 5.7% 43.9% Low Father 8 13 11 32 Visitation 9.0% 15.7% 7.3% 56.1% Total 16 28 13 57 28.1% 49.1% 22.8% 100% Chi Sguare g: Prob 5.59841 2 .06 3It is worth noting that differences due to custody type between the high and low father visitation groups on child adjustment scores were revealed only for the high visitation group. There were no significant differences between custody types in the low father visitation group. This was also true for low coparenting and low father involvement groups. 100 Section III: Examination of thg Mediating Parental Variables Which Most Contribute to High Child Adjustment As a result of the multiple regression analyses presented in Section I, co-parenting variables were found to be the strongest predictors of higher positive adjustment for children post-divorce. These variables were analyzed further for several reasons. First, they accounted for most of the variance in the multiple regression analyses. Second, these variables were considered essential to the success of joint legal arrangements and third, they revealed unexpected patterns. A) Comparisons of High and Low Parent-to-Parent Interaction One co-parental factor which predicated higher child adjustment scores was the flexibility of the visitation arrangements in the divorce decree. This variable will only be mentioned since this factor might be more reflective of court procedure than a familial decision-making process which might influence child adjustment. However, the more flexible the visitation arrangements were, the higher various child adjustment scores were. Parents awarded flexible and reasonable visitation might have been considered to be more able to negotiate matters concerning their child without high degrees of marital conflict than those parents who were designated scheduled or fixed visitation at the time of the divorce decree. Therefore, it stands to reason that this factor is an indication of baseline coparenting abilities. 101 But surprisingly, from the previous multiple regression results, the most powerful predictors of higher child adjustment were less (not more) parent-to-parent discussion, lggg (not more) frequent parental contacts by phone or in person and mggg physical distance between the custodial home and the father’s residence. This is antithetical to the theoretical coparenting ideal of high parent-to-parent discussion and cooperation. In fact, a profile of the parents in this sample with high parent-to-parent interaction could be lifted from recent articles on effective coparenting. The total population was divided into two groups based on median split of scores from the Coparental Interaction Scale, an instrument which measured the degree of discussion in various areas of parental concerns by mothers’ ratings. High parental interactors were compared with low parental interactors on most of the parental variables by Pearson product moment correlations the results of which can be found Table 20. 102 Table 20: Results of Pearson Product Moment Correlations for Parent Variableg for Parent Intergction Parent Variables Corr. Parent Variables Corr. With Higher Vglueg Coef. With Lower Values Coef. Ex/Ex involvement r: .70** Prior verb hostil r=-.33* P-P person contact r: .68** Ch pres verb fights r:-.30* Coparenting r: .65** Ch pres phys fights r:-.28 P-P phone contact r: .60** Freq father relit r=-.30 Father involvement r: .50** Prior disag/ch sup r:-.33* Regular child support r: .48** Prior disag/cust r=-.23 Positive feelings r: .48** Prior disag/visit r=-.25 Positive parent r: .41** Mother involv/dat r=-.26 Father phone r: .34* Mother self-esteem r=-.26 Father visitation r: .31* Economic sit worse r=-.22 F-Ch prior closeness r: .29* F-Ch post activities r: .23 Flexible visits r: .22 F-Ch prior activities r: .21 p 5 .05; * p 5 .01; ** E 5 .001 Key: P-PzParent to Parent; F-Cthather to Child; F=Father; PriorzPrg-divorcg; PogtzPogt-divorce Mothers in the high parental interaction group reported co-parenting with ease (p 5 .001) and enjoyed significantly more conversation topics outside of the parenting relationship (2 5 .000). They view their ex-husbands as positive parents (2 5 .001), who were more involved in the everyday parenting tasks (2 5 .000). Presently, mother could rely on more regular support payments (p 5 .001); the father was less likely to initiate relitigation (p 5 .005); and they had fewer pre-divorce disagreements around child support (2 5 .01). Buttheir children did 393 have higher self-esteem scores when analyses of variance were performed on child variables and the dichotomous high/low parent interaction variable determined by the median split. In high parental interaction groups, mothers were less likely 103 to report that their children had frequent somatic complaints (2 5 .02), but there were no significant increases in children’s perceived self-competence. In fact, trends were observed for children’s reports to be 5955; for their cognitive self-esteem (p 5 .07), physical self-esteem (p 5 .06), social self-esteem (p 5 .09), and to have greater sad feelings about the divorce (p 5 .09). These results are described in Table 21. Table 21: Results of Main Effects of Child Variables and Analyses of Variance of Child Variables and High/ Low Parent-Parent Interaction Parent-Parent Child Variable Interaction Low Mean High Mean F 2595 N=27 N=32 Mothers perception of somatic complaints 13.54 15.10 6.102 .02 Trgnds Cognitive Competence 3.13 2.81 3.859 .07 Physical Competence 3.01 2.61 4.296 .06 Social Competence 3.07 2.77 3.445 .09 There were two significant interactions for sex and high/low parental interaction on general self-esteem scores (2 5 .04) and degree of depression (2 5 .04). Boys appeared to have lower general self-esteem scores if parents were interacting and having frequent parental discussions while girls seemed to have higher perceptions of their general self-esteem. Another significant interaction with similar patterns was observed between sex and parental interaction for children’s depression (2 5 .04). Additionally, boys 104 were more likely to be depressed with higher interacting parents. In contrast, girls were less likely to report depressed symptoms. Why didn’t frequent parental discussion and interaction increase self-esteem scores as hypothesized in the joint custody literature? Why were there trends for children to have lower self-perceptions in most areas? A closer look at some of the significant results for parents with high interaction reveals that more contact and discussion between these parents was more significantly correlated with parent-parent variables and least significantly correlated with father-child variables, an interesting finding since other data analyses do not replicate these striking patterns. In this light, we may want to consider that parents who are invested in high interaction and discussion may be more involved with one another than in the relationship with their child. B. Comparison of Parental and Child Variables on Close ang Distant Proximity in Mileg Betwggn Pgrental Homgg Another factor which was a strong predictor of high child adjustment was the proximity of father’s home to the custodial mother’s household. Although in previous studies the sample dividing point was 30 miles from mother’s home, the decision was made in this sample to use a 20-mile distance as the dividing point so that a sufficient number of subjects could be included in the high and low category. Thus, in the high proximity category (N = 44), father was less than twenty miles and in the low proximity category 105 (N = 16) father was greater than or equal to twenty miles away from the custodial mother’s home. Differences in parent variables in the high and low proximity groups were analyzed by person product moment correlations and child variables were examined by analyses of variance. These results are shown in Table 22. Table 22: Results of Pearson Product Moment Correlations of Parent Variables for High and Low Father Proximity Correlation Coefficient* Significgnce Father-child predivorce closeness r = .36 .002 Father-child predivorce activity r = .32 .007 Positive feelings toward exspouse r = .35 .003 Positive Parent r = .30 .01 Father-child post-divorce closeness r = .24 .03 Conflict r = -.26 .03 Frequency father-initiated relitig. r = -.26 .04 *Positive r = higher value of parent variable When fathers lived at least 20 miles away, mothers were more likely to view the present father-child relationship as closer (p 5 .03) and to see father as having been closer (p 5 .002) and done more activities with his child (p 5 .007) before the divorce. Mothers with ex-spouses 20 miles or more away had more positive feelings toward their ex-spouses (p 5 .003) and saw these fathers are being more positive parents (p 5 .01). On the other hand, parents within a 20 mile radius were more likely to relitigate (p 5 .04). and fathers were likely to initiate divorce proceedings more than once (2 5 .04). Of the seven father who relitigated more than once, six lived within 20 miles. Similarly, 106 mother’s report of highest conflict was associated with close proximity to father’s household (p 5 .03). Interestingly, children whose fathers were 20 miles or more away had statistically significant higher self-esteem scores in all areas (cognitive (p 5.04), physical(p 5.007), social (2 5 .01), and general (p 5 .02), and father was perceived more positively (p 5 .01). There was a trend for children to feel less depressed (p 5 .08) the greater the distance between father’s residence and the custodial home. In groups where father was further away, mothers thought children were less apt to consider themselves the cause of the divorce (p 5 .005). They also believed that children had fewer feelings of insecurity (p 5.02) and anger (p 5.02), less frequent aggressive behaviors (p 5 .01), somatic complaints (2 5 .07), and reconciliation wishes (p 5 .09). A summary of these results is shown in Table 23. With greater distance, it appears that mother viewed father as a more positive parent and closer to the children pre- and post-divorce. Perhaps these mothers, relieved by the distance from their ex-spouses, could be more positive of him as a parent since it lessened their need to create psychological barriers by criticizing him in front of the children. Another possibility is that these factors had qualitatively different relationships with their children and maintained the relationship in spite of the greater distance. 107 Table 23! Results of Main Effects for Analyses of Variance for Child Varigbles and High/Low Father Proximity Less than Greater than 20 Miles 20 Miles Child Variable Megn Mean F Prob. N:44 N216 Perceived Competence Cognitive 2.86 3.23 3.083 .04 Physical 2.63 3.28 9.039 .007 Social 2.78 3.26 7.019 .01 General 2.73 3.26 7.012 .02 Positive Perception of Father 3.49 4.10 4.355 .01 Mother’s Perceptions of: Degree of Causality 18.48 15.00 8.829 .005 Insecure Feelings 13.13 10.69 6.211 .02 Angry Feelings 18.15 15.50 5.645 .02 Aggressive Feelings 17.86 17.75 7.152 .01 Trends Somatic Complaints 14.86 13.50 3.553 .07 Reconciliation Wishes 19.06 19.45 3.096 .09 Depression .32 .21 3.247 .08 DISCUSSION Some studies have posited a beneficial outcome of divorce for children as evidenced by their increased maturity and self-confidence (Kurdek & Siesky, 1981; Weiss, 1975). Results of other studies on children of divorce have pointed to evidence that the stress of divorce and the accompanying changes in family structure and environment have little or no effect when compared to intact families (Hetherington, 1979) or have a definite negative impact on adult children of divorce (Kulka & Weingarten, 1979). Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) described one third of their sample as suffering significantly from the trauma of divorce. In the current study sample, a similar proportion of children seemed to be in noticeable distress. Comparison of the current results with the national norms on a child depression measure revealed that at least twenty percent of this non-clinical, and relatively representative sample could be classified as severely and chronically depressed. The validity of child reported measures of depression has been debated at length. Several studies have suggested that children significantly underestimate the severity of their depressive symptomatology in comparison to parents’ ratings (Kazdin, French & Unis, 1983; Kazdin, Esveldt-Dawson, Unis & 108 109 Rancivello, 1983). In contrast, another study by Moretti et al. (1985) found child-reported measures of depression more reliable than parental ratings for evaluating major depressive symptoms on the DSM-III criteria. These differences may be more related to the populations that were tested (inpatient versus outpatient) than how accurate children were at reporting their own depressive symptoms. However, regardless of the above discussion, from a clinical perspective, the fact that one third of this sample indicated that they had thought of suicide is cause for concern.“ Moreover, the mothers in the current study indicated that their children exhibited severe symptomatic behaviors. It is worth remembering that by mothers’ ratings all children in both custody groups had scores comparable to a clinically disturbed sample on the Achenbach Internalizing and Externalizing Scale. Indeed, boys were one standard deviation above the clinical sample mean and girls’ scores approached the mean. The accuracy of parental ratings has been questioned. Some studies have suggested that depressed mothers were more apt to see their children as depressed or behaviorally symptomatic (Emery et al., 1982; Moretti et al.. 1985). Studies which have used the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock. 1983) have indicated between the parental reports of internalizing and externalizing behavior symptoms correspond to clinical diagnoses of depression and conduct disorders (Garrison & ¢It would be important to know how prevalent thoughts of suicide are in the population at large. 110 Earls, 1985; Kazdin & Heidish, 1984). Hence, given the severe symptomatology noted and the convergence of both child and parent—reported measures, we can say with some assurance that the children in this sample tend to be disturbed. The fact that this sample is representative challenges the contention that divorce is likely to be beneficial to children and strongly suggests that divorce has serious detrimental effects on children. Within this context, we can appreciate the importance of the question whether legally shared parental rights and responsibilities will demonstrate observable positive (or less negative) effects on children who are living with their mother. From the results of this study, joint legal custody children have slightly higher self-esteem (cognitive and general) and view their noncustodial fathers more positively. Sole maternal custody children are, on the other hand, characterized by significantly more negative opinions of their custodial mother. Though there are tendencies for observed differences between custody type on child-reported depression in maternal custody, there are also mother-reported internalizing problems and increased somatic complaints which seem in general, to indicate the 5 already observed depression in both custody types. Except for these differences, however, the overall conclusion is 5However, it does raise the question of whether joint legal custody mothers perceive their children as more depressed than their children subjectively experience or conversely, sole maternal custody mothers are more reluctant to view and/or simply unaware that their sons and daughters may be experiencing difficulty. 111 that children in both custody types have relatively similar child adjustment patterns. While neither custody arrangement appears more positive or less negative, the fewer higher scores for joint legal custody are intriguing. Some advocates have speculated that joint legal custody would facilitate a more cooperative coparenting relationship, increased father visitation and involvement with his children, and assure more regular child support. This study provides the first empirical assessment of these speculations, and it is clear that they were not borne out in this sample. At best, there were no observable differences between the coparenting relationship and father visitation and/or involvement. Further, mothers in the sample reported a tendency for less regular support payments by fathers. So, an explanation is needed for both the few higher child adjustment scores and also the unexpected phenomenon of the mother’s reports of less regular child in joint custody. A possible explanation for the few higher child adjustment scores can be derived from the predivorce parental differences which naturally lead some parents to choose joint legal custody over other possible arrangements. First, parents in joint legal custody were more able to shield their children from their marital conflicts and tensions, since they had fewer verbal arguments in front of their children. There is certainly a growing literature on § the detrimental effects of interparental hostility and 112 marital fighting on the cognitive and emotional development of children (Porter & O’Leary, 1980; Emery & O’Leary, 1982). Second, joint legal custody fathers, at least by mothers' reports, were closer to their children prior to the divorce. The impact and importance of the quality of the parent-child relationship rather than simply the amount of time spent together has been noted by other researchers (Hess & Camara, 1979). In this sample, two times as many joint legal custody mothers reported that their children had close relationships to both parents prior to the divorce (but 52; post-divorce). Third, joint legal custody mothers had a slightly higher educational level, had a more active hand in the custody decision, and were more self-supporting. We might consider these behaviors as indications of a mother’s active and self-competent way of life, characteristic qualities frequently visited in mothers of non-traditional parenting arrangements (Lamb et al., 1982; Russel, 1982; Radin, 1982). A consequence of joint legal custody mothers’ personal adjustment might be the positive influence it exerted on the children’s cognitive development and self-esteem. Thus, it seems that pre-divorce parental differences between the two custody groups such as 1) degree of child involvement in marital conflict, 2) relationship with father to child, 3) mother’s personal and educational strength might adequately explain the differences observed between sole maternal custody and joint legal custody 113 children. In sum, the results seem to point to the type of people who choose joint legal custody rather than to the differential effects of custody per se.6 The pre-divorce characteristics of the joint legal custody parents may also help explain the fact that by mother’s reports joint legal custody fathers were less regular in their support payments. It is interesting, in this context, that by mothers’ reports joint legal custody fathers contributed the same total amount of support as sole maternal custody fathers. Two explanations suggest themselves for the mothers’ reports of less regular payments. First, it is, of course, possible that the mothers’ and fathers’ perspectives on the regularity of support will differ. Thus, one explanation for the reports of less regular payments may be that the fathers were not in fact less regular but that the joint legal custody mothers nonetheless perceived the fathers, for other reasons, as less regular. Alternatively, it may be that the joint legal custody fathers were less regular. The present study investigates the mothers’ perspectives on the post-divorce experience, and this investigation yielded a wealth of information for clinical observations. In particular, clinical observations of the interviews with joint legal custody mothers suggest that three different types of desires may have led the joint legal custody mothers to propose or agree to a joint custody 6The court imposed joint legal custody on only one subject in this sample. 114 agreement. A desire for continuing emotional involvement with their former spouse may have led some mothers to seek or accept a joint legal custody arrangement. These mothers may find it difficult to accept a severance of their spousal relationship and may hope through joint parenting to delay or avoid the pain of final separation. This sort of motivation on the mother’s part usually has one of two outcomes. In one situation, the former spouse begins to establish new emotional relationships, and the mother, threatened by the prospect that the father’s new involvement will somehow replace his previous spousal involvement. become dissatisfied with the joint legal custody. Most frequently in this kind of situation, the communications between the parents become more overtly hostile. In the other situation, the mother retains her emotional attachment to her ex-spouse through the shared parenting and is motivated to avoid conflict in the coparenting arrangement. While in some cases the mother may seek to avoid conflict with her ex-spouse, even if that entails her sacrificing her own emotional needs and development, these women tend to depict joint legal custody in more favorable terms. A second motivation for proposing or agreeing to joint legal custody is a desire on the mother’s part to keep her former spouse involved with his children, most often in the hope that the children themselves will benefit from increased contact with their father. Some situations, to be sure, fulfill these maternal hopes. But, in most cases 115 these mothers tend to be disappointed in the amount of father involvement of financial support that might result. Disappointment seem most common and most acute when the father resides in close proximity to the custodial home. A third class of mothers agreed to joint legal custody, against their better judgment. They might have hoped to reduce tension between parents at the time of divorce, or they might have agreed to joint legal custody in the midst of discouraging legal maneuvering by the ex- spouse. Most often, these mothers regretted the joint legal arrangement, frequently in bitter terms. They found themselves besieged by their ex-spouse and, consigned to the joint legal arrangement, unable to escape continuing legal and psychic turmoil. The joint legal custody mothers’ reports of less regular support payments can be interpreted against the background of these clinical impressions about the mothers’ pre-divorce motivations. The problems described by the joint legal custody mothers are similar to those associated with sole maternal custody. What is distinctive about the experience of joint legal custody mothers is that each of the three types of motivation for joint legal custody revolves around an expectation that joint legal custody will resolve or reduce problems associated with divorce. But, the actual experience falls well short of the expectations for mothers of each motivation type. For most of the mothers, the joint legal custody arrangement proves to be a 116 continuing source of disappointment or frustration. Even for those mothers who perpetuated a continuing emotional involvement with their ex-spouse, that involvement sometimes came at the cost of their own emotional growth and development. Therefore, the reports by joint legal custody mothers of less regular payments may reflect their disappointment with the custodial arrangement rather than significant tardiness by the fathers. Alternatively, it might also be that the mothers’ views are accurate and that the joint legal custody fathers in the sample were in fact less regular in their payments. The present study does not investigate the fathers’ perspectives on the custody arrangement and we can only speculate as to what might explain the less regular payments by joint legal custody fathers. One possible explanation is that the father too is disappointed, in comparison with the expectations he had when he began the joint custody arrangement, by the level or quality of his involvement with his children post-divorce. It is salient that by mother’s reports the joint legal custody fathers had closer relationships with their children prior to divorce. Perhaps the less regular payments by joint legal custody fathers reflect their particularly acute resentment over the way in which the custody arrangement has actually worked out. Their post-divorce experience would not likely equal the quality of their pre-divorce relationship, and the father’s 117 disappointment may have interfered with the regularity of their payments. A second possibility centers on the fact that joint legal custody mothers are more self-supporting than sole maternal custody mothers. Perhaps the joint legal custody fathers inferred that their financial contributions were not as necessary to the economic well-being of their children and perceived their contributions as simply supporting a more comfortable style of life for their ex-spouses. This idea might cause them to lose sight of the fact that their support payments are for the benefit of their children and hence to be less regular in their payments. Finally, it may be that since a joint legal custody arrangement allows the former husband joint participation in decisions about the care and raising of his children, joint legal custody fathers lack one of the arenas which in sole maternal custody arrangements serve for the expression of hostility between the ex-spouses.7 It is possible that joint legal custody fathers are therefore led to delay or interrupt their support payments as a way of expressing their anger or resentment with their former wives. The above hypotheses are interesting and deserve further research. It should be noted that, in the current study, fathers were sent the parent questionnaire with an enclosed stamped envelope. However, only two percent of the 7Sole maternal custody mothers of boys reported more pre- divorce disagreements about visitation (p 5 .07) while joint legal custody mothers of girls reported pre-divorce disagreements about child support (p 5 .09). 118 fathers responded. Hence, it is a limitation of this study that fathers’ perspectives could not be investigated and that we have neither the fathers’ own reports nor clinical observations about the fathers as a basis for inference. Indeed, the lack of information on the fathers’ views of their post-divorce experience generally limits the literature concerning children of divorce. It is to be hoped that future studies will be able to examine the fathers’ perspectives as well. However, the major question of this study, whether joint legal custody has a less negative or more positive impact on child adjustment has been answered definitively. Parent factors, not custody, exert the most impact on how children fare after the divorce. Therefore, the arguments by joint custody advocates that extolled joint legal custody for its benefits to the children are not borne out by this study. THis is not to say, however, that the current study provides reasons for preferring sole maternal custody. Rather, the current study indicates that the legal custody arrangement per se is_ not the most powerful predictor of higher child adjustment post-divorce. Other parent-focused factors are more related to child’s well-being after divorce. These other parent factors, then, deserve attention in their own right, given their relationship to child adjustment, and I will elaborate later in this discussion on their contribution to the general understanding of the child’s post-divorce experience. 119 The literature on post-divorce child adjustment has emphasized two dimensions of the post-divorce experience. One variable that has been discussed for some time in the literature is time since divorce. Another variable that has more recently received attention is the remarriage of a parent. As the current study demonstrates, other parent factors, already noted, are more significant than time since divorce or remarriage in predicting higher child adjustment, but these two factors are particularly intriguing for the clinician and for the design of future studies. The present study demonstrates that comparisons of the children’s perspectives of themselves between the two custody groups vary with the length of time since divorce. If the divorce has been more recent, joint legal custody children have higher scores on self-esteem than sole maternal custody children. In contrast, sole maternal custody children are sadder for groups of 1-2 and 2-3 years post-divorce. For children greater than three years after divorce, however, this picture is reversed: joint legal custody children are sadder and have significantly less self-esteem. This pattern underscores the cautions of some researchers about too great reliance on reports taken immediately post-divorce. It also influences the interpretation of the few higher scores for joint legal custody children, given that those scores are no longer significant when time since divorce is considered in the analyses. 120 This pattern of lower self-esteem and greater sadness for joint legal custody children as time since divorce increases suggests that there is some circumstance attendant on the custody arrangement that benefits these children immediately after divorce but whose influence diminishes over time. One aspect of joint legal custody parent-child relationships was a greater closeness, as reported by mothers, between the father and his child. We can imagine that this pre-divorce closeness sustains both father and child through the initial separation and adjustment‘ to divorce. If this closeness is attentuated by the post- divorce experience of the joint legal custody fathers, then that development may lead to a change in the feelings of the joint legal custody children more than three years after divorce. It has been noted that post-divorce fathers generally report suffering upon losing daily contact with their child and resent their being consigned to status as a frequent visitor. These feelings of the joint legal custody fathers, in particular, may be exacerbated by the extent of their pre-divorce closeness with their children. Perhaps, the closer the father was to the child, the more painful the post-divorce diminution of the father-child relationship, and this might lead some fathers to withdraw from their children as time since divorce increases. This suggestion is the obverse of Grief’s observations on the comparison between maternal and joint custody fathers. However, 121 Grief’s study did not distinguish the special circumstances of the joint legal custody father, and it appears that Grief focused only on the feelings of the fathers shortly after the divorce. Fathers’ feelings about joint legal custody may change over time, and if so, that may explain why joint legal custody childrens’ feelings may change as time since divorce increases. Indeed, it is plausible that the father’s subsequent adjustment to his separation may lead to a greater sense of loss, given the joint legal custody fathers’ increased pre-divorce closeness with their children, and an estrangement of father and child. This estrangement of father and child, in turn, may lead to the lower self-esteem and more depressed feelings reported by the joint legal custody children as time since divorce increases. It should be recognized that the current study is limited by the small numbers in these comparisons of time since divorce. It is also limited in that fathers’ reports of their experience were not considered in this study. Thus, these hypotheses need to be tested directly in future research. The current study also indicates the impact that remarriage can have on the course of post-divorce family life and child adjustment. The influence of remarriage varies with the sex of the child, the custody type, and which parent remarries. When mothers were remarried, by mother’s report, girls were generally more distressed than were boys. These results are similar to Hetherington’s et 122 al. (1985) findings. Based on the separation-individuation theories of Abelin (1971), she posits that girls experience a stepfather as an intrusion to the close mother-daughter relationship which has intensified due to the fact that mothers may lean emotionally on their daughters during the early post-divorce period. Interestingly, in the current study, boys in sole maternal custody seemed to benefit from mother’s remarriage, tending to feel more positively about themselves and about their mothers. They felt less depressed, abandoned, more in control of their lives and seemed more secure than sole maternal custody girls and joint legal custody children. The differences just noted are intriguing and deserve an explanation. But a correlational study such as this one cannot adequately address the causes of these underlying distinctions. What 5g clear is that there are definite differences, making generalizations about children of one custody type or another very risky and emphasizing the need to consider each child in each particular situation as unique. A different set of responses were observed for families where father was remarried. Joint legal custody children were significantly more distressed than sole maternal custody children, mostly indicated by, but not exclusively, mothers’ ratings. Joint legal custody children were more angry and sad, had increased insecurity and depression, greater feelings of abandonment and a significant increase 123 in loyalty conflicts if father was remarried. Similarly, mothers reported that their children felt they were the cause of the divorce. This type of symptomatology may indicate a resurgence of the descriptions of loss observed in children’s responses to divorce as described by Wallerstein & Kelly (1980) and Wallerstein (1983). We may wonder if some part of the mourning process is delayed for 8 From an intrapsychic joint legal custody children. perspective, perhaps joint legal custody children have more difficulty traversing the psychological tasks of recognizing the reality of their parents’ divorce and coming to terms with the loss of their family as they knew it, a process which Wallerstein (1983) outlines is essential to completing the grief work surrounding the divorce. It is possible that this psychic reality is less present for joint legal custody children (and their mothers) until father remarries. Then, unlike in sole maternal custody where children grieve at the time of the divorce, in joint legal custody the delayed grief occurs when either parent remarries. Another possibility is that joint legal custody fathers, initially close to their children, over time and with remarriage visit less frequently and have a gualitgtively different relationship with them. Generally speaking, a decline in father visitation in both groups was 8Again, these are mother reported measures. It might be important to explore whether remarried joint custody mothers responded differently on other parent variables in comparison to sole maternal custody mothers. 124 observedf’ Perhaps remarriage makes visitation and emotional involvement more difficult due to responsibilities of a step-family or the possessiveness (and sometimes well- founded) jealousies of new spouses. This may shed some light on the results that children in joint legal custody, especially girls, responded with distress to the remarriage of father. If a consequence of remarriage was the altered status quo of their relationship, both girls and boys would find father’s remarriage a difficult adjustment. However, there were no statistical differences between the amount of father visitation in either group. We may speculate that the measures used may be inadequate to convey qualitative differences in the father-child relationship. In sum, the present study bears out the frequent admonitions in the literature that time since divorce and remarriage are ”important variables to consider when interpreting the significance of past studies and when contemplating the design of possible future studies. Futhermore, the present results have implications for clinical work with post-divorce children, in particular cautioning the clinician against generalizing too quickly about the child’s likely experience with either type of custody. The results regarding time since divorce suggest that the child’s emotional responses following the divorce may differ with the length of time post-divorce. And, the remarriage results indicate that the child’s response may 90ther analyses suggest that father visitation declines more for joint legal custody girls (p 5 .08). 125 differ significantly, according to the sex of the child and the custody arrangement. The last important facet of this study to be discussed is the variable which, regardless of custody, was the most predictive of higher child adjustment, namely the effects of the coparenting relationship on children. Coparenting cooperation has been hypothesized to be an essential element to positive post-divorce adjustment. The results of this study suggest that the coparenting relationship is, in fact, an important mediating variable for positive child adjustment after divorce, but in totally unexpected ways. Rather than the anticipated cooperation and communication between parents, close proximity between households and detailed visitation arrangements, it was ngg parent to parent interaction, more distance between the homes of the custodial parent and the non-residential parent and flexible visitation schedules that were highly associated with more positive child adjustment. These findings are contrary to a growing literature which is advocating the importance of high coparental discussion for the sake of childrens” welfare after divorce. In fact, based on the results of a study of 100 families interviewed over a five-year period, Isaacs (1985) recently suggested interventions aimed at helping parents arrange more structured visitation schedules and greater interparental communication and cooperation. These notions are diametrically opposed to the results of this study which presented a very different picture of how 126 children fare in families where frequent parental discussions and interactions are the norm. Perhaps insight can be forthcoming about the meaning of these results within the context of the family systems theory of inmeshed family relationships (Minuchin, 1974). Parents who interacted regularly had children with somewhat lowered self-esteem. But high interparental discussion was associated with high ex-spousal involvement, 595 higher parent-child visitation. We might imagine that the high interacting parents were more involved with each other, at least by mother’s report, than they were with their children. Unable to draw a boundary between their parental relationship and their ex-spousal relationship, they may remain enmeshed with one another through their interactions around the child and maintain a high level of emotional intimacy through their co-parenting, a form of interaction which they and others may find acceptable. However, children of these parents who sense the emotional connectedness may wonder why their parents divorced in the first place. Searching for reasons. they may be convinced that they are the likely cause. Unlike children who can be angry with fathers for leaving and see him (or their mom) as more negative, or children with highly hostile parents who perceive themselves in a defensive but adaptive way as more cognitively or physically competent than others, these children can neither externalize nor overcompensate. They may internalize their anger, becoming 127 depressed. Thus, they lose a significant amount of self- esteem in many areas, regardless of custody type. Perhaps they feel more emotionally abandoned because on the surface it might appear as though their parents were interested in them but covertly they sense that their parents are more emotionally interested in one another. Further support for the advantages of non-enmeshed post-divorce family relationships can be found in the observation that more physical distance between the homes of custodial mother and non-residential father was associated with statistically higher in child adjustment. Perhaps fathers who can move away, separate emotionally and physically, and yet still stay connected to their sons and daughters are the most well adjusted and therefore have the most positive effect on their children. We might view physical distance as reflecting an emotional distance as well. But since there were no observed or statistical differences in frequency of visitation for physically closer or more distant fathers, the relevant ”psychological” distance may be from their ex-spouse rather than from their children. Thus, the mothers might be able to see the fathers as a more positive parent, and closer to his children, though there was an actual decline in activities post-divorce with father’s distance. With more physical distance mother might feel less guilty about the divorce and perhaps feel less need to derogate father in front of the children, a defensive process frequently employed by mothers 128 to deal with their feelings of loss and separation from their ex-spouse (Wallerstein, 1985). Children may function most adaptively post-divorce when they have parents who are neither overly cooperative or overly hostile, suggesting an emotional distance which allows the parents to separate, to carry on with new lives while still staying connected to their children. One wonders if parents who can successfully navigate this course will be more inclined to remain involved with their children after a remarriage or through the passage of time after divorce. However, the results of this study reinforce those of Furstenberg’s et al., (1983), sadly suggesting that in the majority of divorced families, it is rare for fathers to remain highly involved and frequently visiting over time. There are several limitations to the generalizability of this study on joint legal custody. One is the volunteer basis of the subjects. Mothers who were willing to be interviewed in their home may have agreed to do so for a variety of reasons. In this study, subjects asked about their reasons for participation said one the following: 1) they hoped someone could benefit from their situation since they knew nothing had been available to them; 2) they thought the interviewer might evaluate their child’s post- divorce adjustment; or 3) a few thought it was required by the Friend of the Court for continuation of their child support payments. The range of reasons indicate that one must consider the motivations of those who participate when 129 making interpretations. We already know from telephone calls to non-participants that a majority did not participate out of a desire to protect their children and guard their own free time with their family. One might argue that these families are better adjusted for their familial priorities and considerations or that they are defensively avoiding discussions about divorce. This is a formidable limitation which restricts the generalizability of many studies in applied research. The strength of this study lies in the fact that the method of subject selection provided a representative sample, a drastic improvement over the convenience samples in most previous studies of divorce. Another limitation is the lack of information from father’s perspective. Future studies will need to compare 5955 parent’s view of the parenting variables. Additionally, future comparative studies of joint legal custody and sole maternal custody need to evaluate the impact of: a) mother’s post-divorce adjustment and economic conditions, b) the impact of pre-and post-divorce conflict, including relitigation, and c) the effects of father involvement and visitation. In summary, joint legal custody has no more positive or less negative impact post-divorce adjustment than sole maternal custody since child adjustment in both custody groups was basically comparable. A few significantly higher scores for joint legal custody children have been argued to reflect the influences of the type of parents who choose 130 joint legal custody rather than the custody arrangement per se. Significant family life changes such as the remarriage of either parent may alter the course of post-divorce adjustment. Joint legal custody children are particularly sensitive to the remarriage of father. In conclusion, there is no reason to believe joint legal custody arrangements will significantly alter parents’ post-divorce behavior or be more beneficial to children’s adjustment. Other parental variables, not custody, were most predictive of positive child adjustment. Contrary to the hypothesized theories of the benefits of high coparenting interaction, this study suggests that less frequent interactions and some physical and psychological distance may be important for optimal positive adjustment for children post-divorce. It is evident that decisions regarding legal or physical custody are best arranged on a case by case basis with careful consideration for the developmental needs of the child and each familial situation. APPENDIX A LETTERS TO PARENTS and CONSENT FORMS CIRCUIT JUDGES eso- OICOIIICI c. tutu “OI‘JAIEC O two-01.1.11 111011 £003.! 1. Ytuouu "on. 01:11an I I111". new JDNI 11 Diana 00°- cvcvtn 11 awn-Cw. uou AUCI t CHICO? tic-1 tea-c1. I 01.1601 new «110‘ I 6A.! .0001 .6018 chutkl coo-1 Clo-OI LA DMYA 1:011 RODEO? c AIOIIOOM Ino- Dawn 9. IIICI uo- use I. IEITIR COURT ADMINISTRATOR IDA- ! '09.“ 131 APPENDIX A 31ml} 311111111111 (flittuit of mithigan (1101mm of (fiaklnnh OFFICE OF THE FRIEND OF THE COURT OOILAID COM-TV COURT ROUGE .DIINIRTIATOVE LINE. II 1100 11011111 ruse-1111 eoao PONTIAC. MICHIGAN 40033 nun-«1 011-0114 FRIEND OF THE COURT .311 J. 11096111011 ATTORNEYS DOIALO & '3'. One! a1" (Ac-unseen.“ III I. Canaan that new Doaeano-eo 1101111 V. Ill-LOO “or I... .0 '11! Cu" .003-V E It" ecu-eta O 'OLICDY OAYIOCI A 8..."! wuuau ‘ 90.81. 1.. JOCIPII O. sauna-s 'AVRI P. IIIIVALL DONAL. I voo- IAI'IA D ARGO-ION lat‘RO 6 IAICIIO UUOA CI‘OCI-IAIIAIO LINDA I. IAkLIAII Dear Parent: The Family Styles Project at the University of Michigan is conducting a study in Oakland County. The Family Styles Project is directed by Professor Neil Kalter. Its aim is to learn more about how children think and feel about growing up in different family environments. Singlaparent households with a variety of custody'and visiting arrangements along with remarried households are the family styles for one child in three today. We believe it would be helpful to parents and children if we all knew more about how children experience these family styles. A description of the Oakland County part of the Family Styles Project is enclosed along with a consent form for your signature. We are enthusiastic about this project and the consultation services offered to parents in return for helping to further our understanding of family life. We urge you to consider participating in this program. Sincerely, J NJ.HOC ON 1 END OF THE COURT JJH/mc Enclosure 132 APPENDIX A Dear Parent: Since the 1970's, sore and sore couples have had the experience of divorce. There are any child custody and visitation arrangenents free which the couple can choose. However. it is soeetiaes difficult to know what night be neat helpful and beneficial for the child(ren) or for the parents thenselves. Our research project is designed to study the different solutions that people have worked out and to understand how parents and children think and feel about different types of custody and visitation arrangements. Very little is presently known about these issues. we believe that these topics are very inportant to fanilies who have already divorced and to those who will divorce in the future. We are contacting you to help us find out sore about these important aspects of the fully life after divorce. He obtained your name and address froe the public files of the Oakland County Courthouse. You are the experts about divorce. 'As part of our study we would like to talk briefly (JO—45 sinutes) with your child. One child per faaily between the ages of 7 and 12 will be asked to participate in the study. we plan to focus on his/her ideas about children in general and about his-Iberself. In the past, lost children have enjoyed the process and feel con- fortable talking with the feaale researcher. We plan to contact you by telephone , for a tine that one of our fen-ale interviewers could administer the forss either in your hole or in an office of the Friend of the Court. we will also ask each parent to fill out questionnaires that will also take approrinately 11$ ainutes. These forts are about how parents' see their child‘s response to the divorce, their views on custody and visitation and questions con- cerning your custody arrange-eat. Parents can easily fill out their quasionnaires at the tine of the interviews. In return for your participation and cooperation, we will offer a free workshop on divorce related concerns for the parents given by Dr. Kalter free the University of Michigan who has been extensively involved with fanilies of divorce. We will also cake a sodest contribution to a charity of your choice. We want to assure you that all infomtion gathered fros parents and their children would be strictly confidential. The infornation will be coded by nunber inediately so that no cases will be attached to it. If you do decide to participate, please include your telephone nuaber on the consent fora so that we say contact you to arrange a convenient tine to cons to your hose or to the office at the Friend of the Court building. Oakland County. Michigan. Please do not hesitate to call us at 765-3167 or 761-6877 if you have any questions about our work. Thank you very mch for your considering this request. He. Hargaret Walsh, ILA. 133 APPENDIX A Consent Form i understand that the members of the Family Styles Project-~a study to help learn about the views parents and children have about different family arrange- ments--are interested in having my child/one of my children between the ages of 7 and lZ-fill out several forms regarding how he or she sees himself or herself and his or her ideas about divorce in general. As part of the project. I will be asked to fill out several questionnaires. They have described to me that the procedure will take place either in my home or at the Friend of the Court offices at a time convenient for me and members of my family. I realize that my participation in this project is voluntary and that I or my child can withdraw at any time. I understand that to ensure my child's and my own privacy no identifying information will be attached to the information that either my child or I provide. 1 would like to have the interview for my child and to answer the parent questionnaires (please cneCk): in my home in an office at the Friend of the Court building. I. Charity to which contribution is to be made. (Please check one.) American Heart Association American Cancer Society March of Dimes Muscular Dystrophy Association Other 2. I would be interested in attending a free workshop about parenting after divorce. (Please check if interested.) Home phone number: Parent's Signature Date: Please mail this consent form to the researchers in the envelope provided as soon as possible. Thank you. 134 APPENDIX A KID’S CONSENT FORM To Whom It May Concern: It is okay with me that I take some short tests to be a part of some research on families. I can stop at any time if I feel uncomfortable or upset in any way. APPENDIX B CHI LD MEASURES PLEASE NOTE: Copyrighted materials in this document have not been filmed at the request of the author. They are available for consultation, however, in the author's university library. These consist of pages: 135-148 University. Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB 90.. ANN ARBOR, MI 48l06 (313) 761-4700 135 APPENDIX B Child Measures Perceived Competence Scale for Children NAME WhatIAmLike 80V OR GIRL REALLY SORT OF TRUE TRUE 'or me he rue .‘7 (circle which) AGE 8|RTHOAY____. CLASS OR GROUP SAMPLE SENTENCES Same kids would rather play outdoors in their spare time Some kids never worry about anything SORT OF REALLY TRUE TRUE he no tor me Other kids would rather watch T.V. Other kids sometimes worry about certain thing. .— N Some kids leel that they are very good at their school work Some kids find it hard to make friends Some kids do very well at all kinds ol sports Some kids teal that there are alot of things about themselves that they would change it they could Some klds leel like they are but as smart a other kids their age Some kids have alot ol lriends BUT Other kids worry about whether they can do the school work assigned to them. For other kids it's pretty any. Others don't feel that they are very good when it comes to sports. Other kids would like to my pretty much the same. Other kids can‘t so erre and wonder If they are as smart. Other kids don‘t have very many friends. REALLY SORT OF TRUE 7. H. 12. 13. M. 10. hers-e TRUE bane 136 APPENDIX B Child Measures Some kids wish they could be alot better at sports Some kids are pretty sure 0! themselves Some kids are pretty slow in finishing their school work Some kids don't think they II a very hood-at manber 0! their class Some kids think they could do well at just about any new outdoor activity they haven't tried before We kids teal good about the way they act Some kids often forget what they learn Some kids are always doing thing with alot 0! kids Sonekitteelmatdleyarebetter Moduathehapetm Somekladilnkthetmeybetheyere notaverypodoereon BUT BUT OUT OUT BUT OUT OUT BUT OUT OUT Other kids teal they are good chords. Other kids are not very sure at themselves. Othc kids can do their school work quickly. Othc kids think they are pretty important so melt classmates. Odier kids are alraid they might rotdowellsteusdqorthings they haven'tevertrled. Other kids w'nh they ectod 6M . 0th. kids on remember thing e-ily. Other kids usually do thln’ by Meshes Odiekitdon‘tleeltheyanolay coil. Othekldaereorettysure thetthey areaeoodoareon. SORT OE REALLY TRUE TRUE teem brine 137 APPENDIX B Child Measures REALLY SORTOF SORT OE REALLY TRUE TRUE - TRUE TRUE hr me be no 9. no ’- use ‘7- Some to: us. school because they our Other kids don't like school because do well in class ' they aren't doing very well. 18. Some kids wish that more kids liked BUT Others leel that most kids do like them them. 19. In gem. and sports some kids BUT Other kids usually play rather than usually watch instead 0! play just watch. 70' Some kids are very happy being the BUT Other kids wish they were different. wey they are 2“ Some kids wish it w. easier to BUT Other kids don't have any trouble understand what they read understanding what they read. 27' Some kids are popular with others BUT Other kids are not very popular. their aw e 3. Some kids don't do well at new BUT Othw kids are good at new games muloor games ridit away. N Some kids can't very mom with out Other kids think the way they do ' the way they do alot ol things thing is line. 75 Some kids have notion flying out our Other kids almost always can noon the answers in shoal out the M 21 Some kids are really easy to like BUT Other kids are kind 0! hard to like. D 27. Some kids are among the last to be BUT Othw kids are usually picked first. dioeen for games 28 Some kids are usually sure that what BUT Other kids aren't so sure whether or they are doing is the riyst thing not they are doing the ri¢lt thing. 138 APPENDIX B Child Measures CHILDREN’S DEPRESSION INVENTORY 1. I am sad once in a while I am sad many times I am sad all the time 2. Nothing will ever work out for me I am not sure if things will work out for me Things will work out for me O.K. 3. I do most things O.K. I do many things wrong I do everything wrong 4. I have fun in many things -I have fun in some things Nothing is fun at all am bad all the time am bad many times am bad once in a while think about bad things happening to me once in while worry that bad things will happen to me am sure that terrible things will happen to me. hate myself do not like myself like myself HHH HHmH HHH 8. All bad things are my fault Many bad things are my fault Bad things are not usually my fault 9. I do not think about killing myself I think about killing myself but I would not do it I want to kill myself 10. I feel like crying everyday I feel like crying many days I feel like crying once in a while 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 139 APPENDIX B Child Measure Things bother me all the time Things bother me many times Things bother me once in a while I like being with people I do not like being with people many times I do not want to be with people at all I cannot make up my mind about things It is hard to make up my mind about things I make up my mind about things easily I look O.K. There are some bad things about my looks I look ugly I have to push myself all the time to do my schoolwork I have to push myself many times to do my schoolwork ' Doing schoolwork is not a big problem have trouble sleeping every night have trouble sleeping many nights sleep pretty well am tired once in a while am tired many days am tired all the time. HHH HHH Most days'I do not feel like eating Many days I do not feel like eating eat pretty well H do not worry about aches and pains worry about aches and pains many times worry about aches and pains all the time do not feel alone feel alone many times feel alone all the time HHH HHH never have fun at school have fun at school only once in a while have fun at school many times HHH have plenty of friends have some friends but I wish I had more do not have any friends HHH 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 140 APPENDIX B Child Measures My schoolwork is alright My schoolwork is not as good as before I do very badly in subjects I used to be good in I can never be as good as other kids I can be as good as other kids if I want to I am just as good as other kids Nobody really loves me am not sure if anybody loves me am sure that somebody loves me usually do what I am told do not do what I am told most times never do what I am told get along with people get into fights many times get into fights all the time HHH HHH HH The End THANK YOU FOR FILLING OUT THIS FORM 141 APPENDIX B Child Measures NOWICKI-STRICKLAND LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE FOR CHILDREN ‘TOJUIDFUN 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Do you believe that most problems will solve themselves if you just don't fool with them? Yes Do you believe that you can stop yourself from catching a cold? Yes Are some kids just born lucky? Yes Most of the time do you feel that getting good grades means a great deal to you? Yes Are you often blamed for things that just aren’t your fault? Yes Do you believe that if somebody studies hard enough he or she can pass any subject? Yes Do you feel that most of the time it doesn’t pay to try hard because things never turn out right anyway Yes Do you feel that if things start out well in the morning that it’s going to be a good day no matter what you do? Yes Do you feel that most of the time parents listen to what their children have to say? Yes Do you believe that wishing can make good things happen Yes When you get punished does it usually seem it’s for no good reason at all? Yes Most of the time do you find it hard to change a friend’s (mind) opinion? Yes Do you think that cheering more than luck helps a team to win? Yes Do you feel that it’s nearly impossible to change your parent’s mind about anything? Yes Do you believe that your parents should allow you to make most of your own decisions? Yes Do you feel that when you do something wrong there’s very little you can do to make it right? Yes Do you believe that most kids are just born good at sports? Yes Are most of the other kids your age strong than you are? Yes Do you feel that the best ways to handle problems is just not to think about them? Yes Do you feel that you have a lot of choice in deciding who your friends are Yes If you find a four-leaf clover do you believe that it might bring you good luck? Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 142 APPENDIX B Child Measures Do you often feel that whether you do your homework has much to do with the kinds of grades you get? Do you feel that when a kid your age decides to hit you, there’s little you can do to stop him or her Have you ever had a good luck charm? Do you believe that whether or not people like you depends on how you act. Will your parents usually help you if you ask them? Have you felt that when people were mean to you it was usually for no reason at all? Most of the time, do you feel that you can change what might happen tomorrow by what you do today? Do you believe that when bad things are going to happen they are just going to happen no matter what you try to do to stop them? Do you think that kids can get their own way if they just keep trying? Most of the time do you find it useless to try to get your own way at home? Do you feel that when good things happen they happen because of hard work? Do you feel that when somebody your age wants to be your enemy there’s little you can do to change matters? Do you feel that it’s easy to get friends to do what you want them to? Do you usually feel that you have little to say about what you get to eat at home? Do you feel that when someone doesn’t like you there’s little you can do about it? Do you usually feel that it’s almost useless to try in school because most other children are just plain smarter than you? Are you the kind of person who believes that planning ahead makes things turn out better? Most of the time, do you feel that you have little to say about what your family decides to do? Do you think it’s better to be smart than to be lucky Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No N. No No No No 143 APPENDIX B Child Measures Similarities Subscale on WISC-R Dirgctiong: Say "In what way are a wheel and a ball alike? How are they the same?" If the child says they are not alike, fails to respond or gives a wrong answer, say, “They are both round and they both roll. Now tell me, in what way are a candle and a lamp alike?" If the child fails, say, ”They both give light." Then go on to Item 3, but give no help on this item or on Item 4. TEST ITEMS 1) Wheel - ball 9) Telephone - radio 2) Candle - lamp 10) Pound - yard 3) Shirt - hat 11) Anger - joy 4) Piano - guitar 12) Scissors - cooper pan 5) Apple - banana 13) Mountain - lake 6) Beer - wine 14) Liberty - justice 7) Cat - mouse 15) First - last 8) Elbow - knee 16) The numbers 49 and 121 17) Salt - water 144 APPENDIX 8 Child Measures wBH NEVER A LITTLE SOMETIMES PRETTY MUCH A LOT PARENT PERCEPTION INVENTORY (My Parents at Home) Directions: Ask "How often does your mom. . ." *1. *2. *5. Give examples until the child understands the concept. For starred items, repeat the response choices (e. g. "DOES SH NEVER, A LITTLE, SOMETIMES, PRETTY MUCH, OR A LOT?") as you point to each response. (Positive reinforcement) THANK YOU FOR DOING THINGS. TELL YOU WHEN SHE LIKES WHAT YOU DID. GIVE YOU SOMETHING 0R LET YOU DO SOMETHING SPECIAL WHEN YOU'RE OD (Privilege removal) TAKE AWAY THINGS WHEN YOU MISBEHAVE (LIKE NOT LETTING YOU WATCH TV DR RIDE YOUR BIKE OR STAY UP LATE DR EAT DESSERT) (Comfort) TALK TO YOU WHEN YOU FEEL BAD AND HELP YOU TO FEEL BETTER, HELP YOU WITH YOUR PROBLEMS, COMFORT YOU (Criticism) TELL YOU YOU"RE NO GOOD, TELL YOU THAT YOU MESSED UP OR DIDN'T DO SOMETHING RIGHT, CRITICIZE YOU (Talk time) TALK TO YOU, LISTEN TO YOU, HAVE A GOOD CONVERSATION WITH YOU (Command) ORDER YOU AROUND, TELL YOU WHAT TO DO, GIVE COMMANDS (Involvement in decision-making) LET YOU HELP DECIDE WHAT TO DO, LET YOU HELP FIGURE OUT HOW TO SOLVE PROBLEMS *10. 11. 12. 13. 14. *15. 16. 17. 18. 145 APPENDIX B Child Measures (Physical punishment) SPANK YOU, SLAP YOU, HIT YOU (Time together) PLAY WITH YOU, SPEND TIME WITH YOU, DO THINGS WITH YOU WHICH YOU LIKE (Yelling) GET MAD AT YOU, YELL AT YOU, HOLLER AT YOU, SCREAM AT YOU, SHOUT AT YOU (Positive evaluation) SAY NICE THINGS TO YOU, TELL YOU THAT YOU”RE A GOOD BOY/GIRL, COMPLIMENT YOU (Threatening) THREATEN YOU, TELL YOU THAT YOU'LL GET INTO TROUBLE IF YOU DO SOMETHING WRONG, WARN YOU (Allowing independence) LET YOU DO WHAT OTHER KIDS YOUR AGE DO, LET YOU DO THINGS ON YOUR OWN (Time-out) SEND YOU TO A ROOM OR CORNER WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING WRONG (Assistance) HELP YOU WHEN YOU NEED IT (WITH A HARD JOB, WITH HOMEWORK, WHEN YOU CAN"T DO SOMETHING BY YOURSELF) (Nagging) NAG YOU, TELL YOU WHAT TO DO OVER AND OVER AGAIN, KEEP AFTER YOU TO DO THINGS (Non-verbal affection) HUG YOU, KISS YOU, TICKLE YOU, SMILE AT YOU (Ignoring) IGNORE YOU, NOT PAY ANY ATTENTION TO YOU, NOT TALK TO YOU OR LOOK AT YOU (After completing items with reference to Mom, say, "NOW I"M GOING TO ASK YOU HOW OFTEN YOUR DAD DOES THESE THINGS. Go through items in the same order, making appropriate gender revisions.) 146 APPENDIX B Child Measures The Divorce Perception Test When kid’s moms and dads divorce, kids.... (Dmslmmwai-A feel like crying feel happy have more angry feelings than most kids just don’t care very much feel like they’re all alone feel like helping out more at home worry about who they will live with feel tricked by their parents are surprised, kind of shocked. worry about who will take care of them wish their parents would get back together again feel confused about why it happened. don’t want to know why it happened feel like it’s sort of been their fault feel the same as they did before the divorce want to do better at school look forward to have time along with each of their parents wish they could talk to other kids whose parents divorced so they could find out what it’s like feel bored feel better about themselves have more friends than they used to don’t get the kind of food they like as much are glad their parents got divorced feel like they don’t want to do what their moms tell them to do wish their mom would get married again 147 APPENDIX B Child Measures The Child Behavior Checklist 00000000 000000 00000 O O NNNNNNNN NNNNNN N NNNNN . Acts too young for his/her age 2. Allergy 3. Argues a lot 4. Asthma 5. Behaves like opposite sex 6. Bowel movements outside toilet 7. Bragging, boasting 8. Can't concentrate. can't pay ‘ attention for long 9. Can't get his/her mind off certain thoughts; obsessions 10. Can't sit still, restless, or hyperactive ll. Clings to adults or too dependent 12. Complains of loneliness l3. Confused or seems to be in a fog 14. Cries a lot l5. Cruel to animals 16. Cruelty. bullying. or meanness to others 17. Day-dreams or gets lost in his/her thoughts la. Deliberately harms self or attempts suicide ‘ 19. Demands a lot of attention 20. Destroys his/her own things 21. Destroys things belonging to his/ her family or other children 22. Disobedient at home 23. Disobedient at school 24. Doesn‘t eat well 25. Doesn't get along with other children 26. Dosn‘t seem to feel guilty after misbehaving 27. Easily jealous 28. Cats or drinks things that are not . food 29. Fears certain animals. situations. or places, other than school 30. Fears going to school O 0 00000 0 0000000 00000 1 2 N NNNNN N NNNNNNN NNNNN 3T. 37. 38. 39. Fears he/she might think or do something bad Feels he/she has to be perfect Feels or complains that no one loves him/her Feels others are out to get him/her Feels worthless or inferior Gets hurt a lot, accident- Prone Gets in many fights Gets teased a lot Hangs around with children who get in trouble Hears things that aren't there . Impulsive or acts without thinking Likes to be alone Lying or cheating Bites fingernails Nervous. highstrung. or tense Nervous movements or twitch- in! Nightmares not liked by other children Constipated, doesn't move bowels Too fearful or anxious Feels dizzy Feels too guilty Overeating Overtired Overweight Physical problems without known medical cause: a. Aches or pains b. Headaches c. Nausea, feels sick d. Problems with eyes e. Rashes or other skin problems 148 APPENDIX B Child Measures 0 00°00 00°00 00000 0 000000 0000 NNNNN” NNNNN NNNNN NNNNN NNNN 56. (Continued) f. Stuaach aches or creams 0 2 83. Stores up things he/she - doesn't need 9. Vomiting, throwing up 0 2 84. Strange behavior h. Other (describe) 0 2 86. Strange ideas 57. Physically attacks people 0 2 86. Stubborn, sullen, or irritable 58. Picks nose, skin. or other parts of body 0 2 87. Sudden changes in mood or feelings 59. Plays with own sex parts in public 0 2 88. Sulks a lot 60. Plays with own sex parts too much 0 2 89. Suspicious 61. Poor school work 0 2 90. Swearing or obscene language 62. Poorly coordinated or clumsy 0 2 9l. Talks about killing self 63. Prefers playing with older children 0 2 92. Talks or walks in sleep 64. Prefers playing with younger 0 2 93. Talks too much children 0 2 94. Teases a lot 65. Refuses to talk 0 2 95. Temper tantrums or hot temper 66. Repeats certain acts over and over; compulsions 0 2 96. Thinks about sex too much 67. Runs away from home 0 2 97. Threatens people 68. Screams a lot 0 2 98. Thus: sucking 69. Secretive. keeps things to self 0 2 99. Too concerned with neetness or cleanliness 70. Sees things that aren't there 0 2 Too. Trouble sleeping 7l. Self-conscious or easily embarrassed O 2 lOl. Truancy, skips school 72. Sets fires 0 2 102. Underactive, slow moving. or - lscks energy 73. Sexual problems ' 0 2 l03. Unhappy, sad. or depressed 74. Showing off or clowning 0 2 l04. Lnusually loud 75. Shy or timid - 0 2 lOS. Uses alcohol or drugs 76. Sleeps less than most children 0 2 l06. Vandalism 77. Sleeps more than most children during day and/or night 0 2 107. Wets self during the day 78. Smears or plays with bowel 0 2 108. Wets the bed movements 0 2 109. Whining 79. Speech problem 0 2 llo Wishes to be of opposite sex 80. Stares blankly O 2 lll. Withdrawn, doesn't get Bl. Steals at home involved with others 82. Steals outside the home 0 2 llz. Worrying 0 2 113 Please write in any problems your child has that were not 0 2 listed above. 149 APPENDIX B Child Measures Perceptions of Divorce Impact Children have a wide range of responses to parental separa- tion and divorce--some common and some not so common. We would like you to estimate how likely it is that children ages 6-12 in general have the following reactions to paren- tal separation and divorce. Extremely Unlikely [1] Unlikely [2] Likely [3] Quite Likely [4] Extremely Likely [5] After parents separate and/or divorce children: 1 get into more fights with their friends 2 think that if they had only been better behaved that their father or mother would not have left 3 think that they were responsible for the divorce 4. feel more confident 5. walk around with a chip on their shoulder 6. are more likely to get into trouble with other children 7 begin to doubt how well they will do in sports and at school 8 begin to put themselves down more 9. get along better with other children 10. begin to lose their self-confidence 11. begin to worry about losing their friends 12. have more trouble getting along with their friends. 13. get into more fights with their brothers and sisters. 14. begin to act up in school. 15. believe that they were an important cause of the split-up 16. keep wishing that their parents would get back together 17. feel that it was something about them that drove their father or mother away 18. sometimes get themselves in trouble so that their parents will have to talk to each other about them 19. hope that their parents’ divorce is permenent 20. feel that they must choose on parent or the other 21. feel that it was because they took their parents for granted that they got a divorce 22. often feel that they are caught in the middle of a battle 23. find it very difficult to give up the idea that their parents will never get together again 150 APPENDIX B Child Measures Extremely Unlikely [1] Unlikely [2] Likely [3] Quite Likely [4] Extremely Likely [5] 24. feel that by being close to one parent they are slighting the other 25. like to think about the days when their whole family was together 26. find it pretty easy to get along with both parents 27. accept the fact that their parents will never get back together again 28. don’t have trouble going back and forth between their parents’ homes 29 begin to do worse in their grades in school 30. feel that they must please both parents 31. feel that their parents’ split-up had nothing to do with them 32. feel that they are asked to take sides 33. become more willful, bossy and stubborn 34. become so preoccupied by the divorce that they can’t concentrate at school 35. complain more often about stomachaches headaches 36. have trouble getting to sleep at night 37. feel like they have more time with their parents 38. complain of being tired more often 39. often react by becoming a calculated nuisance 40. don’t seem to complain about being sick as much 41. act more loving towards their parents 42. begin to do better in their grades at school 43. become angry more often 44. feel lonely much of the time 45. seem to want to do things to get their parents angry 46. want their parents to spend more time with them 47. have trouble paying attention to their studies 48. feel like their parents don't spend enough time with them 49. have more trouble getting up to go to school 50. feel better because there is less arguing in the house 51. put up more of a fight when asked to do something 52. are glad to have things finally settled 53. feel like their parents are too preoccupied to think of them. 54. feel relieved 55. are glad to know where things stand 56. feel small and helpless 57. find it easier to concentrate on their studies 58. worry that no one will take care of them 59. feel like they don’t get as much attention from their parents as other kids their age 151 APPENDIX B Child Measures Extremely Unlikely [1] Unlikely [2] Likely [3] Quite Likely [4] Extremely Likely [5] 60. feel like crying more than they used to 61. complain that they don’t get all the things the need from their parents 62. don’t laugh as quickly and as much 63. want to hang around their parents more 64. quickly get over the sadness 65. worry that things are going out of control in their lives 66. do more of the chores around the house 67. worry that nothing will go right for themselves 68. are happier 69. feel in control of their lives 70. believe what they say matters 71. worry that they might be left to take care of themselves 72. are unhappy 73. become much more demanding 74. feel more like sleeping in the same room with their parents 75. get frustrated that they can’t change things in the family 76. want to stay in the house more 77. take more responsibility for making their meals 78. have more of a voice in making household decisions 79. feel sad a lot 80. become more cooperative and helpful at home APPENDIX C PARENT MEASURES 152 APPENDIX C Parent Measures Quality of Coparental Communication 1) never 2) rarely 3) sometimes 4) usually 5) always Coparental Conflict Subscale 1. When you and your former spouse discuss parenting issues how often does an argument result? How often is the underlying atmosphere one of hostility or anger? How often is the conversation stressful or tense? Do you and your former spouse have basic differences of opinion about issues related to child rearing? Coparental Suppgrt Subscale 5. 10. If your former spouse has needed to make a change in visiting arrangements, do you go out of your way to accommodate? Does your former spouse go out of the way to accommo- date any changes you need to make? Do you feel that your former spouse understands and is supportive of your special needs as a custodial (or noncustodial) parent? When you need help regarding the children, do you seek it from your former spouse? Would you say that your former spouse is a resource to you in raising the children? Would you say that you are a resource to your former spouse in raising the children? 153 APPENDIX C Parent Measures Content of Coparental Interaction: Parental Dimension 1) never 2) rarely 3) sometimes 4) usually 5) always Which of the following have been shared between you and your former spouse? 1. 2. 10. Making major decisions regarding your children’s lives? Making day-to-day decisions regarding your children’s lives? Discussing personal problems your children may be experiencing? Discussing school and/or medical problems? .. Planning special events in your children’s lives? Talking about our children’s accomplishments and progress? Talking about problems you are having in raising the children? Discussing how the children are adjusting to the divorce? Discussing problems you are having with the coparent- ing relationship? Discussing finances in regard to your children. 154 APPENDIX C Parent Measures Nonresidential Parent-Child Involvement Scale 1) not at all involved 4) much involved 2) a little involved 5) very much involved 3) somewhat involved Are you involved with the children in the following areas: 1. 0301th 10. Disciplining the Children Dress and grooming Religious or moral training (if any) Running errands for/with children Celebrating holidays with the children Celebrating significant events (e.g., birthday) with the children Taking the children for recreation activities (e.g. sports) Attending school or church related functions Discussing problems with the children that they might be having Taking the children for vacations 156 APPENDIX C Parent Measures Visitation Scale What was the court ordered visitation schedule for the noncustodial/nonresidential parent? In actuality, how often does the noncustodial/ nonresidential parent visit him/her? 1. more than once a week 2. once a week 3. one to three times a month 4. less than once a month but several times per year 5. about once or twice a month 6. Not at all in the last year How regular would you say are these visits? 1 very regular 3 somewhat regular 2 regular 4 not at all regular How would you rate the quality of these visits? 1 excellent 4 poor 2 very good 5 very poor 3 good How often does your ex-spouse call your child? 1 more than once a week 2 once a week 3 one to three times a week 4 less than once a month 5 never AP 1 proximately how long are these telephone calls? less than 5 minutes 3 15 minutes 2 5-10 minutes 4 longer than 15 minutes How flexible is the visitation schedule? 1 very flexible 4 somewhat flexible 2 flexible 5 not at all flexible 3 mixed How satisfied are you with the amount of time your former spouse spends with the children? 1 very satisfied 4 somewhat satisfied 2 somewhat satisfied 5 very dissatisfied 3 mixed 156 APPENDIX C Parent Measures Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Short Form) The following are some different kinds of feelings people have. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the following items. Circle the number to the right of sentence that tells how you feel about the question. The meaning of each number is: 1 2 3 4 5 Mostly Neither Agree Mostly Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree 1. I am able to do things as well as most people. I take a positive attitude toward myself. I feel that I do not have much to be proud of. When I do a job, I do it well. Sometimes, I feel that I can’t do anything right. 0301th I feel that my life is not very useful. 157 APPENDIX C Parent Measures Degree of Interparental Hostility Scale How would you rate your separation and divorce in terms of the amount of tension and verbal fighting that was present between you and your ex-spouse? 1) no tension, no fighting 2) minimal, if any fighting 3) some fighting and tension, for the most part civil 4) more often than not there was fighting 5) a great deal of fighting and tension 6) horrible fighting all the time How often was your child present during verbal arguments? 1) never 2) once 3) only a few times 4) sometimes 5) frequently 6) all the time How frequently, if at all, did arguments involve physical fighting between you and your ex-spouse? 1) never 2) once 3) only a few times 4) sometimes 5) frequently 6) all the time How frequently was your child present during physical fights between you and your ex-spouse? 1) never 2) once 3) only a few times 4) sometimes 5) frequently 6) all the time APPENDIX D CATEGORIES OF MEDIATING PARENT VARIABLES M 158 APPENDIX D Categories of Descriptive Questionnaire Items and Scales Used in Parent Variable Analyses *I- *I]:. *III- Coparenting Relationship ”’0 Description Quality of Coparental Communication Scale (total) 10 items) 1. Coparental Conflict Subscale (4 items) 2. Coparental Support Subscale (6 items) Nonresidential Parent-CHild Involvement Scale (8 items) Content of Coparental Interaction: Parental Dimension (10 items) Attitudes Toward Former Spouse as Parent Scale (4 items) Frequency of Parental Contact on Person (1 item) Frequency of Parental Contact by Telephone (1 item) Degree of Satisfication with Coparenting Relationship (1 item) Ex-Spousal Relationship 8. b c. d. e f Content of Coparental Interaction: Non-Parental Dimension (13 items) Positive Feelings Scale (4 items) Guilt Scale (5 items) Anger Scale (8 items) Primary Reason for Divorce (1 item) Degree of Satisfaction and Ex-Spousal Involvement Pre- and Pogp- Divorce Conflict ** *1! a. Amount of pre-divorce verbal and physical fighting (2 items) b. Degree of exposure to pre-divorce verbal and physical parental fights (2 items) c. Amount of relitigation d. Frequency of mother-initiated relitigation (1 item) . e. Frequency of father-initiated relitigation (1 item) f. Plans for future relitigation (1 item) VI *IWV. 159 APPENDIX D Parent-Child Relationship a. Father-Child 1. Degree of intimacy and frequency of activities (4 items) Frequency of father visitation (1 item) Length of father visits (1 item) Flexibility of father visits (1 item) Frequency of father phone calls (1 item) Degree of father involvement in daily parenting, i.e., non-residential parent- child involvement scale (8 items) 7. Amount of actual child support contributed (1 item) 8. Regularity of child support (1 item) Mother-Child 1. Degree of intimacy and frequency of activi- ties pre- and post-divorce (4 items) Relationship to Both Parents 1. Frequency of activities pre-divorce with both parents (1 item) 2. Degree of intimacy pre-divorce with both parents (1 item) mow-tom Custodial Parents Popt-divorce Adjustment O. .7955” Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (Derogatis et al., 1974) ( items) Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) (6 items) Life Experiences Survey (Sarason, 1978 ( items) 1. Number of life experiences. 2. Degree of positive or negative impact Quality of Life Scale (Andrews & Witty, 1976) ( items) Educational Level of Mother (1 item) Source of Primary Income (1 item) Amount of Income Pre- and Post-divorce (2 items) Involvement Scale (4 items) .Divorce-Related Legal Issues AA 99'!» Type of custody awarded (1 item) Amount of father support awarded (1 item) Flexibility of visitation in divorce decree (1 item) Party who filed for divorce (1 item) Amount of relitigation (1 item) VJEI. N.E3- 160 APPENDIX D Area of relitigation (child support, custody, petition to leave the state, visitation, property or financial agreements, other) (2 items) Frequency of mother—initiated divorce (1 item) Frequency of father-initiated divorce (1 item) General Factors OCT" D. yanbo ** Father’s proximity to custodial home (1 item) Remarriage of either parent (2 items) Mother’s initial preference for custodial arrangement Degree of satisfaction with final custody arrangement Mother’s view of who decided custody arrangement Number of separations before the divorce Number of children in the family Length of marriage Variables from Semi-structured Interview Scale (Ahrons, 1980) Variables from Jacobson’s Inter-Parental Scale (1978) APPENDIX E RESULTS OF STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSIONS OF PARENT MEDIATING VARIABLES WITH CHILD ADJUSTMENT VARIABLES (TABLE 13) 161 APPENDIX E Table 13: Results of Stepwise Multiple Regressions of Parent WW Cognitive Perceived Competence Sole Joint Sole Joint Stepwise Total Maternal Legal Maternal Legal MWlL—Mu—Jn— Ct Arr Freq. M 1 Visit Conflict F Remar Relit Yrs Mar WW . Disagr F Rel 2 Supp Miles F Phone Prior Conflict ( ) ) - F Act F Act F Rel 3 Relit M’s Ed Post Prior Prior Bfiglfiggg) sili-s29) ) 9 Sex M Rel Freq F Disagr 4 of Ch PP Phone Post Relit Custody » ( i - - » -97(--2bl_..ZZ.L..Z§.L_ 5 Life Exp F Sup W) Lam-m - :M Physical Perceived Competence Sole Joint Sole Joint Stepwise Total Maternal Legal Maternal Legal Ct Arr F Rel Ct Arr s 1 Visit Prior Visit Reg Sup ND W‘ 11 151142) 191$:é1’__$JEEfi__ Disagr F Act PERFORMED 2 PP Person Copar F lnvolv Prior W) -24<--30) .Wapr Time 3 Togeth M Remar 333533;.) n§§$e§22 .zg(-,§g) 4 Involv M Symptom Win31) Disagr 3 Copar agggpggg) .4;(.2§) Positive 6 Parent m JPN-231 Key at End of Tables. 162 APPENDIX E Table 138 Results of Stepwise Multiple Regressions of Parent “WWW Social Perceived Competence Sole Joint Sole Joint Stepwi se Total Maternal Legal Maternal Legal Disagr l M's Ed Miles Copar Reg Sup M's Ed Prim Future Life 2 PP Phone Reg Sup Reason Relit Exp W) - 51 i- 49) - . .Prim Ct Arr 3 Miles Miles Reason Visit F Sup ( ) - 44) F Act Separ Time Sin Time Amt Phys 4 Post Prior Div Toget Fighting Baggflgggl. -31(224) sags-.31) .fi2§-.§12 .22§-.§§) -99(.l3 Ch Arr 5 Visit M Post Rel Bfiglfigggg -90(-Sl) .92(-.§21 .__ Ct Arr 6 Visit PP Discuss m: .94‘.251 .951“. 45) _ Disagr 7 Custody Guilt General Perceived Competence Sole Joint Sole Joint Stepwise Total Maternal Legal Maternal Legal WWW Ct Arr Prim 1 PP Phone PP Person Visit Reason Life Exp W) ASH-J41 .m Time Sin 2 Miles Miles Rel l Relit Div 4 - ) - 3 M's Ed F lnvolv Yrs Mar Rfigiflggp) .34(.22) 2921.31) 1931;341 Freq F Pos 4 Life Ex Relit Feelings Bfiglflgggl .39(-.242 .9 - 7( ) 5 Reg Sup M Satis M Guilt Bfigjflggg 144(g24) .9§;;‘39) .99(.l4) Ch Pres 6 Custody Verbal W‘s-22) HEP-0‘?) Key at End of Tables. 163 APPENDIX E Table 133 Results of Stepwise Multiple Regressions of Parent Positive Perception of Mother Sole innt Sole Joint Stepwise Total Maternal Legal Maternal Legal Freq M a F Rel Freq F Positive 1 Relit ND Post Relit Parent 85913133) 19913391 W M Act PERFORMED Exsp Separ 2 Post PP Person lnvolv Prior Ml egg-LEI e75(-e 71) 1791129, 3 lnvolv Involv 839m) leg-um fiOiLZB)... Pos 4 Feelings 853131131 .95(.23) Amt Phys 5 Fighting ml 19m- 6 Relit W, efil'e 152 Negative Perception of Mother Sole Joint Sole Joint Stepwise Total Maternal Legal Maternal Legal F Act Ch Pres FreqoM 1 Custody Prior Physical Relit Yrs Mar Freq F Ch Pres 2 Reg Sup Impact Relit Physical M S-Est (- - (- - ) .79(.44) Amt Phys 3 Relit PP Phone Fighting M Built M Symptom W). 1391-agfil 127(‘3341 12 ) Disagr 4 Yrs Mar Conflict Custody Wei Mus-12:) $.40) .m Freq M F 5 Miles Relit Involv. Bfiglflggg;______‘1§(-.24) .95$.3§) .99I.lS) Disagr 6 Visit fi§g1§g§gl .50(.21) Disagr 7 Ch Sup W Efii'LZL Key at End of Tables. 164 APPENDIX E Table 13: Results of Stepwise Multiple Regressions of Parent WWW Positive Perception of Father Sole Joint Sole Joint Stepwise Total Maternal Legal Maternal Legal W F ACt Future F Rel 1 Prior Reg Sup Miles Relit Post ) ( ( ) ( ) Amt Phys Ct Arr Future Amt Verb 2 Fighting Visit Relit Fighting Bfiggfllgl) .191-.27) .571.42) .511.51) .figi;‘1§l Disagr Prim 3 Copar M Remar Reason Bfig (an) .24(.2§l sZ4(.4;Sl .mnS?) 4 F Phone W) M) Negative Perception of Father Sole Joint Sole Joint Stepwise Total Maternal Legal Maternal Legal 333533.199 53591! 5‘}. fig]. Fggglg F1531: F Act M Act M Rel 1 Sex F Phone Prior Prior Post Bfigifigsnl______&1§1;‘§§l .44(-.§§) .491-249) .52(-.721, .4ii-.§51_ Amt Verb Ct Arr 2 F Phone Filed Fighting Visit We) -25(--M(-43> -75(-501 M Life 3 M Symptom M Remar Exp Decision ) JEN-aw AMHW F Act Time Ch Pres Econ 4 Prior Togeth Verb Sit 85553;.) .muzgz .gpg-Jm .95(.29) .94(.32) Disagr Exsp 5 PP Phone Ch F Sup Involv WWW-£51 -9‘7(--211 - 6 Reg Sup Miles Bfigiggtg) .93(:;2§) s99ialfil_ Freq F 7 Relit 853433;.) .97(-.22) Key at End of Tables. 165 APPENDIX E Table 13: Results of Stepwise Multiple Regressions of Parent WWW Sad Feelings About the Divorce Sole Joint Sole Joint Stepwise Total Maternal Legal Maternal Legal Disagr F Rel F F Rel l Custody Prior Visit Prior Copar BESSEISI! IA! :22 §§S’ ifll :13- pg: Bi!’ 2:: :2! Zél F Act Ch Ar F 2 M Satis Post M Remar Visit Phone Time Positive 3 F lnvolv M Symptom Togeth Parrent W1 m31(-m291 1221.“) a (”-53, eqlg-mw_ Freq M 4 Relit Relit PP Phone W2 EMF-29’ -9b..l_..2_z_4 Separ 5 Prior M Satis M Guilt W -fi9<--29) -93i-l23) rm Active Coping Style About the Divorce Sole Joint Sole Joint Stepwise Total Maternal Legal Maternal Legal Econ Econ Amt Phys Prim 1 Sit Sit Fighting Reg Sup Reason gfiggfigggz .Qfig-Izgz .§§g-.§zz .§2§,§zz Iglg-.Z§) ,4Q(-,§4z Amt Verb Separ 2 Rel 1 Fighting Decision Impact Prior W) dew-29> .445 41) loss-.54) :Wfizl. Disagr 3 Reg Sup Custody Rel 3 M Anger ID 4 F Visit M Remar Guilt M Remar We) -32(--311 WW Amt Verb 5 Fighting Rel 2 Copar 33333.1.) .92(-.421 .99(.20) -991.lfi;__ 6 M Remar Key at End of Tables. 166 APPENDIX E Table 13: Results of Stepwise Multiple Regressions of Parent H II Ii V I II ’I! EI'II El ! l M . ll Abandonment Feelings about Divorce Sole Joint Sole Joint Stepwise Total Maternal Legal Maternal Legal WWW Life 1 Exp Impact PP Phone ' M Ed ID > - - - 7 ) 44 - Freq M Number Life 2 Rel of Sibs F Sup F Sup Exp We) -2U--'-':9.L___..§9L--41) .mLmLm Ch Arr 3 Flexible Rel 2 Miles Visit Bfiglagggl .27(-.24) -§2$:§Zl .gfig,gzz .21(-.3§) Time Sin Life 4 Div M Built Exp Bfigsfllggl, . 91.132 .§0(-41) .97(.27) Disagr 3 Ch Sup M Symptom W -W Ch Arr Disagr 6 Visit Custody 333321311 .9li.271 .941.371 7 Self Sup Wei £94933) Severity of Depression Sole Joint Sole Joint Stepwise Total Maternal Legal Maternal Legal Ct Arr Econ 1 Visit Situat F Phone Self Sup M Remar 839131531 .10(-3IL 239;;‘§§1____‘§§4&§91A .43(-.§§) .29i211) Econ F Act F Act Freq M 2 Sit Prior Prior Relit F Act Ch Pres 3 Prior F Visit PP Discuss Phys fight.) .Zfis-laz .fifis.§2} .ZQ$.§§2 .flfi(342) Pos Ch Arr 4 Feelings Visit F Remar 333333;.1 -29(.25) .22§(-.33) .93(-.32) Separ Life 5 Prior Self Sup Exp Bfigifiggg) .34I-.251 i§§is3QL .97is312 Prim Econ 6 Reason Sit agaiflgt.) Lg§§(-.3O) .99(-.14) ___ Key at End of Tables. 167 APPENDIX E Table 13: Results of Stepwise Multiple Regressions of Parent Internal Locus of Control Sole Joint Sole Joint Stepwise Total Maternal Legal Maternal Legal WM Ch Arr 1 Visit Impact Anger Reg Sup M's Ed 33333333) .1511391 1391.331 .451. ' ' Time Sin Prim 2 Impact Conflict Div Reason Rel 3 ml 130 (e24) mhl‘mQZE ewe“) m - Amt Phys M Act. 3 IO M S-Est Fighting ~Rel 2 Post 7 4 - - Time 4 M’s Ed Togeth M's Ed Miles 333333331 .3ZI.25) 133(1271 1935.32) .235-332 5 Self Sup 353333331 .97j.23) External Locus of Control Sole Joint Sole Joint Stepwi se Total Maternal Legal Maternal Legal Web—Mineswe— Ch Arr 1 Visit Impact Anger Reg Sup M’s Ed m1 115$-139L e - " - Time Sin Prim 2 Impact Conflict Div Reason Rel 3 Amt Phys M Act 3 IO M S-Est Fighting Rel 2 Post W) 131$:e22L e75(-e‘1) m74$e3°) m§2("e‘9) ’M Time 4 M's Ed Togeth M’s Ed Miles 5 Self Sup 353333331 .92(-.23) Key at End of Tables. 1138 APPENDIX E Table 13: Results of Stepwise Multiple Regressions of Parent Internalizing Problem Scale Sole Joint Sole Joint Stepwi se Total Maternal L093} put-n, .1 Legal F 1 5? ?:V F n Rel ' SUP Post 3.9 Sup I mpact W .10(-31, "OM 049(-m7°) e52(-m72) 2 F sup pp p.,,°n n Rel Pr gasiflstal_e .17(.27) afiMIJs) a;3(sup tor Remar R39 Sup Easiness) 1231.321. .935,352 '94,- §§2 4 Prim Future m 3“" R33"? '21) “8%? 2 5 M Act ' ' ‘ ‘ 7’ Prior M’s Ed Bfioiflesal_ 'M l9?“sz— Externalizing Problem Scale Ct Arr Ct Arr 1 Visit Visit Conflict PP Person PP Person m.) eo7‘m27) e52(e72) m2 - ( - 2 Conflict Guilt F Sup IQ 33912151111 .11§7s.40) .sz(.4s) .se(—.49) 1313332;__ Ch Pres Pos Number 3 Physical Feelings of Sibss M Guilt 33333333) 133233333_____334(-.531 .711-.421 .97(-.4Z) Disagr 4 Anger Self Sup Custody 3333333311, .92! 24) 11333333) 199(-.24) Time 5 Flexible F Phone Since Div 333333;.) -94(-.ia) .94(.42) .99(-101__ Key at End of Tables. Amt Phys Fighting Amt Verb Fighting Ch Arr Visit Ch Pres Physical Conflict Cogar Ct Arr Visit Custody Decision Disagr Ch Sup Disagg,Copar Disagr Custody Disagr Visit Econ Sit ExSp Involv F Act Post F Act Prior F Involv F Visit 51.132 Flexible F Phone F Rel Post F Rel Prior F Remar Freq F Relit Freq M Relit F Sup Future Relit Impact Involv g 169 APPENDIX E Key to Abbreviations for Table 13 Amount of physical fighting Amount of verbal fighting Child-arranged visitation Child present during physical fighting Degree of interparental post-divorce conflict Degree of coparenting Court-arranged visitation Type of custody (- : maternal; + : joint legal) Type of custody was mother's decision Degree of pre-divorce disagreement about child support Degree of pre-divorce disagreement about coparenting Degree of pre-divorce disagreement about custody Degree of pre-divorce disagreement about visitation Mother's post-divorce economic situation Post-divorce involvement with ex-spouse Father's post-divorce activities with the child Father's pre-divorce activities with the child Degree of father's post-divorce involement with child Frequency of father-s post-divorce visitation Mother filed for divorce Father's flexibility about visitation Frequency of father's post-divorce telephone calls Father's post-divorce relationship with the child Father's pre-divorce relationship with the child Father remarried Frequency of father relitigation Frequency of mother relitigation Amount of court-awarded father support Mother's intentions for future relitigation Impact of mother's post-divorce life experiences (+ or -) Degree of Mother's post-divorce involvement with a significant other Child's ID on WISC-R Similarity Subscale 170 APPENDIX E Key to Table 13, cont. Life Exp Number of post-divorce life experiences M Act Post Mother's post-divorce activities with child M Act Prior Mother's pre-divorce activities with child ELIE! Mother's educational level M Guilt Mother's guilt toward ex—spouse about divorce flilgs Number of miles between custodial mother's home and father's residence M Remar Mother remarried M Symptom Degree of mother's symptomatic behavior M Satis Degree of mother satisfaction with her post-divorce life (+ or-) M Rel Post Mother's post-divorce relationship with child M Rel Prior Mother's pre-divorce relationship with child M S-Est Mother's self-esteem Number of Sibs Number of siblings Pos Feelings Mother's positive feelings toward ex-spouse Positive Parent Mother's view of father‘s parenting (+ or -) PP Discuss Degree of interparental discussion and interaction PP Person Degree of interparental face-to-face contact PP Phone Degree of interparental telephone contact Prim Reason Primary reason for divorce ('+' : father's personal and '-' : interpersonal differences) Reg Sup Regularity of father's child support payment flglig. Presence of relitigation figl_l Catholic religion flpl_g_ Protestant religion B§l_2_ Jewish religion, or other Self Sup Mother's job was primary source of support Separ Prior Parental separation prior to divorce §§1 Sex of child Time Togeth Ex-spouses spend time together with child Time Sin Time since divorce Yrs Mar Years married APPENDIX F RESULTS OF ANALYSES 0E VARIANCE FOR MEDIATING VARIABLES: TIME SINCE DIVORCE, MOTHER’S REMARRIAGE AND FATHER’S REMARRIAGE (TABLE 16, 17, AND 18) 171. APPENDIX F Table 16: Results of. Analyses of Variance with Child Variables 55 Custody, Sex and Time Since Divorce Positive Perception Negative Perception of Mother of Mother Source of Variance P Si P Si Main Effects 0749 6‘57 2755 07% Custody 0.28 0.60 9.08 0.004 Sex 1.02 0.32 0.51 0.481 tine Since Divorce 0.21 0.81 0.70 0.50 Z-Uhy Interactions 0.51 0.77 0.84 0.53 Custody 6 Sex 1.12 0.30 0.70 0.41 Custody 6 Tine Since Divorce 0.31 0.74 0.66 0.52 Sex 6 Time Since Divorce 0.31 0.74 0.99 0.38 B-Way Interactions 3.69 0.03 4.66 0.01 ' Custody, Sex 6 Time Since Divorce 3.69 0.03 4.66 0.01 Explained 1.08 0.40 2.15 0.04 Internalizing Externalizing Problen Scale Problem Scale Source of Variance g Si g Sigp Hhin Effects 0.67 0.62 0.05 0.99 Custody 1.40 0.24 0.03 0.86 Sex 0.62 0.44 0.04 0.84 Time Since Divorce 0.21 0.81 0.07 0.93 2-Why Interactions 0.13 0.99 0.66 0.65 Custody 6 Sex 0.31 0.58 0.15 0.70 Custody 6 Tina Since Divorce ' 0.05 0.96 0.52 0.60 Sex 6 Time Since Divorce ° 0.11 0.89 1.14 0.33 3-Uhy Interactions 3.80 ‘ 0.03 2.54 0.09 Custody, Sex 6 Time Since Divorce 3.80 0.03 2.54 0.09 Explained 4i 0.99 0.47 4.,°°78 0.66 Perceived Physical Perceived General Self-Competence Sel£¥Conpgtence Source of Variance _P_ Si _P_ Si Mhin Effects 1.27 0.3% 1.60 .1 Custody 3.04 0.088 0.61 0.44 Sex 0.00 0.98 0.71 0.40 Tine Since Divorce 1.21 0.31 2.50 0.09 Z-th Interactions 2.62 0.036 1.76 0.14 Custody 6 Sex 0.03 0.86 0.02 0.89 Custody 6 Tina Since Divorce 5.67 0.006 3.02 0.06 Sex 6 Time Since Divorce 1.07 0.35 1.79 0.18 3-flhy Interactions 1.49 0.24 0.67 0.52 Custody, Sex 6 Time Since Divorce 1.49 0.24 0.67 0.52 Explained 1.93 0.06 1.51 0.16 1372 APPENDIX F Table 16: Results of Analyses of Variance with Child Variables 53 Custody, Sex and Tine Since Divorce Internal Locus ’IExternal Locus of Control of Control Source of variance P Si P Si _Hein Effects 0737 fie 0736 ‘fio . Custody 0.03 0.86 0.03 0.86 Sex 0.25 0.62 0.22 0.64 Time Since Divorce 0.58 0.57 0.55 0.58 Z-Way Interactions 1.45 0.22 1.41 0.24 Custody 6 Sex 0.03 0.87 0.03 0.87 Custody 6 Time Since Divorce 0.51 0.60 0.45 0.64 Sex 6 Time Since Divorce 3.29 0.05 3.23 0.05 3-Way Interactions 0.04 0.96 0.06 0.95 Custody, Sex 6 Tine Since Divorce 0.04 0.96 0.06 0.95 Explained 0.81 0.63 0.78 0.66 Mother's Perception Hother's Perceptions That Child Sees ' of Loyalty Conflicts Self as Cause Source of Variance ‘g Sigp .g Si Main Effects 0.83 0.51 0.83 0.52 Custody 1.21 0.28 2.91 0.10 Sex 0.09 0.77 0.32 0.57 Time Since Divorce 1.07 0.35 0.15 0.86 Z-Hay Interactions 1.47 0.22 1.80 0.13 Custody 6 Sex 2.85 0.10 3.47 0.07 Custody 6 Tine Since Divorce 2.11 0.13 3.12 0.05 Sex 6 Time Since Divorce 0.16 0.85 0.13 0.88 3-Why Interactions 0.35 0.70 .0.22 0.81 Custody, Sex 6 Time Since Divorce 0.35 0.70 0.22 0.81 Explained 1.04 0.43 1.16 0.34 Mother's Perception Mother's Perception of Child's Insecure of Sad Feelin Feelings Source of Variance g 812 i Sign Main Effects 0.25 0.91 0.32 0.87 Custody 0.55 0.46 0.21 0.65 So: 0.07 0.79 0.61 0.44 line Since Divorce 0.26 0.77 0.19 0.83. Z-th Interactions 1.47 0.22 1.80 0.13 Custody 6 Sex 0.96 0.33 3.51 0.07 Custody 6 Tine Since Divorce 3.10 0.06 2.81 0.07 Sex 6 Time Since Divorce 0.35 0.71 0.07 0.93 3-wu1_Interactions 0.24 0.79 0.09 0.91 Custody, Sex 6 Time Since Divorce 0.24 0.79 0.09 0.91 Explained 0.80 0.64 0.95 0.51 1373 APPENDIX E Table 17: Results of Analyses of Variance with Child Variables 63 Custody, Sex and mother's Remarriage Mother'siPerception Active Coping of Insecure Feelingg. About Divorce Source of Variance F Si F Si Main Effects 0723 . 6'5 1750 07% Custody 0.22 0.64 0.72 0.40 Sex 0.37 0.54 0.26 0.22 M's Remarriage 0.04 0.85 2.84 0.10 Z-Why Interactions 5.99 0.002 .0.12 0.88 Custody 6 Sex 4.63 0.04 0.06 0.81 Custody 6 M's Remarriage 4.47 0.04 0.08 0.49 Sex 6 M's Remarriage 7.89 0.007 0.02 0.76 _3-Way Interactions 7.37 0.009 0.85 0.03 ‘ Custody, Sex 6 M's Remarriage 7.37 0.009 0.85 0.03 Explained 3.72 0.003 1.73 0.21 Abandonment Feelings Internal Locus About Divorce __of Control Source of Variance P Si F Si rm Effects 0765 6% 0731 6'ng 2 Custody 1.01 0.32 0.10 0.76 Sex 0.33 0.57 0.50 0.48 M's Remarriage 0.42 0.52 0.46 0.50 Z-flhy Interactions 0.64 0.59 0.46 0.71 Custody 6 Sex 1.28 0.26 0.59 0.45 Custody 6 M's Remarriage . 0.31 0.58 0.67 0.42 Sex 6 M's Renarriage 0.82 0.37 0.56 0.46 3-fluy Interactions 4.17 0.05 5.40 0.02 Custody, Sex 6 M's ' Remarriage 4.17 0.05. 5.40 0.02 Explained 1.15 0.35 1.10 0.38 VExternaI’Locue Mother's Perception of Control of Loyalty Conflicts Source of Variance g Si _F_ Sigp Main Effects 0.30 0.83 0.35 0.79 Custody 0.10 0.76 0.69 0.41 Sex 0.46 0.50 0.00 0.97 M's Remarriage 0.47 0.50 0.36 0.55 Z-Huy Interactions 0.43 0.73 5.72 0.002 Custody 6 Sex 0.57 0.45 3.29 0.08 Custody 6 M's Renarriage 0.59 0.45 2.15 0.15 Sex 6 H's Remarriage 0.54 0.46 10.58 0.002 3-Why Interactions 5.24 0.03 0.01 0.91 Custody, Sex 6 H's Remarriage 5.24 0.03 0.01 0.02 Explained 1.06 0.40 2.60 1374 AJEPEEHDIXIIF Table 17: Results of Analyses of Variance with Child Variables bg Custody, Sex and Mother's Remarriage Mother's Perception That Child Thinks Mother'sPerception of Reconciliation Wishes Cause of Divorce Source of Vhriance P Si P Si —Hain Effects 0790 6% 1723 636.2 Custody 0.55 0.46 2.66 0.11 Sex 0.20 0.66 0.10 0.75 H's Remarriage 2.22 0.14 1.11 0.30 Z-Hay Interactions 1.74 0.17 3.64 0.02 Custody 6 Sex 0.03 0.87 2.77 0.10 Custody 6 M's Remarriage 1.07 0.31. 0.70 0.41 Sex 6 M's Remarriage 3.61 0.06 6.76 0.01 B-Hay Interactions 0.49 0.49 0.32 0.57 Custody, Sex 6 M's . Remarriage 0.49 0.49 0.32 0.57 Explained 1.20 0.32 2.16 0.06 Mother'sgPerception of Sad Peeling! mother's Perception _D_e£ndent Peeling: Source of Variance 5 Si 2" Sig Main Effects 0.49 0.6; 0.62 0.61 Custody 0.60 0.44 0.30 0.59 Sex 0.12 0.73 0.14 0.71 M's Remarriage 0.62 0.44 1.23 0.27 gzggy Interactions 5.52 0.002 5.07 0.004 Custody 6 Sex 0.72 0.40 3.26 0.08 Custody 6 M's Remarriage 5.57 0.02 2.63 0.11 Sex 6 M's Remarriage 9.00 0.004 8.41 0.006 3-Why Interactions 1.02 0.32 0.08 0.77 Custody, Sex 6 M's Remarriage' 1.02 0.32 0.08 0.77 Explained 2.72 0.32 2.45 0.03 Mother's Perception of Anggz Peeling: Mother's Perception Somatic Complaints Source of Variance P Si P Si ——Main Effects 0771 653.5 1725 6%.: Custody 1.15 0.29 3.49 0.07 Sex 0.17 0.69 0.18 0.67 H's Remarriage 0.71 0.40 0.09 0.77 Z-WIZMInteractions 4.83 0.005 2.32 0.09 Custody 6 Sex 0.40 0.53 0.54 0.47 Custody 6 M's Remarriage 2.84 0.10 1.24 0.27 Sex 6 H's Remarriage 10.10 0.003 4.66 0.04 3-Why Interactions 1.85 0.18 2.55 0.12 Custody, Sex 6 H's Remarriage 1.85 0.18 2.55 0.12 Explained 2.64 0.02 1.89 0.09 1375 APPENDIX F Table 18: Results of Analyses of Variance with Child Variables bg Custody, Sex and Father's Remarriage Positive Perception Negative Perception of Mother of Mother Source of Viriance P Si P Si r. ya... 1715 67% 3707 67% Custody 1.38 0.25 8.59 0.005 Sex 0.53 0.47 0.47 0.50 P's Remarriage 1.75 0.19 0.43 0.52 Z-th Interactions 1.23 0.31 1.22 0.31 Custody 6 Sex 1.49 0.23 1.69 0.20 Custody 6 P's Remarriage 0.01 0.93 1.47 0.23 Sex 6 P's Remarriage 2.72 0.11 0.75 0.39 3-Way Interactions 6.73 0.01 5.85 0.02 Custody, Sex 6 P's Remarriage 6.73 0.01 5.85 0.02 Explained 1.84 0.08 2.68 0.02- Perceived Cognitive Perceived Physical Self-Competence _§plf-Competence Source of Vhriance P 51 P Si r. Effects 2742 6‘36 0777 6'5252 Custody 4.96 0.03 1.33 0.25 Sex 1.99 0.16 0.97 0.33 P's Remarriage 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.99 Z-Why Interactions 3.10 0.03 1.25 0.30 Custody 6 Sex 0.51 0.48 0.06 0.81 Custody 6 P's Remarriage 7.28 0.009 3.66 0.06 Sex 6 P's Remarriage 0.74 0.39 0.03 0.86 3-way Interactions - 0.13 0.72 0.01 0.92 Custody, Sex 6 P‘s Remarriage - 0.13 0.72 0.01 0.92 Explained 2.39 0.03 0.87 0.54 Child Depression Active Coping Style Inventory About Divorce Source of Variance g Sig P Sig Ruin Effects 1.30 0.28 0.74 0.54 Custody 3.06 0.09 0.43 0.52 Sex’ 0.68 0.41 1.35 0.25 P's Remarriage 0.28 0.60 0.40 0.53 z-way Interactions 1.51 0.22 2.92 0.04 Custody 6 Sex 0.79 0.38 0.15 0.70 Custody 6 P's Remarriage 3.36 0.07 7.58 0.008 Sex 6 P's Remarriage 0.06 0.80 1.53 0.22 3-way Interactions 2.74 0.10 0.15 0.70 Custody, Sex 6 P's Remarriage 2.74 0.10 0.15 0.70 Explained 1.59 0.16 0.16 176 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abelin, E.L. (1971). The role of the father in the separation-individuation process. In J.B. McDevitt & C.F. Settlage (Eds.) Separation-Individuation. New York: International Universities Press. Achenbach, T. (1966). The classification of children’s psychiatric symptoms: A factor analytic study. Psychological Monographs, 80, (Whole No. 615). Achenbach, T. & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and Revised Child Behavior Profile. New York: Queen City Printers. Achenbach, T.M. & Lewis, M.A. (1971). A proposed model for clinical research and its application to encopresis and enuresis. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 10, 535-554. Ahrons, C.R. (1983) Predictors of parental involvement post-divorce: Mothers’ and father’s perceptions. Journal of Divorce, 6(3), 55-69. Ahrons, C.R. (1981). The continuing coparental relationship between divorced spouses. American Journal of OrthOpsychiatry, 51, 415-428. L/ Ahrons, C.R. (1980). Joint custody arrangements in the post-divorce family. Journal of Divorce, 3, 189-205. sz/Ahrons, C.R. (1979). The coparental divorce: Preliminary research findings and policy implications. In A. Milne (Ed.) Joint custody: A handbook for judges, lawyers and counselors. Oregon: Association of Family Conciliation Courts. Alexander, S.J. (1977). Protecting the child’s rights in custody cases. Family Coordinator, 26, 377-385. Allie, S.M. (1979). The normative and structural properties of the children’s Norwicki-Strickland scale of internal-external control: Children with adjustment problems. Psychology in the Schools, 16(1), 32-37. Andrews, F.M. & Withy, S.B. (1976). Social indicator of well-being. New York: Plenum Press. 177 / K/Arbarbanel, A. (1979). Shared parenting after separation and divorce: A study of joint custody. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 49, 320-329. Barling, J. (1979). Verbal proficiency: A confounding variable in the reliability of children’s attitude scales? Child Development, 50, 1254-1256. Back, A.T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspect. New York: Harper & Row. 3 Benedek, E.P. & Benedek, R.S. (1979). Joint custody: Solution or illusion? American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 1540-1544. Berg, B.& Kelly, R. (1979). The measured self-esteem of children from broken, rejected and accepted families. Journal of Divorce 2(4), 363-369. Bodenheimer, B.M. (1977). Progress under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act and remaining problems: Punitive decrees, joint custody, and excessive modifications. California Law Review, 65, 978-1014. Bornstein, B. (1951). On latency. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 6, 279-285. tClingempeel, W.G. & Reppucci, N.D. (1982). Joint custody after divorce: Major issues and goals for research. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 102-127. Colleta, N.D. (1979). Impact of divorce: Father absence or poverty? Journal of Divorce, 3(1), 27-35. Couch, A. & Keniston, K. (1960). Yeasayers and naysayers: Agreeing response set as a personality variable. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 151- 174. Cox, M.T. & Crase, L. (1978) Joint custody, what does it mean? How does it work? Family Advocate, Summer, 10- 13. Crandall, V.C., Crandall, V.J., & Katkovsky, W. (1965). A children’s social desirability questionnaire. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 27-36. Daignault, J. (1979). Toward the identification of depression in childhood. Unpublished master’s thesis, Smith College School for Social Work. Derdeyn, A.P. & Scott, E. (1984). Joint custody: A critical analysis and appraisal. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54, 199-209. 178 Derogatis, L.R., Lipman, R.S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E.H., & Covi, L. (1974) The Hopkins symptom checklist (HSCL). Psychological geasurements in psycho- pharmacology, 7, 79-110. Desimone-Luis, J., O’Mahoney, K., & Hunt, D. (1979). Children of separation and divorce: Factors influencing adjustment. Journgl of Divorcg, 3, 37-42. Emery, R.E. (1982). Interparental conflict and the children of divorce. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 310-330. Emery, R.E., Heatherington, E.M. & Dilalla, L.F. (1984). In H.W. Stevenson & A.E. Siegel (Eds.), Divorcgi children and social policy. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press. Emery R.E. & O’Leary, K.D. (1982). Children’s perceptions of marital discord and behavior problems of boys and girls. Journal f Abnorma Chil P cholo , 10, 11- 24. Fulton, J.A. (1979). Parental reports of children’s post- divorce adjustment. Journal of Social Issues, 35(4), 126-139. Furstenberg, F.F., Peterson, J.L., Nord, C.W., & Zill, N. (1983). The life course of children of divorce: Marital description and parental contact. American Sociological Review, 48, 656-668. a Gaddis, S.M. (1978). Joint custody of children: A divorce decision-making alternative. Conciliation Court Review, 16, 17-22. Gardner, R. (1976). Psychology with children of divorcg. New York: Aronson. Garrison, W.T. & Earls, F. (1985). The child behavior checklist as a screening instrument for young children. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24(1), 76-80. Gersick, K.E. (1979) Fathers by choice: Divorced men who receive custody of their children. In A. Levinger & O.C. Moles (Eds.) Divorce gnd separation. New York: Basic Books Glick, P.C. (1979). Children of divorce in demographic perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 35(4), 170-182. Glueck, S. & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinguency. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. 179 Goldstein, J., Freud, A. & Solnit, A.J. Beyond the best interests of the child. New York: The Free Press. Goode, W. (1956). After givorce. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press. Gorsuch, R.L.; Henighan, R.P. & Barnard, C. (1972). Locus of control: An example of dangers in using children’s scales with children. Child Develo ment, 43, 579-590. Grief, J.B. (1976). Fathers, children and joint custody. American Journal of Orthopsychiatyy, 49, 311-319. Guidubaldi, J. & Perry, J.D. (1985). Divorce and mental health sequelae for children: A two-year follow-up of a nationwide sample. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24(5), 531-537. Guidubaldi, J. & Perry J.D. (1984). Divorce, socioeconomic status and children’s cognitive-social competence at school entry. American Journal of Ortho s chiatr , 51(3), 459-468. Harter, S. (1982). The perceived self-competence scale for children. Child Develo ent, 53, 87-97. Harter, S. (1979). Manual for pgrceived competence scale for children. Colorado: University of Denver. Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human Development, 21, 34-64. Hazzard, A., Christenson, A. & Margolin, G. (1983) Children’s perceptions of parental behaviors. Journal of Abpprmal Child Psychology, 11(1), 49-60. Hersog, E. & Sudia, C.E. (1973). Children in fatherless families. In B. Caldwell & H. Riccuiti (Eds.) Review of child development research, Vol. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hess, R.D. & Camara, K.A. (1979). Post-divorce family relationships as mediating factors in the consequences of divorce for children. Journal of Social Issues, 35(4), 79-96. Hetherington, E.M. (1979). Divorce: A child’s perspective. American Psychologist, 34(10), 851-858. Hetherington, E.M., Cox, M. 6 Cox, R. (1985). Long-term effects of divorce and remarriage on the adjustment of children. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24(5), 518-530. 180 Hetherington, E.M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1982). Effects of divorce on parents and children. In M. Lamb (Ed.) Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Hetherington, E.M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1979). Play and social interaction in children following divorce. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 26-40. Hetherington, E.M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1978). The aftermath of divorce. In. J.H. Stevens, Jr. & M. Matthers (Eds.) Mother-child, father-child relations. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Hodges, W.F., Wechsler, R.C., & Ballatine, C. (1979). Divorce and the preschool child: Cumulative stress. Journal of Divorce, 3(1), 55-67. Huitema, B.E. (1980) The analysis of covariance and alternatives, Canada: John Wiley & Sons. Ilfeld, F.W., Jr., Ilfeld, H.Z. & Alexander, J.B. (1982). Does joint custody work? A first look at the outcome data of relitigation. Americap Journal of Child Psychiatry, 139, 62-66. Isaacs, M. (1985). Children of separation and divorce: Findings from a five year study. Presentation at annual meeting of American Orthopsychiatric Associa- tion, Chicago, Ill. Jacobson, D.S. (1978). The impact of marital separation/divorce on children: II. Interparent hostility and child adjustment. Journal of Divorcg, 2(1), 3-19. Jenkins, R.L. (1977). Maxims in child custody cases. Family Coordinator, 26, 385-390. Kalter, N. (1977). Children of divorce in an outpatient psychiatric population. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54(3), 490-497. Kalter, N. & Chethik, M. (1985). Children of divorce: A developmental vulnerability model. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan. Kalter, N. & Rembar, J. (1981). The significance of a child’s age at the time of parental divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51(1), 85-100. Kazdin, A.E., Esveldt-Dawson, K., Unis, A.S. & Rancurello, M.D. (1983). Child and parent evaluations of 181 depression and aggression in psychiatric inpatient children. Joprnal of Abnorggl Child Psychology, 11(3), 401-413. Kazdin, A.E., French, N.H. & Unis, A.S. (1983). Child, mother, and father evaluations of depression in psychiatric inpatient children. Journal of Abnorpp; Child Psychology, 2(2), 167-180. Kazdin, A.E. & Heidish, I.E. (1984). Convergence of clinically derived diagnoses and parent checklists among inpatient children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12(3), 421-436. Kazdin, A.E. & Petti, T.A. (1982). Self-report and interview measures of childhood and adolescent depression. Journal of Child Psychology and Pyschiatry, 23, 437-457. Kitson, & Sussman, M.B. (1976). The processes of marital separation and divorce: Male and female similarities and differences. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York. Kovacs, M. (1983). The children’s depression inventory: A self-rated depression scale for school-aged youngsters, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, unpublished manuscript. Kovacs, M. (1981). Rating scales to assess depression in school-aged children. Acta Paedopsychiatrica, 46, 305- 315. Kovacs, M. & Beck, A. (1977). An empirical-clinical approach toward a definition of childhood depression. In J. Schulterbrand & A. Baskin (Eds.), Depression in childhood: Diagposis, treatment and conceptual models. New York: Raven Press. Kovacs. M., Betof, N.G., Celebre, J.E., Mansheim, P.A., Petty, L.K., & Raynak, J.T. (1977). Childhood depression: Myth or clinical syndrome? Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania. Kovacs, M. & Feinberg, T.L. (1982). Coping with juvenile onset diabetes mellitus. In A. Baum & J.E. Singer (Eds.) Handbook of Psychology and Health (Vol. 2). Issues in Child Health and Adolescent Health. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Kulka, R.A. & Weingarten, H. (1979). The long term effects of parental divorce in childhood on adult adjustment. Journal of Social Issues, 35(4), 50-78. 182 Kurdek, L.A., Blisk, D., & Siesky, A.E. (1981). Correlates of children’s long-term adjustment to their parents’ divorce. Developmental Psychology, 17, 565-579. Kurdek. L.A. & Siesky, A.E. (1979). An interview study of parents’ perceptions of their children’s reactions and adjustments to divorce. Journal of Divorce, 3, 5-18. Lamb, M.E. Frodi, A.M., Hwang, C.P., & Frodi, J. (1982). Varying degrees of paternal involvement in infant care: Attitudinal and behavioral correlates. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional Families: Parenting and Child development. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Landis, J.I. (1962). A reexamination of the role of the father. Marriage and Family Living, 24, 122-128. Lang, M. & Tisher, M. (1978). Children’s depression scale. Victoria, Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research Limited. Little, V.L. & Kendall, P.C. (1978). Note on locus of control and academic achievements in institutionalized juvenile delinquents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6(2), 281-283. Luepnitz, D.A. (1982). Child Custody: A Study of Families after Divorce. Massachusetts: Lexington Books. McDermott, J. (1970). Divorce and its psychiatric sequels in children. Archives of General Ps chiatr , 23, 421- 427. Maccobby, E.E. & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). Thp psypholpgy of sex differences. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press. Machtlinger, V.J. (1981). The father in psychoanalytic theory. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.) The role of the father in child development. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Minuchin, S. (1974). Eggilies and family therapy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Moretti, M.M., Fine, M.A., Haley, G. & Marriage, M.B. (1985). Childhood and adolescent depression: Child- report versus parent-report information. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24(3), 298- 302. Morrison, J. (1974). Parental divorce as a factor in childhood psychiatric illness. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 15, 95-102. 183 Neubeuer, P.B. (1960). The one parent child and his oedipal development. Ps choanal tic Stud of the Child, 15, 286-308. Noble, D.N. (1983). Custody contest: How to divide and reassemble a child. Social Casework: Thg Journgl of Contemporary Social Work, 406-413. Nowicki, S. & Strickland, B. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Consulting and Clinicpl Egychology, 40, 148-154. Nye, F.I. (1957). Child adjustment in broken and unhappy homes. Marriage and Family Living, 19, 356-361. Peterson, J.L. & Zill, N. (1983). Marital disruption, parent/child relationships and behavioral problems in children. Paper presented at meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development. Pett, M.G. (1982). Correlates of children’s social adjustment following divorce. Jouppal of Divorce, 5(4), 25-39. Plunkett, J. & Kalter, N. (1984). Children’s beliefs about reactions to parental divorce. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatgy, 23, 616-621. Plunkett, J., Riemer, B., Kalter, N. & Alpern D. (1985). Parent’s beliefs about children’s reactions to divorce: The development of an assessment instrument. Journal of American Acadepy of Child Psychiatpy, 24, 334-337.- Porter, B., & O’Leary, K.O. (1980). Marital discord and childhood behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 287-295. Radin, N. (1981). The role of the father in cognitive, academic and intellectual development. In Lamb, M.E. (Ed.), The role of the father in child development, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Radin, N. (1982). Primary caregiving and role-sharing fathers. In M.E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Papenting apd child development. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 184 Rasche, H.J. & Raschke, V.J. (1979). Family conflict and children’s self-concepts: A comparison of intact and single-parent families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 5, 367-374. Reynolds, C.R. & Richmond, B.O. (1978). What I think and feel: A revised measure of children’s manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6, 271- 280. Riemer, B. and Kalter, N. (1985). Motivation and school performance among children from divorced and intact family households (unpublished manuscript, Univeristy of Michigan). IRoman, M. & Haddad, W. (). The disposable parent: The case for joint custody. New York: Penguin Books. Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographp, 80, (1, Whole No. 609). Rosenberg, M. (1965) Society and the adolescent self image. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Russel, G. (1982). Shared caregiving families: An Australian study. In. M.E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parpnting and child developpent. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rutter, M., Graham, P., Chadwick, O.F., & Yules, W. (1974). Attainment and adjustment in two geographical areas: III. Some factors accounting for area differences. British Journal of Psychiatry, 125, 520-533. Santrock, J.W. & Warshack, R.A. (1979). Father custody and social development in boys and girls. Journal of Sopipl Issueg, 35(4), 112-125. Sarason, I.G., Johnson, J.H. & Siegel, J.M. (1978). Assessing the impact of life changes: Development of the life experiences survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(5), 932-946. ./Seagu11, A.A. a. Seagull, E.A. (1977). The non-custodial father’s relationship to his child: Conflicts and solutions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 6, 11-15. Shaefer, E.S. (1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Develo ment, 36(2), 413-424. 185 Shinn, M. (1978). Father absence and children’s cognitive development. Psychological Bullgtin, 85, 295-324. Siegelman, M. (1965). Evaluation of Bronfenbrenner’s questionnaire for children concerning parental behavior. Child Development, 36(1), 163-174. Stack, C.B. (1976). Who owns the child? Divorce and child custody decisions in middle-class families. Social Problems, 23, 505-515. Steinman, S. (1981). The experience of children in joint custody arrangements: A report of a study. American Journgl of Qrthopsychiatpy, 51(3), 403-414. Sugar, M. (1970). Children of divorce. Pediatrics, 46, 588-595. Tuckman, J. 6 Regan, R.A. (1966). Intactness of the home and behavioral problems in children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7, 225-233. Vosk, B., Forehand, R., Parker, J.B., 6 Rickard, K. (1982). A multimethod comparison of popular and unpopular children. Developmental Psychology, 18, 571-575. Wallerstein, J.S. (1986). Women after divorce: Preliminary report from a ten-year follow-up. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56(1), 65-77. Wallerstein, J.S. (1985). Children of divorce: Preliminary report of a ten-year follow-up of older children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24(5), 545-553. Wallerstein, J.S. (1984). Children of divorce: Preliminary report of a ten year follow-up of young children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatgy, 54(3), 444-458. Wallerstein, J.S. (1983). Children of divorce: The psychological tasks of the child. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53(2), 230-243. Wallerstein, J.S. (1980). The child in the divorcing family. The Judges Journal, 19(1), 40-43. Wallerstein, J.S. 6 Kelly, J.B. (1980). Surviving the breakup: How children and parents cope with divorcg. New York: Basic Books. Wallerstein, J. 6 Kelly, J. (1976). The effects of parental divorce: Experiences of the child in later latency. Americap Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46(2), 256-269. 186 Wallerstein, J. 6 Kelly, J., (1975). The effects of parental divorce: Experiences of the preschool child. Journal of Child Psychiatry, 14, 600-613. Wallerstein, J. 6 Kelly, J. (1974). The effects of parental divorce: The adolescent experience. In E. Antony 6 C.Koupernik (Eds.), 1h; child in his family: Children as a s chiatric risk, New York: John Wiley 6 Sons, Inc. Warschack, R.A. 6 Santrock, J.W. (1983). The impact of divorce in father-custody and mother-custody homes: The child’s perspective. In C.A. Kurdek (Ed.) New Dlpecplonp fog Child Development, 19, 26-46. Weiss, R.S. (1979). Growing up a little faster: The experience of growing up in a single parent household. Journal of Social Issues, 3(5), 97-111. Weitzman, L.J. (1985). The Divorce Revolution. New York: Free Press. Westman, J.C., Cline, D.W., Swift, W.J., 6 Kramer, D.A. (1970). Role of child psychiatry in divorce. Archives pf General Psychiatry, 23, 416-420. Winer, B.J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design, New York: McGraw Hill Book Co. N STAT UN V ”will!!!JTHJTTVTLTTTW