CONFLICT AND CO‐PARENTING: THE CONSTRUCTS OF NONRESIDENT FATHERS*

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00227.x
• Author: Graeme B. Wilson
• Date: 01 October 2008
• Published date: 01 October 2008

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 46 No. 4, October 2008 609–621

© 2008 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

Blackwell Publishing IncMalden, USAFCREFamily Court Review1531-24451744-1617© Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, 2008>XXX

Original Articles

Wilson/CONFLICT AND CO-PARENTINGFAMILY COURT REVIEW

CONFLICT AND CO-PARENTING: THE CONSTRUCTS OF

NONRESIDENT FATHERS

*

Graeme B. Wilson

Scots law constructs a co-parental role for nonresident fathers without clarifying how this should operate in

practice. Personal Construct Theory (PCT) offers a useful approach to understanding such fathers’ distinct and

changing conceptions of their role. Findings are presented from a study of 17 nonresident Scottish fathers

maintaining contact with nonresident children. Idiographic analysis of data from repertory grid interviews

administered three times over the course of a year shows that participants perceive family situations in terms of

paternal involvement, impact, emotion, or antagonism. Changes in construing following family events support

the PCT understanding of hostility; implications for family services are discussed.

Keywords:

nonresident

;

father

;

contact

;

separated parent

;

identities

;

personal construct

;

co-parent

;

repertory

grid

International trends over the last few decades toward increased rates of parental separation

and divorce are reflected in the profile of family life in Scotland, where the percentage of

children living in one-parent households rose from 19% to 25% between 1991 and 2001;

in 92% of those families in 2001, the nonresident parent was the father (Morrison, Headrick,

Wasoff, & Morton, 2004). Recent legislation seeking to respond to changes in social norms

has extended automatic parental rights and responsibilities to unmarried fathers registered

at the birth of their child (Family Law (Scotland) Act, 2006). This legislation should have

the effect of greatly increasing the number of men in Scotland with a legally defined role

as nonresident co-parents (Dey & Wasoff, 2006). However, the rights of any separated parent

under Scots law exist only “to enable him [the parent] to fulfil his parental responsibilities

in relation to his child” (Children (Scotland) Act, 1995); in other words, they exist for the

child rather than for the parent. For many nonresident fathers fighting through the courts

for contact with their children following a separation, the idea that they do not have a legal

right to time with their children per se is difficult to grasp and has led to high-profile

campaigning and direct action from fathers’ rights groups in the United Kingdom (Collier,

2005). Yet while contact orders can be used to enforce time spent by the child with a

nonresident parent, the “no order” principle of minimum intervention embodied in the

1995 Act means that Scottish courts expect parents to decide and maintain contact

arrangements themselves. In Scotland during 2002, only 1,138 ordinary causes were

initiated concerning residence/contact disputes (Scottish Executive Justice Department,

2004). Most separating families, then, do not resort to courts to arrange how their children

are to be looked after; the pressures on the court system created by those who do enter

into disputes might be addressed by reaching an understanding of how such successful

contact works.

Correspondence: g.b.wilson@ncl.ac.uk