6. ANÁLISIS, INTERPRETACIÓN Y DISCUSIÓN DE LOS RESULTADOS
6.1 DESCRIPCIÓN DE LAS CONCEPCIONES DE LA ORALIDAD Y DE LAS
6.1.1 Concepciones Docentes y de Estudiantes Sobre la Oralidad en el Aula de Clase de
6.1.1.5 Concepción “La Oralidad Como Usos Formales Orales”:
This chapter addresses the first research question: “What are the characteristics of mothers with a child support liability in Australia and what are the key differences between liable mothers and liable fathers?” It does so by examining the key differences between liable parents. The chapter is structured as follows. First, liability status of all mothers and fathers is detailed. This section (Section 5.1) details the liability status of all mothers and fathers by nights with the focal child based on the original Scheme time categories using the whole CSRS sample of 5,046 parents. Second, liable mothers and liable fathers are compared on a range of socio-demographic, family
dynamics and wellbeing measures. This section (Section 5.2) focuses on the analytic sample of liable parents. Differences between each group are summarised in tabular form. Third, the key differences between liable mothers and liable fathers are identified using logistic regression modelling (Section 5.3). Fourth, these key differences are discussed in the context of previous research findings (Section 5.4).
Child support liability
This section details the liability status for mothers and fathers based on overnights with one randomly chosen former relationship child. The parenting-time categories used for the focal child are those that applied under the original Child Support Scheme (see Table 1.2). To recap, these are sole (256–365 nights); major (220–255 nights); shared (146–219 nights); substantial (110–145 nights); and minor84 (0–109 nights). Table
5.1 details the lability status by amount of parenting-time. Each row represents a parenting-time category based on the respondent’s reports of their time with the focal child and indicates the percentage frequency of respondents by liability status, i.e., liable parent, payee or neither. The top panels of the table show mothers’ reports. The bottom panels of the table show fathers’ reports. This section is descriptive: no statistical tests
84 ‘Minor’ is not defined in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. It was a commonly used term for parenting-time where the payee/other parent had ‘sole’ time.
108
were applied to this data. This is the only section that uses the whole CSRS sample (n=4,883/5046 with valid information).
Table 5.1 Mothers’ and fathers’ reports
of overnights with the focal child and whether they are the liable parent, the payee or neither Mothers’ reports n=2,708 Mothers’ time with focal child Mother liable (%) Mother payee (%) Mother neither (%) Total (%) Total (n)
Mother minor & father sole 36.0 31.9 29.1 100.0 n=121 Mother substantial & father major 43.7 50.5 5.8 100.0 n=26 Shared 16.7 60.6 22.7 100.0 n=469
Mother major & father
substantial
3.2 85.6 11.2 100.0 n=198
Mother sole &
father minor 1.9 93.2 4.9 100.0 n=1,894 Fathers’ reports n=2,175 Father liable (%) Father payee (%) Father neither (%) Total (%) Total (n)
Father minor & mother sole 96.6 0.5 2.9 100.00 n=1,086 Father substantial & mother major 89.5 1.4 9.2 100.0 n=216 Shared 64.3 7.6 28.2 100.0 n=627
Father major & mother
substantial
56.1 29.6 14.3 100.0 n=19
Father sole &
mother minor 21.6 49.3 29.1 100.0 n=227 Notes: Data are weighted. Overnights with the focal child may not reflect
arrangements for all former relationship children (aged 18 years or younger) where split-residence applied. Responses from 2,620 mothers. Excludes 61 mothers with inconsistent information, 33 who did not know if they should pay or receive and 96 who had missing information on overnights. Responses from 2,088 fathers. Excludes 94 fathers with inconsistent information, 40 who did not know if they should pay or receive, 54 who had missing information on overnights and two fathers who were a former couple.
Figure 5.1 shows the proportion of mothers and fathers with a specified amount of time (i.e., minor, substantial, major and sole) who are the liable parent in their child support case, as detailed in Table 5.1 column 2. In other words, Figure 5.1 displays the comparison of the liability rates
109
of mothers and fathers at each level of parenting-time (based on the original Scheme categories) in graphic form.
Note: Data are weighted. Data are based on 179 liable mothers and 1,656 liable fathers who had valid information on the number of overnights with the focal child.
Figure 5-1 Mothers’ and fathers’ reports
of their overnights with the focal child: percentage liable
Mothers’ and fathers’ reports of their overnights with the focal child and liability
Whether a parent was liable, a payee, or neither differed by gender and number of nights with the focal child. Figure 5.1 shows that 97% of fathers were liable when they had minor time and 90% when they had substantial time. In contrast, 36% of mothers were liable when they had minor time and 44% when they had substantial time. It would be
expected that the majority of mothers with minor time would be liable as was the case with fathers with minor time. While mothers with minor time were more often a payee or neither than the liable parent seems counter-intuitive, this lower rate could denote split-residence.85
Further, as Table 5.1 indicates, when fathers had sole time, 49% were payees; higher than reported by liable mothers with minor time. Two reasons might explain this discrepancy: (i) parents with this arrangement
85 Parents who reported being neither a liable parent nor a payee could have a current liability that was offset by arrears due by the other parent.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Minor Substantial Shared Major Sole
%
Liability by original Scheme parenting-time with the focal
child: mothers' and fathers' reports
110
were independent samples of mothers and fathers (that is, not ex- couples) and each sample reflected different populations of parents and/or (ii) respondents reported more nights than their former partner thereby placing them in different time categories. Again, split-residence could explain why 22% of fathers were liable when they had sole-time with this child.
Differing rates of liability for mothers and fathers with similar amounts of time found here are consistent with recent research (Kaspiew et al.
2009), and as other research suggests (see, for example, Qu & Weston 2008), mothers’ lower rates could indicate a resident child.
Comparative analysis: liable mothers and liable fathers
In this section liable parents are compared on a range of socio- demographic, family dynamics and wellbeing measures. As there is little previous research in this area, variables chosen for the comparisons were those that intuitively could be important and relate to the
theoretical framework, that is, gender, and the first research question seeking to identify the characteristics of liable mothers and the key differences between liable mothers and liable fathers. Differences are expected to be associated with differences in gender norms of parenting for mothers and fathers. The results are generalisable to the active caseload for parents who previously lived together.
Analytic sample and related notes
Between-group differences are based on an analytic sample of 185 liable mothers and 1,692 liable fathers. This section reports on independent samples of mothers and fathers not former couples. The selection criteria into groups (see Section 4.2) meant that ex-couples where both parents reported being liable (or both payees) were omitted from the analytic sample.
The bivariate analyses in this section use cross-tabulation for categorical variables and comparison of means for continuous variables to identify similarities and differences between liable mothers and liable fathers.
111
These simple bivariate techniques were chosen because they provide information on the relationship between variables.
As the data are weighted to take into account the complex survey design, the relationship between variables cannot be tested by the Pearson chi- squared test (categorical variables) nor the t-test (continuous variables) as ‘estimates may be biased for the true proportion of the survey
population’ (Heeringa, West & Berglund 2010:151). Instead, tabulations are performed using the svy: tab command, and means86 are determined
using the svy: mean command. Comparisons are restricted to the subpopulation of liable parents using the subpop optionin Stata.87 The
former process produces an F-transformed Rao-Scott chi-squared test statistic as a default (Heeringa, West & Berglund 2010: 167)88 to take
account of the complex survey data. The latter process produces
linearised standard errors and 95% confidence intervals of the mean. The
test command run post-estimation produces an adjusted Wald Test and an F-Ratio to show whether the means are statistically equivalent or not (UCLA Statistical Consulting Group n.d.). Exact p-values are reported in the text and tables.89 Significant differences at p<.05 are noted. All data
are weighted using the design and response weights developed to be representative of the Scheme active caseload. Numbers reported in the text and tables are unweighted.
Variables that differ significantly between liable parents in the bivariate analyses are further investigated via multivariate techniques (specifically binary logistic regression) later in this chapter to determine the key differences between liable mothers and liable fathers. In addition, group
86While medians are mentioned where appropriate, the complex survey design limits the validity of statistical testing of differences in medians between liable mothers and liable fathers.
87 This required the creation of a variable to represent the subpopulation of interest, here liable parents. Liable parents were coded 1 and all respondents outside this group were coded 0. A similar process was used for specific subpopulation analyses in the other results chapters: the subpopulation of payees; liable mothers; and all liable parents and payees.
88 This is a design-adjusted form of the Pearson Chi-Squared Test with a second-order design correction incorporated.
112
level comparisons may mask differences within the liable mother group. Intragroup differences are explored in Chapter 6.
Household composition
The socio-demography of liable parents covers their current household and socioeconomic circumstances; two areas where previous research would suggest that differences exist.
Household composition differed significantly by gender: 51% of liable fathers lived alone or shared with other adults compared with 20% of liable mothers. In contrast, a third of liable mothers had resident children but no partner in their household. Regardless of whether repartnered, mothers were significantly more likely to have resident children (57% compared with 32% of fathers, p<.001).
Table 5.2 Liable parents: current circumstances Liable mothers n=185 Liable fathers n=1,695 Household composition (%) Lived alone or shared with other adults
20.2 50.6
Lived with resident children and no partner
33.3 13.0
Lived with a partner and no resident children
22.3 17.6
Lived with a partner and resident children
24.1 18.8
Total 100.0 100.0
p<.001
Has a resident child (%)
57.4 31.8
p<.001
Biological children from more than one relationship (%)
20.1 19.2
p=.859
Notes: Data are weighted. Percentages may not total 100.0% due to rounding. ‘Numbers for some variables are less due to missing data. ‘Resident children’ means in the
household at least 50% of the time and includes dependent adult children. Parents categorised as having no resident children could have 1–49% nights with one or more children. ‘Biological children’ includes legally adopted children but not stepchildren. Differences shown in Table 5.2 reflect arrangements for former
113
other relationship children. A comparison of minority-time liable parents indicates little difference in households with resident children.
Nevertheless, a minority of parents had a child from another relationship in their household or living elsewhere. Liable parents had similar rates of other relationship children (19–20%). Some repartnered parents had stepchildren in their household or living elsewhere who stayed overnight (12–17%), illustrating the complexity of relationship ties within and between households.90
These results are consistent with previous Australian research (Kaspiew et al. 2009; Weston 2008; Wolffs & Shallcross 2000) finding high
repartnering and resident children among liable mothers.
Socioeconomic status
Socioeconomic status was measured by education, employment and income. Highest education level did not differ significantly: 13–17% of liable parents had a degree or higher qualification. A substantial minority of liable parents (29% mothers and 20% fathers) were not in paid
employment. Liable mothers worked fewer hours per week (mean=26.4 hours compared with 37.1 hours for fathers, p<.001).
To further explore gendered differences in employment a five-category variable is used (see Section 4.4.1). As indicated in Table 5.3, liable mothers were significantly more likely to work short and long part-time hours and liable fathers to work long full-time hours with employment patterns signalling responsibility for children. Mothers who worked part- time were twice as often in long rather than short part-time hours.
90 Biological and legally adopted children are considered in the assessment while
stepchildren are generally excluded. Liable fathers more often had resident stepchildren than liable mothers (12% compared with 2%).
114
Table 5.3 Liable parents: socioeconomic circumstances
Liable mothers n=185
Liable fathers n=1,692 Has degree or higher
qualification (%)
16.7 13.1
p=.326
Hours of work per week (mean)
26.37 37.06
SE, CI 2.45, CI 21.56–31.17 1.21, CI 34.69–39.44 p<.001
Employment (%)
Not in paid employment 28.6 19.7
Short part-time (1–20 hours) 5.1 1.9 Long part-time (21–34 hours) 11.8 6.2 Standard full-time-(35– 44 hours) 44.4 33.4
Long full-time (45 hours or more)
10.1 38.8
Total 100.0 100.0
p<.001
Main income source (%) Salary or wages 68.2 67.0 Self-employment or other 9.0 18.7 Government payment 22.8 14.3 Total 100.0 100.0 p=.063
Net annual personal income (mean)
$37,688.17 $39,900.50
SE, CI $2,609.03, CI $32,573.33–
$42,803.00 $989.33, CI $37,960.98–$41,840.02 p=.428
Net annual household income (mean) $52,735.91 $50,635.91 SE, CI $3,793.34, CI $45,298.62– $60,171.82 $1,076.34, CI $48,525.81– $52,746.01 p=.595 Equivalised household income (with expected child support deducted) below 60% of the median (%) 20.2 22.7 p=.620 Self-assessed poor financial circumstances (%) 11.2 21.5
115 Liable mothers n=185 Liable fathers n=1,692 p=.009 Experienced hardship in last 12 months (%) 33.8 34.1 p=.966
Notes: Data are weighted. Percentages may not total 100.0% due to rounding. Numbers for some variables are less due to missing data. Employment categories based on definitions developed by Baxter, Gray, Hand & Hayes (2012). Net annual income variables developed for Son et al. (2014).
Main income source reflected gendered employment patterns. While salary and wages predominated, liable fathers were twice as likely as mothers to identify self-employment. By contrast, mothers had higher rates of government payments than fathers (self-employment: 19% fathers compared with 9% mothers and government payment: 23% mothers compared with 14% fathers, p=.063). Gender and household composition influenced the type of government payment received by liable parents (n=21 mothers and n=116 fathers). While both had high rates of Disability Support Pension (49% and 35%), Parenting Payment was more common for mothers (27% compared with 7% fathers, data not shown).
Liable parents had similar mean net personal incomes ($37,688 mothers and $39,901 fathers, p=.428) and mean net household incomes ($52,736 mothers and $50,636 fathers, p=.595). Medians were slightly lower: personal income mothers and fathers $36,444 and household income $46, 649 mothers and $43,900 fathers. As household size may differ, liable parents were also compared using equivalised household income (see Section 4.4.1). This measure considered child support liability by deducting this from income. Liable parents had similar low financial resources: 28–30% had incomes below 60% of the median for their household size.91
In contrast, liable parents did differ on self-assessed financial
circumstances. While the majority reported they were ‘just getting along’ or better, mothers were half as likely to say they were ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ (11% compared with 22% fathers, p=.009). This significant difference in
116
subjective financial wellbeing was not found for actual disadvantage with 34% of liable parents reporting at least one measure of hardship in the previous 12 months (p=.966).92
Former relationship
As Table 5.4 reveals, liable parents had similar rates of being previously married to their former partner (67% mothers and 71% fathers), years together (mean=11 years mothers and 9.8 years fathers), and number of children (mean=2.3 mothers and 2.0 fathers). Mothers had been
separated significantly longer (mean=7.8 years compared with 6.0 years fathers, p=.001) with 40% of mothers separated more than 10 years compared with 19% of fathers (data not shown).
Whether their former partner was living with a partner and, for those repartnered, had a new or stepchild did not differ significantly. In
contrast, gender differences were again noted for employment type: 26% of mothers reported a self-employed former partner (compared with 5% fathers, p<.001).
92 ‘Hardship’ was measured by whether because of the shortage of money in the last 12 months they (i) pawned or sold something, (ii) went without meals, or (iii) asked for help from welfare/community organisation.
117
Table 5.4 Liable parents: former relationship
Liable mothers
n=185 Liable fathers n=1,692
Previously married (%) 67.3 71.0
p=.519
Years together (mean) 10.98 9.84
SE, CI 0.71, CI 9.59–12.37 0.27, CI 9.32–10.36 p=.133 Number of former relationship children (mean) 2.26 2.00 SE, CI 0.21, CI 1.85–2.68 0.05, CI 1.91–2.10 p=.236
Years separated (mean) 7.84 5.98
SE, CI 0.53, CI 6.80–8.87 0.20, CI 5.58–6.38 p<.001 Former partner repartnered (%) 44.0 48.9 p=.510 Former partner repartnered with a new/stepchild (%)
Not living with partner 46.9 40.5
Repartnered and no new/stepchild 12.5 16.2 Repartnered and a new/stepchild 23.8 19.9 Don’t know 16.8 23.4 Total 100.0 100.0 p=.582 Type of employment of former partner (%) 84.1 72.8 Employee 45.6 52.8 Self-employed 26.3 4.6 Not in workforce 13.9 22.6 Don’t know 14.2 20.0 Total 100.0 100.0 p<.001
Notes: Data are weighted. Percentages may not total 100.0% due to rounding. Numbers for some variables are less due to missing data. The question about a new/stepchild was only asked if their former partner had repartnered. This could undercount parents with a resident child from another relationship and not repartnered.
Former relationship children
Details of the age and living arrangements of the focal child are shown at Table 5.5. Mothers were predominantly liable for older children
(mean=12.7 years compared with 10.3 years for fathers, p<.001): 74% of focal children were 11 years or older compared with 50% for fathers. The youngest former relationship child was also older (mean=11.9 years compared with 9.2 years for fathers, p<.001, see Table 5.6).
118
Table 5.5 Liable parents: focal child age and living arrangements
Liable mothers n=185 Liable fathers n=1,692 Age of child (%) 0–5 years 9.2 15.6 6–10 years 17.1 34.8 11–15 years 44.1 38.4 16 years or older 29.6 11.2 Total 100.0 100.0 p<=.001
Age of child (years) (mean)
12.72 10.26
SE, CI 0.55, CI 11.64–13.80 0.19, CI 9.89–10.62 p<.001
Child lives with liable parent (%)
All the time or more than 50% of the time
22.2 3.4
Roughly 50/50 split 12.9 7.2
Less than 50% of the time or never
64.9 89.5
Total 100.0 100.0
p<.001
Notes: Data are weighted. Percentages may not total 100.0% due to rounding.
Data from CSA Facts and Figures (Section 1.2.5) indicate that in 89% of cases the liable parent had minor time. While accurate for liable fathers, as detailed in the table above, liable mothers demonstrated a different pattern: 22% lived with the focal child more than 50% of the time (compared with 3% of fathers, p<.001). Another 13% lived roughly half the time with the focal child, almost twice the rate for fathers, and 10% never lived with this child compared with 17% of fathers.
The parenting arrangements for the focal child should generally represent all former relationship children because focal children were chosen randomly. However, as detailed in Table 5.6, siblings could have different arrangements, for example, one child lives mainly with their mother and a sibling lives mainly with their father.
119
Table 5.6 Liable parents: parenting arrangements of all former relationship children (18 years or younger)
Liable mothers n=185
Liable fathers n=1,692 All former relationship
children (%)
Mainly with other parent 54.2 83.9
Equal-time 10.9 6.0
Mainly with liable parent 10.6 1.0
Split-residence 24.3 9.0
Total 100.0 100.0
p<.001
Sex of former relationship children (%) All boys 32.4 27.9 All girls 26.7 30.2 Both sexes 40.9 41.9 Total 100.0 100.0 p=.747
Age of youngest child (mean)
11.91 9.19
SE, CI 0.58, CI 10.78–13.04 0.18, CI 8.84–9.54 p<.001
Notes: Data are weighted. Percentages may not total 100.0% due to rounding. Numbers for some variables are less due to missing data. Excludes children under 18 years who did not live with either parent.
Based on information for all former relationship children (18 years or younger)93, 84% of liable fathers had less than 50% of the time (or never
spent time) with all their children, 6% had equal-time, and 9% split- residence. In contrast, 24% of liable mothers had split-residence and 11% equal-time. Reflecting that under the original Scheme parents with more time (up to 69.9% of nights) can be liable in Australia—a
circumstance not common elsewhere—11% of liable mothers had 50% or