PUESTA A PUNTO

Much of the research from the United States investigating the effects of family structure and family transitions on child outcomes has been designed to test the hypothesis that children in sole-parent families fare less well than children in families with two biological parents who are married. This hypothesis is supported by research. The interpretation of this finding is that it is the level of social and financial disadvantage for sole-parent families that results in negative consequences for children. Research in other countries arrives at similar conclusions that family structure does matter for children’s developmental outcomes. These findings are modest but consistent, across countries, that children who live in two-parent families have better educational, social, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes compared to children in all other family forms (e.g., Brown, 2004; Carlson & Corcoran, 2001; Manning & Lamb, 2003). Differences between outcomes for children who live in other family forms, such as step-families, cohabiting families, and single-parent families are usually minimal (Brown, 2004; Manning & Lamb, 2003). Benefits for children living with married biological parents, compared to

cohabiting, biological parents, are also evident in the short-term and long term (Amato, 2005; Hill, Yeung, & Duncan, 2001; Gilman, Kawachi, Fitzmaurice & Buka, 2003).

2.3.1 Research on family structure

If parental marriage is good for children, then it might be expected that remarriage might have more benefits for children than living in a sole-parent family. However, while remarriage often results in an economic advantage for single parents, there seem to be greater adjustment and emotional stressors for re-partnered families as family roles are re- negotiated. No evident advantage is seen for children when parents re-marry (Stewart, 2007) and negative effects accumulate for children with each family transition, either into or out of a marriage (Fomby & Cherlin, 2007). Cavanaugh and Huston (2006) reported that children who experienced two or more transitions were more at risk for negative outcomes than children who had experienced just one or none.

19 Cohabitation does not appear to provide the same degree of protection against negative outcomes for children, even if the cohabitation involves two biological parents, at least in the research from the United States. Brown (2004) suggested that in

cohabitation, families have less clearly defined parental roles and there is greater fragility in the relationship. There are also socio-demographic differences between married and unmarried parents. Gibson-Davis (2008) found that married biological parents were older, had higher education qualifications, higher household income, and better mental health than unmarried parents. Waldfogel, Craigie and Brooks-Gunn (2010) also reported that cohabiting and single parents were younger and less well educated than married parents. From the existing evidence, marital status and biological parentage seem to promote children's wellbeing, over and above any advantage of family stability.

2.3.2 Children’s experiences in different family forms

In 2005 in the United States, a special issue of The Future of Children reviewed the status of research and policy on marriage and children’s wellbeing. In the introduction to the series of papers in the special issue, McLanahan, Donahue and Haskins (2005) noted that from the U.S. research there was a broad consensus that the outcomes for children were more positive in stable, low-conflict, two-parent families while unstable and high-conflict relationships resulted in more negative outcomes for children.

Thomas and Sawhill (2005) in the special issue of The Future of Children reviewed the research evidence that children in married households fared better in terms of income than children in households of cohabiting couples who, in turn, fared better than children in sole-parent households. Households with married parents and cohabiting households benefit from the economies of scale in sharing household expenses that come from having two adult wage earners. Thomas and Sawhill also noted that a “selection” effect operates, with respect to marriage and income, because more highly educated individuals are more likely to marry than less well educated individuals. As a

consequence, single parenthood reduces children’s economic prospects. However, they noted that this link cannot be interpreted as causal. The financial support from

government given to sole-parent families in many national contexts is more generous than the financial support given in the United States. However, despite this increased level of welfare support, there is still evidence of a negative impact on children as a consequence of living in a sole-parent household across most national contexts.

20 Amato (2005) in his article in The Future of Children also summarised the

evidence for the proposition that children who grow up with two continuously married parents are less likely to experience cognitive, emotional, and social problems, either during childhood or in adulthood. He concluded that there is a true treatment effect of family structure on child outcomes although the effect sizes are small in meta-analyses of this research. Amato, like Thomas and Sawhill (2005), proposed that these differences in child outcomes by family structure were most likely the result of economic disparities but there was also evidence about parenting differences across family types (i.e., families with married biological parents compared to sole-parent and re-partnered families) that included differences in the level of co-operative parenting and level of emotional closeness that children perceived from parents.

2.3.3 The timing of family transitions

More research is still needed to explore the effects of the timing of family changes on children taking account of the age of the child when the family transition occurred and the age at which the impact on child outcomes is assessed. Longitudinal studies are

needed that track children from an early age to adulthood because the timing of the family transition may have differential effects on outcomes. Few studies have considered the impact of family changes during middle childhood, although there are a number of studies which have looked at family instability and adolescent outcomes (e.g., Cavanagh, Schiller & Riegle-Crumb, 2006; Landsford, Malone, Castellino, Dodge, Pettit & Bates, 2006). Separation and re-partnering may result in residential and school moves through middle childhood and adolescence and these changes may affect outcomes when children’s and adolescents’ relationships and activities beyond the family are disrupted through mobility and changes in the family.

In a study of adolescents, Cavanagh et al. (2006) found that family transitions impacted most strongly on achievement when the transition occurred as the child began high school and at the completion of high school. Landsford et al. (2006) reported that the occurrence and timing of parental separation or divorce was related to academic

achievement as well as mother-reported and teacher-reported internalising and externalising problems for adolescents in Grade 10. Internalising and externalising problems were associated with early parent separation, while later parent separation had

21 more impact on academic outcomes. It seems that the experience of family transitions at critical developmental time points may have different effects by the age of the child.

Waldfogel et al. (2010) in their review of studies that used data from The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study also indicated differential effects. This research study, for which the data are on public access, is following a cohort of approximately 5,000 children born between 1998 and 2000 in medium to large U.S. cities. The families were recruited in hospitals at the child’s birth and include 3,700 children born to

unmarried mothers and 1,200 children born to married mothers. Waldfogel et al. identified five key mediators from their analyses of studies conducted by different

researchers using this database through which family structure influences child outcomes. These key mediators are the level of parental resources, parental mental health, parental relationship quality, parenting quality, and father involvement. Waldfogel et al. then tested the strength of those mediators on child cognitive, behavioural and health outcomes for children at 5 years of age. Their analyses indicated that family instability seems to matter more than family structure for cognitive and health outcomes; whereas growing up with a single mother across time seemed to matter more than instability for behaviour problems.

2.3.4 Australian research on family structure and transitions

There is not an extensive Australian research base that has examined the impact on child outcomes of marital transitions, although some analyses have examined the prevalence rates for family transitions. Analyses from the Australian Household Income and Labour Dynamics (HILDA) survey have been useful in extending this knowledge about the Australian context. In the 2001 HILDA survey, the number of family transitions experienced by individuals was retrospectively tracked for three cross-sectional age cohorts participating in the survey. De Vaus and Gray (2003) reported that 1.5% of individuals in the first cohort (born 1990-1995) had experienced two or more family transitions by age 5 years; by age 12 years, for the second cohort (born 1984-1989) this percentage had risen to 8% of individuals who had experienced two or more family transitions; by age 18 years, for the third cohort (born 1976-1983), 13% of individuals had experienced two or more family transitions and 16% had experienced one family transition. De Vaus and Gray noted the limitations in using retrospective data and the lack of outcome data available to assess the impact of these transitions over time on the

22 individuals reporting a high number of family transitions. Nonetheless, these findings provide important information about how many children had experienced multiple family transitions by adulthood for the Australian context.

In 2004, de Vaus reported on various data from Australian national surveys. He noted that the number of sole-parent families in Australia had increased at higher rates than divorces rates and that these households, usually headed by mothers, faced higher levels of financial stress when compared to families headed by single fathers. Mothers were more likely to have lower incomes than single fathers and they were more reliant on government support because of lower levels of education and employment skills. Craig (2004) reported that Australian family policies had sought to address the financial stress faced by single parent families through financial payments even while the issues of the level of family support to single parents was significant policy debate. This is an ongoing policy debate in 2013 as the Australian government moves to cut payments to sole parents (Australian Council of Social Services, 2013).

Ruschena, Prior, Sanson, and Smart (2005) examined the impact of family transitions on Australian adolescents at ages 17-18 years, using data from the Australian Temperament Study in which children had been recruited in infancy in Victoria. They used the longitudinal and concurrent questionnaire data for the young people who had experienced family transitions during their lifetime (i.e., marital separation, divorce, remarriage or parental death) compared to a sample of those who had not experienced any family transition. No significant differences between groups were found with regard to behavioural and emotional adjustment, concurrently or across time, and nor were there any difference on academic outcomes or social competence. However, there were

significant differences between the groups on measures of parent-teen conflict and parent- child attachment, with the parents of those who had experienced a family transition indicating more conflict with their adolescent and the adolescents reporting lower relationship quality with their primary parent. The conclusions drawn were that the adolescents were relatively resilient to the family transitions. Further details on this study are provided in Appendix A.1.

Using LSAC data from Wave 1 to Wave 3 (a four year period) for children in the Kindergarten cohort, Qu and Weston (2012) examined family structure, co-parental relationship quality, post-separation paternal involvement and children’s emotional wellbeing for cohabiting families, married biological parents, and sole-mother families.

23 From the reports of primary caregivers children with cohabiting parents were doing less well than those with married parents in some areas (e.g. overall social–emotional development and general development), but they were doing better than those in sole- mother families. The family-related factors that were examined accounted for virtually all of the differences apparent between children with married parents and those with

cohabiting parents. Differences apparent in Wave 1 in the wellbeing of children in married families and those in sole mother families could be largely explained by the family-related factors that were examined.

A range of other Australian studies have examined legal issues surrounding family structure change stemming from ongoing family conflict after parental separation, and the impact of the legal processes on children (e.g., Fehlberg, Smyth, Maclean, & Roberts, 2011; Hart, 2009; Parkinson, Cashmore, & Single, 2007). These studies have informed policy on Australian family law, for example on child custody arrangements and parental contact arrangements for children when parents are unable to reach shared parenting agreements. Such determinations are made in family courts (Kelly, 2007). High conflict custody disputes are often linked to parental concern over child wellbeing and safety when in the care of the other parent or when there is child resistance to spending time with a parent with whom they do not have a close relationship. The presence of new partners and financial disputes over child support can create additional friction throughout the separation and divorce process for parents (Cashmore & Parkinson, 2011). These studies conducted when parents are in dispute highlight the additional stresses faced by Australian families, particularly children, when there are parental relationship

breakdowns and when parents re-partner.