Relational practices with mothers and other family members

Fatherhood does not stand alone: it is constructed in relation to others, particularly mothers (Dermott, 2008). Fehlberg et al. (2011) explain that after separation, most parents mutually agree about arrangements. In only a small number of cases (10 per cent) are the courts involved to help decision making. A significant methodological problem with assessing the volume of contact is that surveys tend to capture formal contact arrangements. However, most separated couples do not have formal contact arrangements and father-child contact is typically a flexible process, particularly when parents have an amicable relationship. Levels of reported contact often differ between mothers and fathers, perhaps due to deliberate under and overstating respectively to official agencies or surveys, or due to different interpretations of what constitutes contact (Wilson, 2006; Bradshaw et al., 1999).

It has been widely reported that good relationships between mother and father post-separation is associated with increased father-child contact, closer father-child relationships and improved outcomes for children (Poole et al., 2016; Haux et al., 2015; Baxter et al., 2011; Lewis and Lamb, 2007). Walker (2013, p. 124) contends that “children thrive best in families characterised by predictable and consistent care” with this care associated with harmonious relationships between parents, regardless of their relationship status. Fathers in the aforementioned Finnish study recognised the importance of having a good relationship with their ex-partner and the value of cooperative parenting for child-centred parenting (Forsberg and Autonen- Vaaraniemi, 2019). However, some studies have found fathers’ parenting practices and time and engagement with children can be considerably regulated by mothers (Bradshaw et al., 1999). Wilson et al. (2004, p. 3) express a similar sentiment in their study, with some fathers feeling that they must “perform in a role imposed on them” by mothers. When relationships between parents were more strained, non-resident young fathers in the Following Young Fathers project felt it more difficult to be involved with parenting, and became aware of the mediating and gatekeeping role that mothers (and their extended family) can play

(Lau-Clayton, 2015). These problems were recognised as being exacerbated by geographical distance. Many of these young fathers recognised that ‘getting on’ with the mother of their child was needed for the sake of their children, demonstrating a prioritisation of children’s needs (Neale et al., 2015). Strategies used to maintain an amicable relationship with ex-partners (and consequently spend more one-on-one time with their children) included open dialogue, clearly communicating feelings and being flexible with contact arrangements, such as providing care at the last-minute outside of pre-arranged times. The longitudinal element of the Following Young Fathers research project highlighted how relationships between separated parents evolve, and usually improve over time, as parents settle into their new parental role and, as in the case of these young people, mature (Lau-Clayton, 2015).

Bakker et al. (2015) in a study of 35 separated parents in the Netherlands highlighted how some parents continue to practise family rituals post-separation including going to school events and celebrating children’s birthdays and Christmas together. Being involved together in routine activities, can turn them into family rituals. This is because the act is accompanied by symbolic meaning; a separated couple demonstrating their ability to cooperate and display to everyone that they remain a family unit, and fathers are displaying an enduring commitment to their children. Whilst many of these parents reported positive relationships, not all did, with some reporting how difficult it felt to maintain contact and engage in family rituals and routines together, particularly shortly after separation. In these post-separation families, parents discussed difficulties reconciling ‘old’ family practices with a new life, feeling as if new partners posed a problem. However, Bakker et al.’s study found that for most families, family routines and rituals were not shared practices post-separation, instead these rituals were conducted twice i.e. two Christmas celebrations, two birthdays, and holidays were taken separately. These parenting relationships were marked with low levels of communication and using emails or text messages instead of phone calls or face-to-face contact. Bakker et al. (2015) make a distinction between those parents that continue to perform family routines and rituals together and those that perform them separately; the first they argue continue to display that they are ‘still a family’, the latter perform that they are a ‘new family’.

Extended family members also have an important function, with a number of studies recognising that grandparents, particularly grandmothers as having an influential role in negotiating fathers’ continued contact with children in separated families, acting as ‘invisible facilitators’, especially when one or both parents live with their own parents (Bradshaw et al., 1999; Smart and Neale, 1999; Maclean and Eekelaar, 1997). However, Lau-Clayton (2015) argues that rather than seeing mothers and grandmothers as gatekeepers in father-child relationships, co-parental relationships should be considered in a more nuanced

fashion, with consideration given to strength of relationship between parents, with push-pull factors ongoing and changing over time. Moreover, the agency of children must not be ignored in the maintaining of contact: as children grow older they may choose to spend more or less time with one parent or another (Bradshaw et al., 1999). Children’s choices can cause conflict between parents (Cashmore and Parkinson, 2011; Smart and Neale, 1999). How children’s preferences are recognised and acted upon from the perspective of fathers will be a feature of this research.

In terms of social relationships, in the aforementioned study by Dermott (2016), the author found that there was little difference in social contact between resident and non-resident fathers, with most non-resident fathers reporting talking to family members and friends at least once a week (80 per cent and 82 per cent respectively). However, when anticipating support, compared to resident fathers, non-resident fathers reported higher levels of feeling that they would not have practical or emotional support. Non-resident fathers living with a partner reported higher levels of support than single non-resident fathers – 24 per cent of fathers living in a couple anticipated they would lack at least one form of support, compared to the higher figure of 41 per cent for non-cohabiting non-resident fathers. This data introduces questions of support networks of fathers, both family and friends, but also the impact and choices made around cohabiting and non-cohabiting relationships. This thesis aims to develop a much more in-depth analysis of the choices non- resident fathers make about their social and romantic relationships.