Introduction

The aim of this paper is to report on my recent research into Australian families who after divorce adopted a split-residence, or what we formerly called a split-custody, arrangement. As this implies that at least one child in the family lives with each parent who has responsibility for that child’s daily care, it means that siblings are separated in their day to day living. The results of the research suggest that a potential advantage of split residence is that it is conducive to both parents remaining significantly involved in parenting all the children in the family. Such a situation appears to enhance the possibility of parents being able to co-operate in raising children after divorce. Co-operative parenting, thought to be important for children’s adjustment to divorce, has appeared to be more of a dream than a reality in families with sole residence (Furstenberg and Nord (1985).

Split residence is not a popular post-divorce arrangement. It is generally found in only about three to five percent of families (Atkinson, 1984; Fulton, 1979; Greif, 1990; Hodges, 1991; Horwill & Bordow, 1983), although Burns (1980) found seven percent of her Australian sample, and Mitchell (1988) ten percent of a Scottish sample had adopted the arrangement. My experience of working in the Family Court has shown both parents and judges to be reticent to adopt split residence as a post-divorce family arrangement. Parents disputing residence of their children often prefer them to live together with the other parent rather than be separated from one or more siblings.

Opposition to split residence stems in part from research findings that children fared better in a strange situation when they were kept with siblings (Bowlby, 1969) and when separated from both their parents (Stewart, 1983). Other predicted disadvantages of split residence are that it deprives children of important support and comfort at the turbulent time of parental divorce (Fine, 1980; Goldstein, Freud & Solnit, 1979) and is likely to result in the formation of unhealthy parent/child alliances (Eno, 1985; Greif, 1990), both of which realities are likely to prolong children’s adjustment to divorce (Kaplan, Hennon & Ade-Ridder, 1993). Split residence also deprives young children of important caretaking by older siblings(Bryant, 1992) and impedes the development of the sibling bond which requires a high level of physical and emotional access between siblings (Bank & Kahn, 1982; Hegar, 1988; Kaplan, Hennon & Ade-Ridder, 1993).

Predictions about the impact of split residence on the adjustment of children demand cautious acceptance because of the very small number of empirical studies of families with a split-residence arrangement, (Greif, 1990; Kaplan, Ade-Ridder & Hennon, 1991). Moreover, other research has suggested that opposition to split residence may be based on a romanticised notion of sibling relationships. Stocker, Dunn & Plomin (1989) found that sibling relationships were at times troubled rather than supportive in dysfunctional or conflictual families. Hetherington (1987) showed that siblings after divorce tended to become more hostile towards each other as they competed for scarce parental resources, and Eno (1985) found that strong parent/child rather than sibling alliances were more likely to form.

In determining useful post-divorce family arrangements, the significance of sibling attachment to children’s development and the support possibly provided by siblings amidst the family turmoil need to be balanced against the importance to children of a particular parent/child bond. Research which has highlighted the importance of attachment for the healthy development of the child (Ainsworth, 1973; Bowlby, 1969), has omitted to address the situation where children in the same family develop strong attachments to different parents. These differences in parent/child attachments within a family have probably assumed greater relevance in recent times when many men have begun to assume a more active role in raising children. Fathers are thus expecting and needing greater involvement in their children’s lives following divorce. Significant social changes have seen a greater sharing of parental roles and mothers often returning to work shortly after the birth of children. These changes support the view that sole residence stems from a world that no longer exists (Schwartz, 1984), or is no longer a useful presumption as to what serves the best interests of children (Edgar, 1986).

Advantages of split residence include its ability to cater for the differences in attachment that can exist within a family and to acknowledge that parents can be more important to children than siblings. The arrangement also provides both parents with a real opportunity to be involved in the daily care of at least one of their children and may even be more conducive to a spirit of co-operation between both parents in meeting their parental responsibilities to all their children.

My research into families with split residence, undertaken with the approval of the Family Court of Australia, attempted to collect empirical data about these families and to ascertain, inter alia, the short-term impact of the arrangement on contact between children and their non-residential parents and separated siblings, on parents’ payment of child support, and on the strength of sibling relationships. An indicator of the infrequency with which families adopt split residence was the need to search through almost eleven thousand applications filed at the Parramatta Registry of the Family Court in order to find a sample of two hundred families. These applications were filed between January 1994 and September 1995.

Demographic details of the families contained in the applications filed in the Court were initially compared with those of two hundred sole-residence families drawn from the same population of applicants to the Court. Questionnaires were mailed to three hundred and eighty-four parents in the split-residence families together with an invitation to participate in a follow-up interview. Parents who were prepared to be interviewed were also asked to permit their residential children to participate in the research.

Fifty-four parents, including six pairs of ex-partners, returned the Questionnaires. Of the forty-six respondents who indicated their willingness to be further involved in the research thirty-nine were interviewed. Interviews were conducted in respondents’ homes unless geographical distance rendered it impracticable. These respondents were interviewed by telephone. Thirty children completed the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale and a Children’s Questionnaire, and eighteen of these participated in a brief interview.

Only thirty-four of the two hundred families with split residence had applied to the Court for a resolution of a dispute about children. Split-residence families where as expected, significantly larger than sole-residence families, and the children in them significantly older. The majority of oldest children (only those under the age of 18 years are listed) in split-residence families were male (60.5%), but in sole-residence families were female (57%). In families with split residence, 72% of oldest children (79.3% of males and 60.7% of females) were living with fathers.

A further comparison of two-child families in both samples showed split-residence families contained more mixed-sex dyads (66% compared to 47.7%) and fewer female dyads (14% compared to 31.8%). The trend for mixed-sex dyads to be most commonly split, and female dyads least frequently split was found also among larger split-residence families. The only significant difference in the age gap between siblings in both samples was among male dyads where it was greater in families with split residence.

In split-residence families, there was no significant difference between the ages of first children in the care of fathers and those in the care of mothers, nor between the ages of male and female first children in the care of fathers. The results provided some support for separated siblings living with the same-sex parent (Clare-Stewart & Hayward, 1996; Schachter, 1982; Waters & Dimock, 1983), even though only a quarter of parents identified this as a factor in deciding the appropriate residential parent. A slender majority of sons (53.3%) lived with fathers, but the vast majority of daughters (70.5%) resided with mothers.

This study did not support claims that parents often adopt split residence to meet their own needs, such as to avoid paying child support or to punish ex-partners (Kaplan, Ade-Ridder & Hennon, 1991). Children’s wishes emerged as the most common factor (70%) contributing to the adoption of split residence, while 45% of parents identified either a close or conflictual parent/child relationship as a salient influence on the decision. Fifteen percent explained the decision partly in terms of a desire to share parental responsibility for the children, and eleven percent recognised sibling conflict as a reason for separating siblings. Despite the possibility of the desirability effect influencing parents’ responses, it seems reasonable to conclude from these responses that selfish motives were not prime motivators for parents to adopt split residence.

Only 17% of parents considered that the children were the ones to decide on adopting split residence but most parents perceived that they had consulted their children before making the decision. Over 80% of families had adopted split residence by the time parents were eligible to file for divorce one year after their separation. Most parents indicated that the adoption of split residence occurred in reasonably civil circumstances, but in four families children had seemingly been caught up in the parental dispute which then resulted in split residence.

Parents rated their own and their ex-partners’ happiness with the decision to separate siblings, and children rated their level of happiness with the decision. Responses were on a Likert-type scale of one to six, ranging from ‘not at all happy’ to ‘extremely happy’. Parents indicated that they were significantly unhappier (mean =1.65; S.D.=1.03) than were their ex-partners (mean=3.24; S.D.=2.02) with the decision, despite the fact that the majority of parents indicated that they were the ones who made the decision to separate children, or at least they jointly decided with ex-partners. Children also indicated that they were not very happy with being separated from siblings (mean= 2.63; S.D.= 1.47) despite parents’ perceptions that children’s wishes were the main reason split residence was adopted.

Some parents in explaining the reasons for their unhappiness about adopting split residence cited their strong belief that siblings should remain together following parental divorce. Apparently, these parents accepted what they perceived their children wanted, even though such an arrangement was against their own principles. One mother was keen to distinguish between parents and children making the decision to separate siblings. She had formerly reconciled with her husband after their first separation because her teenage son, the youngest of three children all living with her, missed his father so much. When she subsequently separated again, she left the three children with their father, even though she knew her two older daughters wished to live with her. She commented:

Parents, particularly mothers, commonly cited that a reason for their unhappiness with adopting split residence was the separation which it involved from at least one of their children. Some admitted that this, rather than the separation of siblings, was the main reason for their unhappiness. As one mother expressed it:

Some parents, again mainly mothers, attributed their unhappiness in part to their concern about the parenting capacity of ex-partners, while others expressed the belief that children need to be in the care of mothers. A few parents attributed their ex-partners’ unhappiness with the arrangement to the loss of child support that it implied.

Respondents also cited reasons that they were happy to adopt split residence. They said that they knew it was what the children wanted, or that it gave the opportunity for both parents to be involved in the daily care of children, or that it reduced sibling conflict. By way of contrast, they attributed darker motives to explain their ex-partners’ happiness, citing the opportunity split residence gave ex-partners to hurt respondents by separating them from a child, and the pressure it allowed some ex-partners to put on respondents to reconcile. Two respondents believed that ex-partners had even suggested split residence in order to alleviate their feelings of guilt at instigating the divorce.

The reasons for children’s low level of happiness with adopting split residence were not altogether clear. Some certainly seemed to identify the family arrangement with their parents’ divorce about which they were understandably far from happy.

The research showed that most children had frequent contact with non-residential parents and separated siblings. Children in almost two-thirds of families saw non-residential parents at least fortnightly, and in over three-quarters of families were in contact with them by telephone or letter at least every fortnight. In only three families did respondents rarely or never see non-residential children and five reported that children living with them rarely or never saw their non-residential parent. Respondents identified early post-divorce family turbulence and large geographical distances between parents as factors impeding frequent contact.

The study showed that children had much the same frequency of contact with separated siblings as they did with non-residential parents. In almost 60% of the families, children saw separated siblings at least weekly, and approximately 75% of children saw them fortnightly. In only five families did children rarely or never see separated siblings.

Overall, children were more satisfied than parents with the frequency of their contact with non-residential parents and separated siblings. Only 20% of children were unhappy with the frequency with which they were in contact with non-residential parents. This contrasted with 65% of respondents who indicated that they were dissatisfied with the frequency of their own contact with non-residential children, and 43% of respondents who were dissatisfied with ex-partners’ contact with non-residential children. Surprisingly, 15.4% of respondents thought ex-partners had too much contact with non-residential children. With regard to contact with separated siblings, only 26% of children compared to almost 49% of respondents were dissatisfied with the frequency of their contact with separated siblings.

This study showed that one parent in almost sixty percent of families paid some child support for non-residential children. This finding fails to support claims that parents often adopt split residence to avoid paying child support. The low socio-economic status of families in the research sample, however, could have impacted on the significance of this result. The involvement of the Child Support Agency, which necessarily assesses parental responsibility for child support whenever one parent is drawing on social security benefits, could have reduced the opportunity for parents to avoid the payment of child support. On the other hand, both parents in a number of families were unemployed and thus neither parent was liable to pay child support.

Respondents rated the closeness between separated siblings both prior to and following the adoption of split residence. Generally, they did not perceive that split residence had affected the strength of the relationship between the siblings. Those few parents who believed separated siblings were not as close as they had been, in fact often attributed the weakening in the relationship to factors other than split residence. Those who rated siblings to be closer than formerly attributed the greater closeness to the fact that in split residence the children were not overexposed to each other. As one mother commented:

The children also perceived that there had been no significant change in their relationship with separated siblings as a result of split residence. In rating their relationships with separated siblings to range between quite to very close, they implied that they perceived factors other than sibling conflict prompted the adoption of split residence.

The children’s scores on the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept scale did not differ significantly from the scores of primary and secondary school age children in research conducted by Amato (1984) for a population of Australian children. This result, although limited by the small sample size, supported the expectation that split residence would not impact unfavourably on children’s self-concept which is one important measure of their adjustment to their post-divorce situation.

Respondents perceived that both they and their ex-partners were closer to residential than non-residential children, a perception that was shared also by the children. The study did not determine any impact of split residence on that closeness which could have not only predated split residence but in fact been a determining factor that led to its adoption. One intriguing finding of the research was that respondents considered themselves to be significantly closer than were ex-partners to all the children in their family.

Respondents rated on a Likert-type scale from one ‘not at all’ to six ‘extremely well’ how well they thought split residence had worked for themselves, their ex-partners and the children. Results showed that they perceived that split residence had benefited them least of all and had benefited ex-partners the most. Almost half of the respondents thought that the arrangement had not worked at all for themselves, while only one fifth considered that it had not worked at all for ex-partners, and a third that it had not been at all useful for the children. While less than 5% of respondents thought that split residence had worked very or extremely well for themselves, almost 40% rated that it had worked very or extremely well for ex-partners.

Fathers often explained its benefit to mothers in terms of their financial gains, while mothers saw it in terms of easing the parental responsibilities of fathers. Respondents also perceived that the children living with them had adjusted better to split residence than children residing with ex-partners. This could suggest that respondents saw themselves making a more significant contribution than ex-partners to children’s post-divorce adjustment. Respondents commonly identified geographical proximity of both homes, regular contact between separated siblings and good communication and co-operation between parents as crucial to the success of split residence.

Children were more positive in their rating of split residence and believed that the arrangement had worked equally well for themselves and for their separated siblings. Nevertheless, children were reluctant to recommend split residence as a viable arrangement to others, stressing each family situation was different. A number of them alluded to the importance of siblings when they recommended that being with at least one sibling in split residence was preferable. One teenage boy commented:

"Go with whoever has the most children. To stay with your brothers and sisters.... I think it would help if they were with one another".

Parents’ general comments reflected a wide range of views about split residence. One father, who previously had been unsuccessful in his application to the Family Court for residence of his four children, was at one end of the spectrum. He commented:

At the other end of the spectrum another father, who initially warned parents to be careful about separating children, went on to say:

" Yes, I would recommend this arrangement, depending on the people. It has worked out very well for us and is in fact getting better. Friends ask how can we do it, and I say what is the other option? This is a lot better for the kids".

This research has provided valuable information about split-residence families. It has also challenged the accuracy of predictions of the dire consequences of separating siblings after divorce. Despite the methodological limitations of the study, including its reliance on parents’ self-reporting, a reasonable conclusion is that most parents did not choose to adopt split residence for mainly selfish interests. The results rather suggest that parents in these families were in fact very child-focussed in that they adopted a post-divorce arrangement which they personally did not like, but perceived to be what their children wanted.

The study provided little evidence that separating siblings necessarily implies a greater fracturing of families than occurs in any post-divorce family arrangement. Neither parents nor children perceived that sibling relationships had been weakened in the short term by the separation of siblings or that there had been any distinctive weakening of relationships between children and non-residential parents.

This study also failed to support claims that split residence often results in the formation of unhealthy alliances between residential parents and children who are subsequently alienated from non-residential parents. In only about three families had children obviously aligned themselves with the residential parent in their hostility towards the non-residential parent. As parent alienation is found among families with sole residence, the findings of this study suggest it could be more a product of post-divorce family dynamics rather than of the particular family arrangement adopted.

Parents’ cautious assessment of the success of split residence seems to have been linked in part to their experience of the divorce itself. Their evaluation of split residence was at times tinged with sadness over the loss of an intact family and also reflected the pain of separation from children. It could be useful to compare assessments of parents in this study with those of non-residential parents in families with sole residence, as both are in the position of being separated from children. It seems unlikely that many non-residential parents would evaluate sole residence very highly.

An important finding of this research is the frequency of contact children in split-residence families enjoyed with non-residential parents. It strongly suggests that this family arrangement is conducive to both parents remaining in the lives of all the children. The high involvement of both parents contrasts with research evidence that, in families with sole residence, a considerable proportion of non-residential fathers lost contact with children over the years (Burns, 1980; Montemayor, 1984), and were even more likely to do so in low socio-economic families (Furstenberg & Nord, 1985). Fulton (1979) also found that residential mothers admitted that they at times denied children contact with non-residential fathers as a means of punishing the fathers.

One possible explanation for the high frequency of contact in split-residence families is that mothers, whom Furstenberg and Nord (1985) found to be more committed to maintaining contact with non-residential children, are always separated from at least one child in families with split residence. Mothers may well provide the incentive for fathers also to maintain contact with non-residential children. Moreover, in split residence, both parents basically mirror each other’s parental experience. The evidence suggests that they are thus more open to co-operate in raising children, possibly because they approach the co-parental role from a relatively equal position. This is unlike the common situation in families with sole residence where residential parents often assume, or are perceived to assume, a position of power or superiority in respect to non-residential parents.

This study found some basis for suggesting that another important advantage of split residence was that the separation of siblings often led to an improvement in the quality of the sibling bond. Both parents and children acknowledged that in many families siblings appreciated each other more because they were not constantly exposed to each other. Split residence also provided many adolescent boys with the opportunity to live with their fathers, perhaps an important step towards the establishment of their independence from mothers.

This study was not able to consider the long-term impact of split residence on sibling relationships, but comments by parents on their own sibling relationship served as a reminder that sibling relationships, like any other, tend to be volatile and to fluctuate throughout life. Belief in the life-long nature of close sibling relationships, which split residence is thought to endanger, may rest on a certain romanticism. Moreover, there is currently no evidence that siblings living with different parents during childhood can still not develop a sound bond, which would serve as a source of support and comfort at various stages throughout life.

There is much more research that needs to be done into split residence to test further its impact on children after divorce. Comparative studies with families with sole residence may help determine whether post-divorce family dynamics rather than family form are more crucial to children’s adjustment. This current research has not only raised doubts about the predicted negative outcomes of split residence, but has shown its real advantages, particularly in keeping both parents involved with the family and in promoting regular contact between children and non-residential parents. It appears there are solid grounds for proposing that split residence is a viable post-divorce option that provides an opportunity for co-operative parenting.

References

Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1973). The development of the infant mother attachment. In B.M. Caldwell & H.N.Ricciuti (Eds.). Review of child development research (Vol 3). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Amato, P.R. (1984). The Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale. An evaluation of its uses on an Australian population. Institute of Family Studies Working Paper No 6.

Atkinson, J. (1984). Criteria for deciding child custody in the trial and appellate courts. Family Law Quarterly, 18, 1-42.

Bank, S. & Kahn, M.D. (1982). The sibling bond. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1). London: Hogarth.

Bryant, B.K. (1992). Sibling caretaking: providing emotional support during middle childhood. In F. Boer & J. Dunn (Eds.). Children’s sibling relationships: developmental and clinical issues (pp 55-69). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Assoc.

Burns, A. (1980). Breaking up: separation and divorce in Australia. Melbourne: Nelson.

Clare-Stewart, K.A. & Hayward, C. (1996). Advantages of father custody and contact for the psychological well-being of school-age children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17, 239-270.

Edgar, D. (1986). Marriage, the family and family law in Australia. Australian Institute of Family Studies Discussion Paper No 13.

Eno, M. (1985). Sibling relationships in families of divorce. Journal of Psychotherapy and the Family, 1, 139-156.

Fine, S. (1980). Children in divorce, custody and access situations: the contribution of the mental health professional. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 21, 353-361.

Fulton, J.A. (1979). Parental reports of children’s post-divorce adjustment. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 126-139.

Furstenberg, F.F. (Jnr), & Nord, C.W. (1985). Parenting apart: patterns of childrearing after marital disruption. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 893-904.

Goldstein, J., Freud, A. & Solnit, A.J. (1979). Before the best interests of the child. New York: Free Press.

Greif, G.L. (1990). Split custody: a beginning understanding. Journal of Divorce, 13, 15-26.

Hegar, R.L. (1988). Sibling relationships and separations: implications for child placement. Social Service Review, 446-467.

Hetherington, E.M. (1988). Parents, children and siblings six years after divorce. In R.A. Hinde and J.Stevenson (Eds.). Relationships within families (pp 311-331). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hodges, W. (1991). Interventions for children of divorce: custody, access and psychotherapy. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Horwill, F.M. & Bordow, S. (1983). The outcome of defended cases in the Family Court of Australia. Research Report No 4. Sydney: Family Court of Australia.

Kaplan, L., Ade-Ridder, L. & Hennon, C. (1991). Issues of split custody: siblings separated by divorce. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 16, 253-274.

Kaplan, L., Hennon, C. & Ade-Ridder, L. (1993). Splitting custody between parents: impact on the sibling system. Families in Society: the Journal of Contemporary Human Services CEU Article No 30, 131-144.

Mitchell, A. (1988). Children’s experience of divorce. Family Law, 18, 460-463.

Montemayor, R. (1984). Picking up the pieces: the effects of parental divorce on adolescents with some suggestions for school-based intervention programs. Journal of Early Adolescence, 4, 289-314.

Schachter, F.F. (1982). Sibling deidentification and split-parent identification: a family tetrad. In M.E. Lamb & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.). Sibling relationships: their nature and significance across the lifespan (pp 123-151). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Assoc.

Schwartz, S. (1984). Towards a presumption of joint custody. Family Law Quarterly, 18, 225-246.

Stewart, R. B. (1983). Sibling attachment relationships: child-infant interactions in the strange situation. Developmental Psychology, 19, 192-199.

Stocker, C., Dunn, J. & Plomin, R. (1989). Sibling relationships: links with child temperament, maternal behavior and family structure. Child Development, 60, 715-727.

Waters, B. & Dimock, J. (1983). A review of research relevant to custody and access disputes. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 17, 181-189.