Fair living arrangements for children
Context-specific recommendation
Infants and toddlers
If the situation allows, infants and toddlers should have a home at both their parents’ houses
Context-specific recommendation
Young children
If the situation allows, young children should stay at both their parents’ houses during school week (Monday to Friday)
Context-specific recommendation
Adolescents
If the situation allows, parents should consider shared residency for their adolescents
This section provides recommendations on fair living arrangements for children, for example in case of separation. They are intended to provide better social development and academic achievements. The recommendations are divided into 3 separate age categories, reflecting the different needs of the age groups.
Infants and toddlers (0-4 years old). For children it is important to be able to stay at both their parents’ houses. This enhances emotional involvement of parents with their children, which benefits the parent-child relationship. Close family relationships are essential to the wellbeing of the entire family.
Young children (5-9 years old). Both parents should support and have contact with their children during school week (Monday to Friday). This is beneficial to children’s academic achievements and wellbeing.
Adolescents (10-18 years old). Children should have a home at both their parent’s houses. International research suggests that shared residency adolescents are better off academically, emotionally and psychologically compared to sole residence children.
It must be ensured there is no indication or history of violence. If there is a risk of violence or abuse, this intervention is not recommended.
There should be a suitable housing situation and willingness from both parents to engage in such an arrangement.
Ekitundu kino kiwa okulungamizibwa ku nteekateeka z’aw’okubeera w’abaana singa wabeerawo okwawukana. Ekigendererwa kwekuwa aw’okubeera n’eby’okusoma ebirungi. Okulungamizibwa kugabanyiziddwamu emitendera essatu okusinziira ku myaka n’ebyetaago by’egyo emyaka.
Amabujje (okuva ku myaka enna (4) egy’obukulu okudda wansi). Kikulu nnyo amabujje okuba nga gasobola okubeera ew’abazadde bombi. Kino kibayambako okuzimba enkolagana yabwe n’abazadde. Ab’enganda ab’omunda bayambako nnyo ku bulungi bwa buly’omu mu maka.
Abaana abato (okuva ku myaka etaano (5) okutuuka ku mwenda (9) egy’obukulu). Abazadde bombi balina okuyamba era n’okulaba abaana babwe mu nnaku
z’okusoma (okuva ku bbalaza okutuuka ku lw’okutaano (5)). Kino kiyambako nnyo kungeri omwana gy’akola mu ku ssomero n’okubeera obulungi okutwaliz’awamu.
Abavubuka abatto (okuva ku myaka kkumi (10) okutuuka ku myaka kkumi na munaana (18) egy’obukulu). Abaana balina okuba n’aw’okubeera mu maka g’abazadde babwe bombi. Okunoontereza mu mawanga amalala kulaga nti abavubuka abatto bakola bulungi mmu kusoma n’embera zabwe zonna bwebabeera n’aw’okubeera mu maka g’abazadde babwe bombi okusinga abo ababeera ew’omuzadde omu. Kirina okukkasibwa nti tewabeera ngako kulwana mu maka. Bwewabeerawo okutya kw’okulwana, eno engeri y’okutaasa tekkolebwa. Walina okubeerawo aw’okubeera awalungi era abazadde bombi balina okuba nga baagala okwenyigira mu nzikirizigany’eno.
What practitioners say
Consistent with literature research:
Encourage active (emotional) involvement. Both parents should be encouraged to play an active role in the lives of the children. This includes attending school, emotional support and help with homework.
Both parents should agree on visitations. Both parents should be well-informed about any visitations when they are happening.
Parents should provide oversight. Parents should have control over their children and be aware of where their children are and what is happening in their lives.
Involve a neutral decision-maker. In case parents cannot agree together in mediation, they should involve a neutral third party to make a decision for them.
Ongoing follow-up and after-care. Ensure that arrangements are working and that agreements are being respected.
Other suggested practices:
Ensure both homes are safe and child-friendly. In cases where there is a risk of domestic abuse towards children by parents or new spouses, children should be removed until it is safe again.
Involve role models where needed. For example, in cases where one parent is unwilling to play a significant role, a respected role model can intervene.
Ensure there is close contact with both parents. Young children should not necessarily be in boarding schools. They should stay in the family home until a reasonable age. If they are in boarding school then both parents should visit regularly and be involved.
Involve children’s needs in decisions. Children’s wishes on living and visiting arrangements should be considered.
Ziri ku mulamwa n’okunonyereza okuli mu biwandiiko:
Kkubiriza okwenyigiramu. Abazadde bombi balina okubeerawo mu bulamu bw’abaana babwe. Kino kizingiramu okugenda ku ssomero, okubayamba nga bbo n’okubayambako mu waaka avudde ku ssomero.
Abazadde balina okukiriziganya ku kukyalira abaana. Abazadde bombi balina okutegezebwa ennaku z’okukyalirako abaana ddi lwezinabeerawo.
Abazadde balina okufaayo ku bigenda mu maaso ku baana. Abazadde balina okubeera mu mitambo era nga bamanyi wa abaana babwe gyebali na biki ebigenda mu maaso mu bulamu bwabwe.
Ffuna yo akola okusalawo atalin kyekubira. Singa abazadde balemererwa okukiriziganya mu kutabaganya, balina okufuna omuntu omulala atalina kyekubira okubasalirawo.
Okubakebera ngako. Kakkasa nti enteekateeka zibakolera era enzikiriziganya zigobererwa.
Ebirala ebiyinza okukolebwa:
Kkakasa nti amaka gombi matebenkevu era abaana basobola okubeeramu. Ssinga wabeerawo okutulugunya abaana okukolebwa abazadde oba baganzi babwe, abaana bagyibewo okutuusa nga watebenkedde natte.
Ffuna yo abantu abaana bebayinza okuyigirako ssinga kibeera kyetagisiza. Okugeza, singa omuzadde omu tayagala kubeera mu bulamu bw’abaana, omuntu abaana gwe bayinza okuyigirako asobola okuyambako.
Kkakasa nti waliwo okubeera okumpi n’abazadde babwe. Abaana abatto tebetaagisa kubeera mu masomero ga bisulo. Balina okusigala ewaka okutuusa ku myaka egyegasa. Bwebabeera nga bali mu kisulo, abazadde bombi balina okubakyalira buli kaseera era n’okwenyigira mu.
Lowooza ku byetaago by’abaana ng’okusalawo kukolebwa. Ebyetaago na biki abaana bye baagala ebikwata ku w’okubeera n’ennaku z’okulaba abazadde birina okulowoozebwako.
Resources and Methodology
Infants and toddlers
During a first assessment of the available literature, we were able to identify two different interventions for fair living arrangements for infants and toddlers. These being:
- Agreements on frequent contact, including overnight visits, with non-residential parent (where the housing situation allows)
- Agreements on contact with no overnight visits with the non-residential parent
For infants and toddlers, are agreements on contact that include frequent overnight visits with the non-residential parents more effective than contact agreements without overnight visits for their well-being?
The databases used are: HeinOnline, Westlaw, Wiley Online Library, JSTOR and Taylor & Francis.
For this PICO question, keywords used in the search strategy are: fair, living arrangements, housing arrangements, residential agreements, toddler, infant.
The two main sources of evidence used for this particular subject are:
- Joan B. Kelly, Changing Perspectives on Children’s Adjustment Following Divorce: A View from the United States (2003)
- Linda Nielsen, Shared Parenting After Divorce: A Review of Shared Residential Parenting Research (2013)
The article by Kelly highlights empirical and clinical research that is relevant to the design of children’s living arrangements after separation. It focuses on what is known about living arrangements after separation. Nielsen’s article bases its findings mostly on empirical studies and some meta-analyses. The strength of this evidence is classified as low according to the HiiL Methodology: Assessment of Evidence and Recommendations.
Desirable outcomes
Children who had one or more stays overnight per week with their non-residential parent, had better psychological and social adjustment than those children who did not have overnights (Kelly, p. 46).
It is important for toddlers to have frequent contact, including overnight visits with their non-residential parent, without prolonged separations from either parent. Staying overnight with the non-residential parent is associated with closer relationships (Nielsen p. 603). It is important for the children’s well-being to have continued contact with their non-residential parent (Kelly, p. 38).
Undesirable outcomes
Data indicates that arrangements with less contact lead to diminished closeness between children and their nonresidential parent (Kelly, p. 39).
Balance of outcomes
In determining whether agreements on frequent overnight contact with the non-residential parents are more effective than agreements without overnight contact for the well-being of infants and toddlers, the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions must be considered. Evidence from the literature suggests that a close relationship between parent and child has a major influence on the child’s well-being. For parents to be emotionally involved with their children, it requires them to have frequent overnight contact with the children (separately from the other parent). Agreements on overnight contact provide for the opportunity to maintain a close parent-child relationship.
Recommendation
Taking into account the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions, we make the following recommendation: For infants and toddlers, agreements which include frequent overnight contact with the nonresidential parent are more effective than agreements without overnight contact with the non-resident parent for the child’s well-being.
Young children
During the orientation process of the available literature, we were able to identify five different interventions for fair living arrangements for young children. These being:
- Agreements of weekly contact during the school week with the non-residential parent (‘agreements of weekly contact during the school week’)
- Agreements of a set schedule, on every other weekend, for one or two overnight visits with the nonresidential parent (‘every other week agreements’)
- No set schedule and erratic agreements
- Occasional contact for example, once every 3 to 6 months with the non-residential parent (‘holiday only agreements’)
- Face-to-face contact less than once a year with the non-residential parent
Research shows that the majority of children reported ‘loss of contact’ with the non-resident parent as the most negative aspect of separation (Kelly, p. 43). Reduced involvement of the non-residential parent after separation has been linked to many issues, for example, criminal conduct by children (Kelly p.45, Nielsen). Agreements of weekly contact during the school week or ‘every other week’, offer regular contact with the non-residential parent. Therefore, only those two interventions will be assessed.
For young children, are agreements of weekly contact during the school week more effective than ‘every other weekend’ visitation for their well-being?
The databases used are: HeinOnline, Westlaw, Wiley Online Library, JSTOR and Taylor & Francis.
For this PICO question, keywords used in the search strategy are: fair, living arrangements, housing arrangements, residential agreements, young children.
The two main sources of evidence used for this particular subject are:
- Joan B. Kelly, Changing Perspectives on Children’s Adjustment Following Divorce: A View from the United States (2003)
- Linda Nielsen, Shared Parenting After Divorce: A Review of Shared Residential Parenting Research (2013)
The article by Kelly highlights empirical and clinical research that is relevant to the design of children’s living arrangements after separation. It focuses on what is known about living arrangements after separation. Nielsen’s article bases its findings mostly on empirical studies and some meta-analyses. According to the HiiL Methodology: Assessment of Evidence and Recommendations, the strength of the evidence is classified as low to moderate.
Desirable outcomes
When children have close relationships with their non-residential parent, and the non-residential parents are actively involved in their lives, frequent contact is significantly linked to a more positive adjustment and better academic achievement, compared with those with less involved non-residential parents (Kelly, p. 45). Active involvement includes help with homework and projects, emotional support, age-appropriate expectations of their children and authoritative parenting (Kelly, p. 45).
Furthermore, mediators and parenting coordinators have reported that children visiting the non-residential parent during school week are better protected from being in the middle of parental disputes (Kelly, p. 45).
Undesirable outcomes
Active involvement of the non-resident parent during the school weeks requires a high level of flexibility. Interventions should aim to ensure that children are able to reach their parents regularly. Accordingly, it is preferable that parents reside close-by to one another (Kelly, p. 38). Some parents might be forced to pay more for their house as opposed to a cheaper option that is far away.
In families with a history of violence, the type of living arrangements should be determined extra carefully. The child’s emotional and physical safety must prevail (Kelly, p. 42).
Balance of outcomes
In determining whether agreements of weekly contact during the school week are more effective than ‘every other weekend’ visitation for the well-being of children, the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions must be considered.
The evidence suggests that avoiding conflict and maintaining close relationships can have a great impact on children’s well-being. Accordingly, maintaining a close relationship with the non-residential parent has several benefits, including achieving better academic results. In addition, weekly contact during the school week ensures that children are able to adjust to the post-separation living arrangements by maintaining close relationships with both parents.
For such reasons, weekly contact during school weeks is recommended.
Recommendation
Taking into account the net desirable outcomes with regard to the effect on children’s well-being, we make the following recommendation: For young children, agreements of weekly contact during the school week are more effective than ‘every other weekend’ visiting arrangements.
Adolescents
During a first assessment of the available literature, we were able to identify two different interventions for fair living arrangements for adolescents. These being:
- Shared residency (or dual residency)
- Sole custody
Shared residency, also referred to as ‘dual residency or joint custody’, is defined as between 33% and 50% time spent with one parent and the remainder with the other. This type of joint custody entitles both parents to make major decisions about their children (Kelly, p. 37). Sole custody refers to a type of custody where children reside with one parent, who makes all decisions and need not consult or inform the other parent (Kelly, p. 37).
The databases used are: HeinOnline, Westlaw, Wiley Online Library, JSTOR and Taylor & Francis.
For this PICO question, keywords used in the search strategy are: fair, living arrangements, housing arrangements, residential agreements, adolescent.
The three main sources of evidence used for this particular subject are:
- Joan B. Kelly, Changing Perspectives on Children’s Adjustment Following Divorce: A View from the United States (2003)
- William V. Fabricius and Linda Luecken, Postdivorce Living Arrangements, Parent Conflict, and Long-Term Physical Health Correlates for Children of Divorce (2007)
- Linda Nielsen, Shared Parenting After Divorce: A Review of Shared Residential Parenting Research (2013)
The article by Kelly highlights empirical and clinical research that is relevant to the shape of adolescent’s living arrangements after separation. It focuses on what is known about living arrangements after separation. The article by Fabricius and Luecken is based on a large observational study. Nielsen’s article bases its findings mostly on empirical studies and some meta-analyses. According to the HiiL Methodology: Assessment of Evidence and Recommendations, the strength of this evidence is classified as ‘low’.
Desirable outcomes
Adolescents who have joint custody arrangements with their parents are generally satisfied, feel loved, and report fewer feelings of loss (Kelly, p. 46).
According to an observational study by the Stanford Custody Project, shared residency adolescents were better off academically, emotionally and psychologically than the sole residence children (Nielsen, p. 597).
Several observational studies in different countries suggest that shared residency adolescents were better off in regard to antisocial behaviour, aggressive behaviour, smoking, depression and self-esteem (Nielsen, p. 600).
Furthermore, it has been reported that these adolescents have a closer and more trusting relationship with their parents than those who only spend a few nights a month at the house of the non-residential parent (Nielsen, p. 605).
Undesirable outcomes
According to an observational study by Fabricius and Luecken, poor father-child relationships are associated with poorer physical health of adolescents (Fabricius, p. 202). Sole-custody of the mother can negatively affect the childfather relationship, and therefore can be detrimental to children’s health.
As several observational studies suggest, where parents are not getting along well, shared residency adolescents were more likely than those in sole residence to feel caught in the middle of disagreements (Nielsen, p. 600).
Balance of outcomes:
In determining whether shared residency is more effective than sole custody for the well-being of adolescents, the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions must be considered.
The available literature clearly points to the importance of maintaining close contact with both parents. Adolescents who have joint custody arrangements report having a better relationship with their parents than adolescents who have sole custody arrangements. Moreover, there are many studies reporting that, in general, children of shared residency are better off both psychologically and physically.
However, where parents engage in many conflicts, there is a higher risk for the adolescent to be caught between both parents. In families with a history of conflict, the type of living arrangements should be determined extra carefully.
Recommendation
Taking into account the net desirable outcomes with regard to the effect on adolescents’ well-being, we make the following recommendation: For adolescents, shared residency is more effective than sole custody for their well-being.
