Children's Postdivorce Residence Arrangements and Parental Experienced Time Pressure

• Author: Anne‐Rigt Poortman,Tanja van der Lippe,Franciëlla van der Heijden
• Published date: 01 April 2016
• Date: 01 April 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12283

F   H, A-R P,  T   L

Utrecht University

Children’s Postdivorce Residence Arrangements

and Parental Experienced Time Pressure

Although the rise in postdivorce joint phys-

ical custody has fueled scholarly interest in

its impact on children, consequences for par-

ents remain understudied. Because children’s

residence arrangements determine time and

coordination demands associated with child

care, this study investigated the relationship

between postdivorce residence arrangements

and parents’ time pressure. Regression analy-

ses on 4,460 formerly married or cohabiting

parents in the Netherlands showed that main

residence (mother residence, father residence,

or joint physical custody) is more strongly

related to time pressure than is nonresident

parents’ visitation frequency. Compared with

mother residence, joint physical custody is

associated with less time pressure for mothers

and slightly greater pressure for fathers, which

supports the idea of higher care demands when

parents spend more time with their children.The

results do not support the role of coordination

demands; the extent of interparental contact

and the number of transitions the child makes

are not related to time pressure.

Joint physical custody of children after divorce

has become increasingly common (e.g.,

Cancian, Meyer, Brown, &Cook, 2014; Trinder,

Department of Sociology, Utrecht University, P.O.Box

80140 Utrecht, Utrecht 3508 TC, Netherlands

(f.i.vanderheijden@uu.nl).

Key Words: divorce, living arrangements, nonresidential

parents, work–family balance.

2010). The terms joint physical custody,shared

residence (the term used in this study), and

shared placement refer to a residence arrange-

ment in which children alternate living between

parents (Bartfeld, 2011). Several countries, such

as Australia, the Netherlands, and Belgium,

have adopted policies that encourage shared

residence, under the assumption that shared res-

idence buffers the negative effects of divorce on

children (Fehlberg, Smyth, Maclean, & Roberts,

2011; McIntosh, 2009; Sodermans, Matthijs, &

Swicegood, 2013).

There is considerable debate, however, on

whether shared residence is benecial for chil-

dren (e.g., Harris-Short, 2010). Some scholars

suggest that the involvement of both parents in

children’s livesis benecial, whereas others note

the possible stressful effects of having to tran-

sition between parents or of being continually

exposed to parental conict (Amato, Meyers, &

Emery, 2009; Cashmore et al., 2010).

Surprisingly, the debate on the pros and cons

of shared residence disregards the consequences

for parents, although similar arguments may

apply (for exceptions, see Botterman, Soder-

mans, & Matthijs, 2015; Sodermans, Botterman,

Havermans, & Matthijs, 2015). Parentsare likely

to be affected by their children’s residence

arrangements because child-care responsi-

bilities vary considerably. Shared residence

allows parents to benet from the other parent’s

resources; as a result of sharing child-care tasks,

the demands and stresses of child rearing may

decrease. In contrast, shared residence may

be particularly stressful because parents must

coordinate child-care tasks (Bauserman, 2012).

468 Journal of Marriage and Family 78 (April 2016): 468–481

DOI:10.1111/jomf.12283