Batterer Manipulation and Retaliation: Denial and Complicity In the Family Courts

 

by Joan Zorza, Esq.

Family Courts Excuse Male Misbehavior, But Blame Women

Most family and divorce (hereinafter, "family") court judges insist that people going through custody and divorce cases are good people, but that they often behave very badly because they are so stressed out by the pressures of the separation and court dispute. 1 The reality, as Massachusetts has found, is that nothing could be further from the truth for the men who abuse their female intimate partners and children (called either "abusers" or "batterers").

Massachusetts, which has since 1978 allowed its criminal court judges to issue restraining orders against abusers, and which now requires all judges--even the family ones, to consult offender probation records whenever a petition for protection in an abuse case is filed, keeps very careful records which it periodically analyses.  It has found that almost 80% of the male abusers have criminal records,2  46% for violent offenses, and 39% have prior restraining orders entered against them and 15% for violating of those orders within the first 6 months.  The men with prior orders are almost equally divided between those who have repeatedly abused one victim and those who have abusing multiple victims.3 Massachusetts also was the first state in the county to create a statewide registry for orders of protection, and it also enters orders of protection onto the defendants' probation records, so that judges automatically become aware of the defendants' prior record, even his juvenile one or cases which were later continued without any finding.  This is not to say that all abusive men have records or are abnormal,4  or that no female partners of abusers ever have records.  However, abusive men, although they tend to be considerably older, better educated and are more likely to be white than other criminals, and hence to have been given far more breaks in the criminal justice system, are simply not the stressed out good guys as the family courts assume.  Men who abuse do so as a matter of choice, as a way to assert power and control over their female partners, punish them, to be sexually aroused, or less often because they enjoy causing pain.5

    In contrast, although the family courts assign at least equal blame to the men's victims, the victims are generally no different than other women, except for having been abused and suffering the effects of that abuse. Prior to being abused, battered women are no different from other women.6 It is the effects of the abuse makes them frightened and show other effects, often making them appear less credible as witnesses.7 Courts, police and prosecutors often refuse to help battered women and discourage them from pursuing cases, but then blame them for dropping their cases.  In fact, battered women are no more likely to drop cases than are other victims of violent crimes who are being threatened by their abusers.  What is different is that most violent criminals never reassault or even contact their victims, but the average battered woman is beaten up three times by her batterer during the pendency of a criminal domestic violence case.8 All victims threatened with further assault want to drop their cases; battered women are actually more willing than other threatened victims to pursue their cases.9

Batterers are believed in blaming victims

Men who batter are not only adept at minimizing and denying their own abusive behaviors and their responsibility for it,  they are also adept at blaming circumstances or their victims, thereby shifting responsibility and projecting their own behavior onto their victims.10 Yet while alcohol,11 poverty, and other circumstances may aggravate a situation, they do not cause violence, as most people in such circumstances do not abuse.  Similarly, victims are not to blame for the violence. Unfortunately, abusive men have been very successful in convincing courts and juries that their own behavior is their female victims' fault, or that their partners provoked them, or wanted the abuse, or that bad circumstances caused the abuse.

Mental health experts lack expertise in family violence

Complicating the problem is that the courts often rely on mental health experts to evaluate the parties, yet overwhelmingly those experts have never received adequate training in domestic violence or child sexual abuse; indeed, their professional schools seldom teach the subjects and 40% of those working in mental health fields in the U.S. admit they have never received any training about intimate partner violence and even fewer received training about child sexual abuse.12 The content of what little training exists in schools in continuing education programs is often questionable or outright misleading, or so short (one hour is not that uncommon over the course of a career)13 that is clearly inadequate.  Guardians ad litem, who are supposed to represent the children's best interests to the court, generally lack training in any aspects of family violence or even child development.14  Only 10% of custody evaluators know enough about incest to not be dangerous in these cases.15 Without the training and sensitivity to abuse issues, few therapists and custody evaluators even screen for it or follow up when told about it. 16 When they do follow up, batterers are adept at manipulating mental health professionals, appearing very together and, if he admits the abuse, contrite and regretful, justifying his abuse or making it appear part of a substance abuse or depression problem or caused by his partner.17 All this convinces the professional that the abuse was an aberration that will be controlled in the future, although this is most unlikely.18 Mental health evaluators and guardians ad litem, having been trained in a system that blames mothers for most problems that people have,19 are particularly vulnerable to being persuaded by fathers who deny their abuse and blame their partners, with the result being that they discredit the mother's accusations and fears, and recommend that custody to go to fathers, even when the men are abusive.  The result is that domestic violence is seldom considered in the vast majority of  child custody determinations,20 particularly when there are allegations of physical or sexual abuse against a child.21 This is an amazing omission, given that at least 47 states and the District of Columbia require courts to consider domestic violence when making child custody determinations. (The three states which do not are Connecticut, Mississippi and Utah.)22

Judges, like mental health professionals, make the gender biased and inaccurate assumption that most domestic violence or child abuse accusations made in custody cases are falsely made for tactical gain, so take these cases far less seriously than they should.23 In fact, incest allegations are only made in 2-3% of custody cases, and mothers make few false accusations either of domestic violence24  or of child sexual abuse.25 Although no psychological test can definitively prove that someone has battered or sexually abused someone,26 many family courts require women to conclusively prove the abuse--a virtually impossible burden--or they refuse to believe that any abuse happened.

Furthermore, because most assessment tools used in custody evaluations were never developed to take into account the effects of domestic violence on victims, the tools distort the results to incorrectly show that most frightened victims are paranoid or have other psychiatric disorders, such as major depression, paranoid schizophrenia, dependent personality disorder, or borderline personality disorder,27diagnoses that will hurt her in any custody fight.28 Without experts able to refute the faulty diagnoses (and few battered women have the money to pay for such experts, even if any are available who are willing to criticize their colleagues), battered women and mothers of children who have been abused risk being assessed as incompetent mothers, and so lose custody.  Despite myths put out by fathers that mothers always win custody cases, fathers actually win custody in 70% of custody disputes,29 and this is true even though most men who abuse women and children are far more likely than other fathers to fight for custody and engage in prolonged litigation.30

Batterers Retaliate

Batterers do not only manipulate mental health professionals.  When batterers feel that their authority is being threatened, they escalate their violent and terroristic tactics, often threatening to kill or seriously injure their victims,31 their families, children or loved ones,32 and even themselves.33 After separation they often carry out these threats, hurting their partners 14 times as often after separation as when they were together.34 Most of these men also rape their female partners, and these rapes are more brutal than stranger rapes, and 10% of the rapes occur in from of the children.35 Batterers retaliate in many other ways as well, often being extremely imaginative and unpredictable.  They are notorious in fighting for custody,36 even though most of them never paid much attention to the children while then they were together with the children's mother.37 Most batterers seek the children knowing that depriving the mother of custody is the best way to punish and hurt her.38 Batterers, who are notoriously poor at paying child support,39 also know that winning custody not only absolves them from having to pay child support, it may obligate the mothers to pay them child support, which they see as another way to hurt the women.

Batterers also retaliate by threatening their former partners and her children during visitation, or by shifting their abuse onto the children. It is quite common for batterers to begin abusing the child physically or sexually after the separation, or for such abuse to escalate, just as their violence tends to escalate after separation against their former partners.40 Many threaten to and actually abduct the children,41 and these abductions are as harmful to the children as when strangers kidnap them.42

Even when batterers have custody, they often refuse to make let the mothers to see their children.  The same courts that are outraged when a mother fails to make the children available to the father seldom punish a father who denies visitation to the mother.

Some of these problems exist because of gender bias of individual judges, but other problems exist because the legislature has enacted laws that favor men.  While most states (Washington State is the exception) encourage courts to consider in granting custody which parent will encourage a better relationship and frequent contact between the children and the other parent, courts consider only behaviors that mothers are more likely to do under this criteria, leaving out behaviors that men primarily do.  Thus failing to pay spousal or child support, or failing when one could do so to legitimate the other parent's immigration status are not seen as hurtful.  Yet what could be more harmful to a relationship with the children than depriving the other parent of adequate support or even the right to remain in the U.S.  Indeed, changing custody because a parent has not paid child support is illegal in most states, yet custody is changed all the time when mothers do not give father access to their children.

Another way that some men retaliate is by having their parents join in the fight for custody or visitation (of course, some grandparents, often the ones from whom their son learned to be abusive in the first place, do this spontaneously).  Fortunately, this was made much harder by Troxel v. Granville43,  the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision which struck down Washington State's grandparent visitation statute that permitted visitation against the wishes of the parents.  Both batterers and paternal grandparents and batterers also often file false or trumped up charges against their daughters-in-law or sons' girlfriends to get them in trouble and discredit them, most often with child protection agencies, but also alleging welfare or immigration fraud or criminal activity, but also in court.44

Another reason that courts have not been quicker to catch on about men's projecting their own behaviors onto their victims45 and vindictiveness against their former female partners is that while they speak very negatively about their former partners, they generally speak very positively about their current ones.46 This is typical of men, but few courts or mental health practitioners are aware of it, and are fooled into thinking the men must be  objective, and thus what they say about their former partners must be accurate.  Yet once the men break up with their current partners they will start publicly devaluing.

Some courts are wising up to men's retaliatory tactics, because many involve abusing the courts. Many abusers learn that cross or counterclaims often cancel out their victims; prior claims, and that filing contempts shifts the focus to their victims.47 Most batterers know they can bring criminal and contempt charges at no expense to the abusers, but they take an enormous financial and emotional cost on their victims.  The result is that many abusive men drag on the litigation and file spurious claims openly acknowledging they are trying to drive their victims onto welfare or into homelessness; half of all homeless women and children in the U.S. are homeless because of domestic violence.48 Occasionally it is only when the abuser accuses the judge or other court players of impropriety or attacks them or those helping their partners, such as shelter workers,49 that the court catches on to their tactics. Unfortunately, some judges (and other court players, including mental health experts) become too frightened50 or vicariously traumatized51 to act sufficiently to believe or act to protect battered women. However, most abusers are far too savvy to make such accusations, attacking only their former partners.

When courts blame victims and fail to hold abusers accountable, they reinforce abuser behavior, subvert justice, disempower the victims, teach children that abusive behavior is permissible and may even be rewarded, and reinforce the cycle of violence.

Footnotes

  1.    ABA Center on Children and the Law & State Justice Institute, A Judge's Guide: Making Child-Centered Decisions in Custody Cases, 4 (Chicago, IL: ABA,  2001).

2.    James Ptacek, Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses, 89 (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1999).

3.    Donald Cochran, Sandra Adams & Patrice O'Brien, From Chaps to Clarity in Understanding Domestic Violence, 3 Domestic Violence Report 65, 77-78 (1998). ).

4.    American Psychological Association , Violence and the Family: Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, 37 (Washington, DC: Author, 1996). [Hereinafter, APA.] ).

5.    Evan Stark & Anne H. Flitcraft, Spouse Abuse. In Violence in America: A Public Health Approach, 123, 132-33 (Mark L. Rosenberg & Mary Ann Fenley, eds., New York: Oxford Press, 1991); Ola W.  Barnett & Alyce D. LaViolette, It Could Happen to Anyone, 63 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1993). ).

6.   Stark & Flitcraft, supra note 6, at 140-44. ).

7.    Id., at 134. ).

8.    Joan Zorza, Battered Women Behave Like Other Threatened Victims, 1(6) Domestic Violence Report 5 (August/September 1996). ).

9.    APA, supra note 4, at 37. ).

10.   Id., at 81-82. ).

11.   Barnett & LaViolette, supra note 5, at 77. ).

12.   Felicia Cohn, Marla E. Salmon, & John D. Stobo, Confronting Chronic Neglect: The Education and Training of Health Professionals on Family Violence, 3-5 to 3-8 and 4-5 (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001). ).

13.   Id., entire book; APA, supra note 3, at 13. ).

14.   APA, supra note 4, at 102. ).

15 .  John E.B. Myers, A Mother's Nightmare  Incest: A Practical Guide for Parents and Professional, 104 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997). ).

16.   Edward W. Gondolf & Ellen W. Fisher, Battered Women as Survivors, 133-34 (New York: MacMillan, 1998). ).

17.   Id, at 132. ).

18.   Id., at 81. ).

19.   Barnett & LaViolette, supra note 5, at 9-10. ).

20   Joan Zorza, Domestic Violence Seldom Considered in Psychologists' Custody Recommendations, 2 Domestic Violence Report, 65 and 68 (1997).

21.   Myers, supra note 15.  Mothers of abused children are themselves blamed for the abuse and traumatized by it and other's reactions. See, e.g., Betty Joyce Carter, Who's to Blame? Child Sexual Abuse and Non-Offending Mothers, 188 (Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 1999). ).

22.   Linda D. Elrod & Robert G. Spector, A Review of the Year in Family Law: Redefining Families, Reforming Custody Jurisdiction, and Refining Support Issues, 34 Family Law Quarterly 607, 652 Chart 2 (2001).).

23.   A Typical Week of Restraining Orders in Massachusetts,1(4) Domestic Violence Report 3, 4 (April/May 1996). ).

24.  APA, supra note 4, at 12. ).

25.  Id.

26.   Myers, supra note 15, at 46-48.

27.   Edward W. Gondolf, Addressing Woman Battering in Mental Health Services, 81 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1989). ).

28.   Barnett & LaViolette, supra note 5, at 74; Gondolf, supra, note 16, at 81. ).

29.   Ruth I. Abrams & John M. Greaney, Report of the Gender Bias Study of the Supreme Judicial Court [of Massachusetts],  62-63 (1989), also citing similar findings from California and the entire nation. ).

30.   APA, supra note 4, at 40. ).

31.   David Adams, Identifying, Assaultive Husbands in Court: You Be the Judge, 33 Boston Bar Jounal, 23-24 (July/August, 1989). ).

32.   Id.; Barnett & LaViolette, supra note 5, at 50.

33.  Donald Dutton & Susan K. Golant, The Batterers: A Psychological Profile, 49 (New York: BasicBooks, 1995). ).

34.   Caroline Wolf Harlow, Female Victims of Violent Crime, 5, Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Statistics, NCJ-126826 (January 1991). ).

35.   Ptacek, supra note 2, at 74; Lenore E. Walker, The Battered Woman Syndrome, 48 (New York: Springer Publishing Co., 1984); Jacquelyn Campbell, Community Nursing Department, Wayne State University College of Nursing, Nursing Assessment for Risk of Homicide with Battered Women (1986). ).

36.   Barnett & LaViolette, supra, note 5, at 50; APA, supra note 4, at 100; Marsha .B. Liss & Geraldine Butts Stahly, Domestic Violence and Child Custody, in Battering and Family Therapy: A Feminist Perspective, 175, 179 & 181 (Marsali Hansen & Michèle Harway, eds., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1993) ).

37.   Catherine Kirkwood, Leaving Abusive Partners, 54-55 (1993); Einat Peled & Duane Davis, Groupwork with Children of Battered Women: A Practitioners' Manual, 8 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995). ).

38.   Liss & Stahly, supra note 36, at 179. ).

39.   Id., at 181; Mildred Daley Pagelow, Family Violence, 311 (1984). ).

40.   Harlow, supra note 35. ).

41.   Geoffrey L. Grief & Rebecca L. Hager, When Parents Kidnap 4 (1992). ).

42.   Id., at 205-206. ).

43.   530 U.S. 57 (2000). ).

44.   Zorza, supra note 21, at 68 & 75. ).

45.   Dutton & Golant, supra note 34, at 105. ).

46.   David Schuldenberg & Shan Guisinger, Divorced Fathers Describe Their Former Wives: Devaluation and Contrast, Women and Divorce/Men in Divorce: Gender Differences. In Separation, Divorce and Remarriage, 61-87 (Haworth Press, 1991). ).

47.   Jeffrey L. Edleson & Richard M. Tolman, Intervention for Men Who Batter: An Ecological Approach, 31 & 34 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1992). ).

48.   Joan Zorza, Woman Battering: A Major Source of Homelessness, 25 Clearinghouse Review, 421 (!991). ).

49.   Ptacek, supra note 2, at 63. ).

50.   Id. ).

51.   Joan Zorza, Why Courts Are Reluctant to Believe and Respond to Allegations of Incest. In The Sex Offender: Theoretical Advances, Treating Special Populations and Legal Developments, Vol. III, 33-8 (Barbara K. Schwartz, Ed., Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute, 1999).

WordPress Tags: Batterer,Manipulation,Retaliation,Denial,Courts,Joan,Zorza,Excuse,Male,Misbehavior,Blame,Women,Most,judges,custody,cases,separation,Massachusetts,truth,partners,children,orders,offender,probation,records,protection,victim,victims,justice,system,pain,Prior,fact,woman,times,violence,Batterers,behavior,situation,Mental,health,expertise,education,career,interests,development,substance,depression,aberration,problems,result,fears,omission,District,Columbia,Connecticut,Mississippi,Utah,gender,assumption,Although,assessment,tools,account,results,disorder,borderline,money,colleagues,Despite,myths,litigation,Retaliate,threats,stranger,attention,Many,father,Some,bias,legislature,Washington,State,exception,parent,relationship,Thus,immigration,status,Another,Troxel,Supreme,Court,decision,grandparent,statute,wishes,Both,welfare,fraud,contempt,expense,cost,abuser,players,workers,savvy,cycle,Center,Institute,Judge,Guide,Child,Chicago,James,Ptacek,Courtroom,Power,Judicial,Boston,Northeastern,Donald,Cochran,Sandra,Adams,Patrice,Brien,From,Chaps,Domestic,Report,American,Psychological,Association,Presidential,Task,Force,Author,Hereinafter,Evan,Stark,Anne,Flitcraft,Spouse,Abuse,America,Public,Approach,Mark,Rosenberg,Mary,Fenley,York,Oxford,Barnett,Alyce,LaViolette,Could,Happen,Thousand,Oaks,Sage,Behave,August,September,Felicia,Cohn,Marla,Salmon,John,Stobo,Chronic,Neglect,National,Academy,Myers,Mother,Nightmare,Incest,Practical,Parents,Professional,Edward,Gondolf,Ellen,Fisher,Survivors,MacMillan,Seldom,Psychologists,Joyce,Carter,Sexual,Toronto,Ontario,Linda,Elrod,Robert,Spector,Review,Jurisdiction,Support,Chart,Typical,Week,April,Services,Ruth,Abrams,Greaney,Study,findings,California,nation,David,Assaultive,Husbands,Jounal,Dutton,Susan,Golant,Profile,BasicBooks,Caroline,Wolf,Female,Violent,Crime,Dept,Bureau,Statistics,January,Walker,Syndrome,Springer,Jacquelyn,Campbell,Department,Wayne,College,Risk,Homicide,Marsha,Liss,Geraldine,Therapy,Feminist,Perspective,Marsali,Hansen,Michèle,Harway,Catherine,Kirkwood,Abusive,Einat,Duane,Davis,Groupwork,Practitioners,Manual,Daley,Geoffrey,Grief,Rebecca,Hager,Kidnap,Schuldenberg,Shan,Guisinger,Describe,Former,Devaluation,Contrast,Divorce,Remarriage,Haworth,Jeffrey,Edleson,Richard,Tolman,Intervention,Batter,Ecological,Major,Source,Clearinghouse,Reluctant,Believe,Respond,Theoretical,Special,Populations,Legal,Barbara,Schwartz,Kingston,Civic,Research,analyses,crimes,juries,subjects,Guardians,aspects,therapists,fathers,accusations,allegations,evaluations,disorders,strangers,criteria,agencies,Footnotes,Decisions,Responses,Recommendations,reactions,Differences,Developments,abusers,ones,defendants,three,behaviors,litem,evaluators,determinations,rapes,visitation,grandparents,supra

Understanding the Batterer In Custody and Visitation Disputes

 

by R. Lundy Bancroft

To read the complete article (pdf) click here

A sophisticated understanding of the mind of the abuser, his style as a parent, and of the tactics that he most commonly employs during separation and divorce, are essential to anyone making custody recommendations or working to design visitation plans that are safe for the children and their mother.

Contrary to popular belief, children of batterers can be at just as much risk psychologically, sexually, and even physically after the couple splits up as they were when the family was still together. In fact, many children experience the most damaging victimization from the abuser at this point.

A genuine batterer can be difficult to distinguish from one who is unfairly accused, and batterers who will be a grave risk to their children during unsupervised visitation can be hard to separate from those who can visit safely. The insights and expertise of those service providers who have extensive experience working directly with abusers needs to be drawn from, and the level of contribution from victims themselves to policy design also needs to be greatly increased.

Custody and visitation battles amidst allegations of domestic violence require policies and interveners (judges, mediators, and Guardians Ad Litem) based in the most detailed knowledge, experience, sensitivity, and integrity. The stakes for children are very high.

BATTERERS' STYLE DURING SEPARATION AND DIVORCE

An abuser's desire for control intensifies as he senses the relationship slipping away from him. He focuses on the debt he feels his victim owes him, and his outrage at her growing independence. (This dynamic is often misread as evidence that batterers have an inordinate "fear of abandonment.") He is likely to increase his level of intimidation and manipulation at this point; he may, for example, promise to change while simultaneously frightening his victim, including using threats to take custody of the children legally or by kidnapping.

Those abusers who accept the end of the relationship can still be dangerous to their victims and children, because of their determination to maintain control over their children and to punish their victims for perceived transgressions. They are also, as we will see later, much more likely than non-batterers to be abusive physically, sexually, and psychologically to their children.

The propensity of a batterer to see his partner as a personal possession commonly extends to his children, helping to explain the overlap between battering and child abuse. He tends, for example, to have an exaggerated reaction when his ex-partner begins a new relationship, refusing to accept that a new man is going to develop a bond with "his" children; this theme is a common one in batterer groups. He may threaten or attack the new partner, make unfounded accusations that the new partner is abusing the children, cut off child support, or file abruptly for custody in order to protect his sole province over his children. A batterer who does file for custody will frequently win, as he has numerous advantages over his partner in custody litigation. These include, 1) his typical ability to afford better representation (often while simultaneously insisting that he has no money with which to pay child support), 2) his marked advantage over his victim in psychological testing, since she is the one who has been traumatized by the abuse, 3) his ability to manipulate custody evaluators to be sympathetic to him, and 4) his ability to manipulate and intimidate the children regarding their statements to the custody evaluator. There is also evidence that gender bias in family courts works to the batterer's advantage. (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Study) Even if the batterer does not win custody, his attempt can be among the most intimidating acts possible from the victim's perspective, and can lead to financial ruin for her and her children.

To read the complete article (pdf) click here

Order the Book!
The Batterer As Parent,  by Lundy Bancroft
http://www.volcanopress.com/pages/catalog.cgi?mrchcatid=4&mrchid=81&#top

WordPress Tags: Batterer,Custody,Visitation,Lundy,Bancroft,article,abuser,parent,separation,plans,children,Contrary,belief,fact,victimization,expertise,needs,contribution,victims,policy,violence,judges,mediators,Litem,knowledge,BATTERERS,STYLE,DIVORCE,senses,relationship,debt,victim,independence,abandonment,intimidation,manipulation,example,threats,determination,possession,reaction,theme,province,advantages,litigation,representation,money,advantage,evaluator,gender,bias,courts,Massachusetts,Supreme,Judicial,Court,Study,perspective,Order,Book,catalog,recommendations,providers,allegations,policies,Guardians,transgressions,accusations,statements,abusers

Kansas State University: NON-CUSTODIAL MOTHERS: THEMATIC TRENDS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

 

Non-custodial Mothers: Thematic Trends and Future Directions

Michelle Bemiller ¹*

¹ Kansas State University

Copyright © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Sociology Compass 2/3 (2008): 910–924, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00117.x

ABSTRACT

The non-custodial mother is an anomaly. She does not live with her children on a full-time basis, putting her outside of the dominant expectations associated with motherhood. Although there has been an increase in the number of non-custodial mothers in recent years, information on the experience of being a non-custodial mother is minimal. The majority of our knowledge of non-custodial mothers stems from research conducted during the mid-1980s through the 1990s. This research was primarily descriptive in nature, lacking theoretical density. This article provides an overview of research completed on non-custodial mothers over the past two decades, with attention to the family and the role of the courts. After reviewing past research, the current state of the field is discussed, and future research directions are suggested.

---

DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)

10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00117.x About DOI

Article Text

For well over two decades, scholars have examined the connection between being a woman and motherhood (Schur 1984; Glenn 1994; Hays 1996). Early research examined the quality of mothering and its effects on children. More recent research has focused on mothers’ activities and the meaning attached to motherhood, drawing attention to the intensive nature of mothering in western society (Hays 1996; Arendell 2000). Feminist scholars have critiqued this literature, arguing that our knowledge of mothers has been based on a white, heterosexual woman’s point of view (Collins 1990;Glenn 1994). As a result, recent motherhood scholarship has drawn attention to mothers who do not fit the dominant ideology of motherhood–mothers of color, working mothers, single mothers, lesbian mothers, and non-custodial mothers, to name a few. These mothers, often referred to as resistant mothers, do not fit neatly into the intensive motherhood paradigm (Garey 1999; Glenn 1994; Hill Collins 1987).

One such mother, the non-custodial mother, is the subject of this article. Although it is true that women still receive custody of children in the majority of custody cases, the custodial father has become more visible over the years. Despite the increase in the number of non-custodial mothers, little information exists on this population as Arditti and Madden-Derdich (1993), Arditti (1995), Fischer and Cardea (1981), and Greif (1987a, 1997) have noted. In an attempt to synthesize the scholarship on non-custodial mothers, this article provides an overview of research completed on non-custodial mothers over the past two decades, drawing attention to shifts in the scholarly coverage of these women. After reviewing past research, the current state of the field is discussed, and future research directions are suggested.

Non-custodial mothers: The 1980s and 1990s

The structure and content of research on non-custodial mothers is the product of social and political forces operating from decade to decade. The majority of our knowledge of non-custodial mothers stems from research completed during the mid-1980s through the 1990s (see Arditti 1995; Arditti and Madden-Derdich 1993; Babcock 1997; Chesler 1986; Christensen et al. 1990; Clumpus 1996; Dolan and Hoffman 1998; Edwards 1989; Ferguson 1994; Fischer 1983; Fischer and Cardea 1981; Fox and Kelly 1995;Furstenburg et al. 1983; Greif 1987a, b; Greif 1997; Greif and Pabst 1988; Herrerias 1984; Herrerias 1995; Hetherington 1993; Maccoby and Mnookin 1992; Meyers and Lakin 1983; Rosen and Etlin 1996; Santora and Hays 1998, Stewart 1999a, b; Zuravin and Greif 1989). During this time, fathers started to receive custody of children in increasing numbers, placing non-custodial mothers under the social microscope. As indicated by the title of Harriett Edwards’ (1989) book, as more and more mothers lost or gave up custody of their children, the question on the minds of society was, How Could You? These thoughts, of course, were intimately connected with the notion that mothers should have primary custody of their children because of their nurturing and loving characteristics – these notions still permeate our society today, affecting the actions of both mothers and fathers. As a case in point, Cowdery and Knudson-Martin’s (2005) qualitative analysis of 50 couples pointed to an unequal division of childcare labor between mothers and fathers. This division of labor was created based on idealized beliefs about motherhood. As a result, mothers were intimately connected with children, whereas fathers were encouraged to step aside (see also Aldous et al. 1998). In these families, and within society at large, this lesser involvement of fathers was expected and tolerated (see also Hochschild 1989) because of the belief that mothers should, by virtue of their gender, be the primary caretakers of children. For mothers who do not have custody of their children, this ideology is problematic on a personal and social level.

In an attempt to better understand these mothers’ experiences of custody loss as well as their individual experiences as non-custodial mothers, scholarly research increased in the social sciences. The focus of this research ranged from individual experiences of mothers (i.e., social judgments and relationships with children) to structural processes that influenced women’s experiences (i.e., reasons for relinquishment and letter of the law).

One structural change that has led to women’s loss of custody is the family courts’ movement toward gender neutrality. The movement toward a gender neutral custody process emerged in the family courts around 1970 and gained momentum during the 1980s (Fox and Kelley 1995). Gender neutrality – the idea that both mothers and fathers can equally parent their children – challenged the historical notion that mothers are better suited to care for young children emotionally and physically than fathers (i.e., ‘the tender years doctrine’). As more women entered the workforce and the culture began to open up regarding parental roles, fathers started to become more active in caregiving. As a result, in family court, it was no longer assumed that mothers were the better parent and fathers began to seek and gain custody in increasing numbers (Fox and Kelley 1995; Greif and Pabst 1988; Greif 1995; Thompson 1983).

According to Chesler (1986), the by product of this ‘gender-neutral approach’ was a court system that privileged fathers’ rights over mothers’ rights as judges expressed their approval of fathers’ involvement while at the same time scrutinizing mother’s maternal responsibilities. Fathers’ suitability as custodial parents was further endorsed when economic stability was added into the equation. In a study completed for the American Bar Association, Mason (1997) found that custody decisions mentioned economic stability 46.5% of the time. Generally speaking, men have an economic advantage over women, putting women in a precarious position in custody cases.

Research by Babcock (1997), Chesler (1986), Greif and Pabst (1988), and Herrerias (1984, 1995) rigorously examined the experiences of non-custodial mothers through the lens of social psychology, social work, and symbolic interactionism. These works contributed a great deal to what we know about non-custodial mothers’ experiences during the 1980s on both an interpersonal and structural level. These are notable exceptions to what consisted mostly of descriptive studies that provided a great deal of background information about women’s experiences, but failed to rigorously examine women’s experiences through a theoretical lens.

Methodologically speaking, it is important to point out that the research completed during this time varied tremendously. Some studies used quantitative data collection methods, yielding large samples of non-custodial mothers (see Greif and Pabst 1988;Herrerias 1984), whereas other studies used qualitative methods involving interviews with small samples of non-custodial mothers (see Clumpus 1996; Ferguson 1994 for two examples of qualitative scholarship). In addition, differences also existed regarding survey instruments used during data collection (see Greif and Pabst 1988; Herrerias 1984). Because the quality and specificity of the data within these studies varied significantly, caution must be taken when comparing studies to one another.

That having been said, the studies completed during the 1980s and 1990s provided much needed insight into the lives of non-custodial mothers. Research focused on social beliefs about non-custodial mothers, reasons for relinquishing custody of children, relationships with children, adjustment to the status of non-custodial mother, and the family courts.

SOCIAL JUDGMENTS

Studies during the 1980s and 1990s indicated that non-custodial mothers experienced a great deal of social stigma because of the loss of their children. In a comparison study of custodial (n = 14) and non-custodial mothers (n = 17), Fischer and Cardea (1981) found that mothers, regardless of their custodial status, felt that society had a negative view of women who had relinquished custody of their children. This study also found that over half of the non-custodial mothers had received negative reactions from friends and family due to the loss of their children.

In 1983, Fischer polled 34 respondents from the human development and family studies faculty as well as graduate students at a university in West Texas regarding attitudes toward couples with children and couples living childfree lifestyles (i.e., homosexual couples, cohabiting heterosexual couples, empty nest couples, married couples without children, couples who lost children to accidents, and non-custodial parents). Using a 7-point scale, respondents were asked to rank the categories on two dimensions: whether the situation was common or uncommon in society and whether society approved or disapproved of this lifestyle. Findings indicated that respondents thought society most disapproved of homosexual couples and non-custodial mothers.

In her study of 100 mothers, Edwards (1989) reported mixed results regarding non-custodial experiences. Some of the women in her study spoke of being stigmatized by family, friends, and acquaintances, whereas others pointed to the strong support that they received from people in their lives. Thus, not all women incurred harsh judgments because of their status.

Ferguson (1994) used two case studies to highlight the experience of being a non-custodial mother. Using these two cases as well as past literature, Ferguson pointed out that women are prepared for the role of mother through gender socialization from an early age. Furthermore, the mothers are blamed for children’s pathologies, are expected to be self-sacrificing, and experience inequality when they work in the paid labor force. These stereotypes, and the outcomes from these stereotypes, led to negative evaluations of non-custodial mothers and also affected women’s choices when relinquishing custody (see also Babcock 1997). Accordingly, Ferguson recommended support groups to help non-custodial mothers adjust to this role.

Using one on one interviews obtained through Mothers Apart from Their Children (MATCH), Clumpus (1996) explored the lives of 10 non-custodial mothers. Her goal was to understand how the social construction of non-custodial mothers as ‘unfit’ parents affected these women’s self-perceptions. Clumpus (1996) found that the non-custodial mothers in her sample perceived themselves as deficient and blamed themselves for their non-custodial status. Because of these perceptions, the mothers separated themselves from their children, family, and friends.

Using a convenience sample of 120 participants from the general population (60 male and 60 female), Dolan and Hoffman (1998) conducted a study of perceptions of parent custodial status using vignettes depicting persons as married parents, divorced parents with custody, and divorced persons without custody. Their findings indicated that participants were most likely to rate both mothers and fathers who were non-custodial parents negatively. However, over all other parental forms, non-custodial mothers were the most negatively evaluated parents in the study.

Babcock (1997) focused on the effect that non-custodial status had on the salience of identity and general self-esteem for non-custodial mothers. Her most important finding was that all of the 41 non-custodial mothers that were interviewed had experienced negative appraisals on at least one occasion. In order to compensate for these negative appraisals, Babcock deduced that the non-custodial mothers were attempting to fit the ideal model of mothering by altering their mothering role to more closely match social expectations of mothers. According to Babcock’s analysis, the mothers increased physical visitation and contact by phone and letter, showing their dedication to their children. When these efforts to be more like ‘traditional’ mothers failed, the mothers redefined their mothering role, becoming more like sisters, aunts, or friends to their children. The participants claimed that these relationships were mutually satisfying for themselves and their children.

REASONS FOR RELINQUISHMENT

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, mothers gave up or lost custody of their children for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons included inability to financially support children, children choosing to remain with their father or another custodial caregiver, mothers’ emotional difficulties, and the courts’ view that fathers were the better parents – usually because of one of the reasons listed (Arditti and Madden-Derdich 1993;Fischer and Cardea 1981; Fischer 1983; Greif and Pabst 1988; Herrerias 1984;Meyers and Lakin 1983; Santora and Hays 1998; Zuravin and Greif 1989). These studies distinguished between voluntary and involuntary relinquishment of custody. In voluntary cases, mothers chose to give up custody of their children. In involuntary cases, the mothers were forced by the courts to give up custody due to their perceived inability to care for the children (Herrerias 1995). In a departure from these descriptive analyses, Clumpus (1996) examined the repercussions of lack of resources on mothers and children, finding that mothers felt that the unequal distribution of power between them and their ex-spouses led to their children becoming tactical pawns in their ex-husbands’ attempts to control the post-divorce relationship between them and their children.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH CHILDREN

For the most part, mothers were involved with their children after giving up or losing custody. Greif (1987b) found increased mother involvement when: (i) the father shared responsibility for the break-up with the ex-wife; (ii) custody was gained through mutual agreement; (iii) the father was earning the higher income; (iv) the father was raising one or two children (rather than three or more); and (v) the mother lived nearby. Using questionnaire responses from 1,136 custodial fathers, Greif found that 73 percent of fathers indicated that their ex-wives were somewhat or slightly involved with their children, whereas only 7 percent of the men indicated that their ex-wives were very involved. It should be noted that these findings were only indicative of face-to-face interaction; they did not account for contact by mail or telephone.

In a comparison of non-custodial mothers and fathers, Furstenburg, Peterson, Nord, and Zill (1983) indicated that mothers were more likely to have higher levels of contact with children than non-custodial fathers. Non-custodial mothers were more likely to visit their children regularly, to have overnight visits, and to write letters and phone the children. These results, however, should be looked at with caution given the difference between the sample of non-custodial fathers (n = 395) and the sample of non-custodial mothers (n = 28).

In 1984, Herrerias reported results from 18 page questionnaires collected from non-custodial mothers who lived in Texas, Oklahoma, and New York. Her findings indicated that upon relinquishment, roughly 97% of the 130 women in her sample maintained an active relationship with their children. The majority (71%) were happy with their decision to give up custody, and with their mother–child relationships. Nearly 77 percent described their relationships with their children as close and caring. Greif and Pabst (1988) analyzed 517 questionnaires that were disseminated to non-custodial mothers through the Parents Without Partners magazine and through the Mothers Without Custody organization. Findings indicated that mothers remained involved with their children after relinquishing custody. Out of 517 non-custodial mothers, roughly 23 percent of the mothers claimed to be very involved, 33 percent were somewhat involved, 29 percent were slightly involved, and 15 percent were not involved at all.

In an attempt to fully understand the relationship between non-custodial mothers and their children, the research in the 1990s focused on both quantity and quality of visitation. Although past research from the 1980s addressed the issue of quality to a degree, most of the attention focused on quantity of visitation, excluding parents’ actual involvement in their children’s daily lives and activities. As Greif (1997) noted, parents may pay child support and visit their children regularly, but this is not indicative of involvement in their children’s daily lives. For example, non-custodial fathers have been dubbed ‘Disneyland Dads’ because they do not actively participate in their children’s day-to-day routine (e.g., helping with homework), but instead engage in social and recreational activities (Hetherington 1993).

In two studies completed by Arditti, quantity of visitation was addressed, but quality of visitation was largely ignored. Arditti and Madden-Derdich (1993) found that over half of the 13 mothers in their study indicated that they saw their children several times a month and felt that the visitations went well, for the most part. Mothers did, however, report that they felt a decline in closeness with their children after the divorce.

Arditti (1995) argued that there are clear distinctions between non-custodial mothers and fathers, especially with regards to involvement with their children. The literature cited in this review pointed to the fact that mothers were much more likely to feel a connection with their children despite their living arrangements, and that they were more likely to try to maintain an active relationship with their children through visitation, phoning, mailing letters, etc. Although this article focused on the connection between mothers and children, involvement in children’s day-to-day lives was ignored.

In their work, Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) examined divorced families in California, showing that non-custodial mothers were more involved in day-to-day aspects of parenting such as buying clothes, keeping track of doctor appointments, and supervising homework than were non-custodial fathers. Non-custodial fathers also reported more problems monitoring their children’s activities during visitation than did non-custodial mothers.

Using the 1987 to 1988 National Survey of Families and Households, Stewart (1999a) addressed structural impediments to visitation activities (e.g., living far away from children and lack of finances), a finding that parents who lived further away from their children were less likely to see their children and when they did see their children were more likely to participate in leisure activities rather than school or organized activities. Parents with low levels of education were more likely to focus on leisure activities when they were with their children. Level of earnings had no impact on the choice to participate in leisure versus school activities. Overall, Stewart’s findings revealed that both non-custodial mothers and fathers have similar types of visitation patterns, leading to the conclusion that emotional issues and practical barriers make day-to-day contact with children difficult to maintain, regardless of parents’ gender.

In a similar analysis using the same dataset, Stewart (1999b) found that non-resident mothers were slightly more likely to maintain contact via phone and mail than fathers. About 30 percent of non-resident mothers talked to their children several times a week compared with 20 percent of fathers. She found no difference between how many times mothers and fathers saw their children during the year. Yet, overall, children spent significantly more weeks visiting non-resident mothers than fathers. Over two thirds of non-resident fathers reported never having had their children come to stay with them compared with half of mothers. Over one third of non-resident mothers reported that their child stayed with them for over one month in the last year, compared with only 14 percent of fathers.

ADJUSTMENT AND COPING

Adjusting to and coping with the role of non-custodial parent can be a complex process. Scholarship during the 1980s and 1990s indicated that some women adapted quickly and coped well in their new parenting role, whereas others experienced difficulties associated with relinquishing their children. Greif (1987a) found that one third of his sample of 517 non-custodial mothers were comfortable being non-custodial parents, were comfortable telling people that they were non-custodial parents, did not feel guilty about their non-custodial status, felt the children were better off where they were (i.e., outside of mothers’ custody), and were satisfied with their relationship with their children. Focusing on these women’s experiences, Greif (1987a) found that mothers’ comfort was most highly correlated with their satisfaction with their relationship with their children, not feeling guilt, and believing that the children were better off with their fathers. Personal factors that were predictors of comfort included the choice to voluntarily give up custody, the reason the mother gave for the divorce (e.g., if she felt that the blame was shared she was better off), the reason why the mother did not have custody (e.g., mothers whose children wanted to live with their father were better adjusted), the stress at the time of relinquishment (i.e., mothers who felt less stress were better adjusted), mother’s religion (i.e., those with no religious affiliation felt more comfortable), and the way the mothers dealt with changes in their lifestyles (i.e., those who felt content with a changing financial lifestyle were more comfortable as non-custodial mothers).

In their book Mothers Without Custody, Greif and Pabst (1988) found that women who demonstrated the highest level of adjustment reported seeing their children often and having grown up in a family with liberal views on the role of mothers and fathers in children’s lives. Similar to Greif (1987a) and Greif and Pabst (1988), Edwards (1989) found that out of the 100 non-custodial mothers she surveyed, more than 90 percent expressed satisfaction with their decision to relinquish custody because they felt that it was in the best interests of the children financially, physically, and emotionally.

Fischer and Cardea (1981), on the other hand, found that mothers had a difficult time coping with their non-custodial status. This research indicated that non-custodial mothers were under a great deal of stress, were economically disadvantaged, and lacked a sufficient support system. Herrerias (1984) asked 130 women to reflect on their experiences with custody relinquishment. Twenty-two percent of these mothers regretted their custody decision, citing experiences with low self-esteem and non-psychotic depression.

Edwards (1989) found that the women in her study used a variety of coping tactics, some positive and some negative. Methods of coping included staying in contact with children, keeping a journal about their feelings, staying physically active, reading self-help books, using pills and alcohol, going to therapy, staying active with people, and staying busy.

Santora and Hays (1998) asked their 26 participants how they had coped with the status of non-custodial parent. The majority pointed to the need for a non-judgmental social support network composed of family, friends, other non-custodial mothers, and support groups to help them in adjusting to this role. When asked what they would recommend to other women in similar positions, the women recommended redefining one’s role as a mother, recognizing that this is a time for grieving, allowing this process to take place, using prayer and spirituality, educating oneself about women’s issues, and doing things for your children (e.g., making scrapbooks). Of the 26 women inSantora and Hays’ (1996) study, the majority (69 percent) experienced significant levels of anxiety and/or depressive symptoms, half reported significant health problems, and five of the women were using antidepressants.

THE COURTS

The research of the 1990s began to focus on women’s experiences within the court system and how custody was actually determined within the legal system. As more fathers were awarded custody of their children, the reasons for this increase were explored as well as mothers’ visitation, child support, and overall treatment in the system. Using data from 509 divorce cases in Michigan during the early 1980s, Fox and Kelly (1995) examined who was most likely to receive sole physical custody in final court judgments. Their findings indicated substantial gender differences in the effects of socioeconomic and legal process variables on custody outcomes.

More specifically, they found that fathers were more likely to gain custody of older male children than female children. When shifting attention to socioeconomic factors in custody decisions, they found that mothers were more likely to be awarded custody of their children if they had a college degree. Education did not play a role in the court-based custody decision for fathers. Mothers’ income had no effect on whether or not she obtained custody. On the other hand, fathers with high incomes were less likely to have custody of their children. This was not because the court was unlikely to give higher income fathers custody, but was related to the high opportunity costs involved in being the sole custodial parent of a child or children. In other words, these fathers opted to not go for custody. Courts were less likely to give custody to unemployed fathers while women’s employment status had no effect on custody decisions.

Shifting to the legal process, findings indicated that when husbands were the plaintiffs in custody cases, they were more likely to obtain sole custody of the children (Chesler 1986; Fox and Kelly 1995). Fox and Kelly (1995) argued that this finding was indicative of the shift to gender-neutral custody outcomes. This study also found that when a court investigation took place regarding the children’s current living situation that fathers were more likely to gain custody of the children.

Using 1153 court case records from 10 Minnesota counties in 1986, Christensen, Dahl, and Rettig (1990) examined the differences in treatment of non-custodial mothers and fathers by the courts. Christensen et al. (1990) found that non-custodial mothers pay child support less frequently than non-custodial fathers. More specifically, out of 114 non-custodial mother cases, 38 mothers paid support. When non-custodial mothers paid child support, they also paid less child support than non-custodial fathers (i.e., 20 percent of their income versus 25 percent of fathers’ income). Upon closer inspection, it was found that non-custodial mothers pay less because of their disproportionately low incomes in comparison with men. More specifically, non-custodial mothers had a net yearly income that was about 63 percent of non-custodial fathers. Non-custodial mothers were likely to be employed in jobs with few fringe benefits and were also less likely to have pensions in comparison with non-custodial fathers.

To some degree, studies during the 1990s drew attention to the connection between child custody and domestic violence. Rosen and Etlin (1996), for example, found that judges were more likely to give custody of children to abusive fathers because of the assumption that battered mothers were unable to take care of themselves (i.e., could not stop the abuse) and therefore could not care for or protect their children.

The non-custodial mother: Current knowledge (2000 to present)

The descriptive studies conducted during the 1980s and 1990s provided much needed background information about non-custodial mothers. With the exception of Chesler (1986), Greif and Pabst (1988), and Herrerias (1984), these studies lacked theoretical depth. As research continued into the 1990s, similar trends continued until the middle of the decade. At this time, a more theoretically rigorous examination of non-custodial mothers’ experiences became apparent. In particular, Clumpus (1996) used a social constructionist framework to understand mothers’ experiences with social stigma, whereas Babcock (1997) examined social stigma through the use of identity theory. During this decade, we also saw a shift toward focusing more on structural forces that affect women’s experiences in the courts and during visitations with their children.Stewart (1999a) discussed how a mother’s economic situation as well as her living arrangements could impede her ability to see her children. Both issues are intimately connected to gender. Studies by Fox and Kelly (1995) and Christensen et al. (1990) also point to how gender and economic situation affects women’s experiences with custody and child support.

Studies on non-custodial mothers from 2000 up to today have been minimal. Bemiller’s (2005) recent qualitative study, used 16 one-on-one interviews to further understand the connection between being a woman and motherhood in Western society. This study explored how non-custodial mothers define and enact motherhood in a society that emphasizes that mothers should be the primary caregivers for children. Bemiller notes that non-custodial mothers are perceived as ‘deviant’ mothers because they live apart from their children most of the time and therefore are unable to be full-time, intensive mothers. As a result, non-custodial mothers struggled with their role as mother, vacillating between accommodation of dominant definitions of motherhood and resistance of the same ideology.

Other research has drawn attention to non-custodial mothers’ experiences within the family court system. Adding to past research on child support payments, Grall (2007) reported that non-custodial mothers’ and non-custodial fathers’ child support payments were comparable. The proportion of mothers (47.3 percent) and fathers (43.1 percent) receiving full payments of child support in 2005 were not statistically significant. In addition to Grall’s census report, a report from the National Organization for Women (NOW) documented women’s experiences with family court dysfunction in California (Heim et al. 2002). This report found corruption, denial of due process, and gender bias in the family courts. Similarly, The Wellesley Centers for Women published a report that examined violations of human rights laws and standards in the Massachusetts family courts. These violations included failure to investigate allegations of child abuse in contested child custody cases (Cuthbert et al. 2002).

In an attempt to further understand the effects of interpersonal violence (IPV) on custody outcomes, Kernic et al. (2005) completed a retrospective cohort study of 2,516 couples with children under the age of 18 years in Seattle, WA. The authors found a history of IPV in 11 percent of the cases that they examined. Kernic et al. (2005) found that mothers with a history of IPV were no more likely than comparison group mothers to be awarded child custody, although overall mothers in the study were more likely to be awarded custody of children than fathers. The authors also found that fathers who were known perpetrators of IPV were not expected to have third-party supervision during child visitation, but were often remanded to counseling. The overall findings of this study led to the conclusion that IPV is often not identified within the custody proceedings even when there is a documented, substantiated history of IPV present, and that there was a lack of strong protections ordered among cases where a history of substantiated IPV was known to exist.

Future directions

Although the scholarship of motherhood is alive and well within Sociology, the focus on non-custodial mothers has been limited. This article has provided an overview of some of the seminal studies conducted during the 1980s up to the present. As noted, the majority of the studies completed during the 1980s and 1990s were descriptive, lacking theoretical analyses (for exceptions see Babcock 1997; Chesler 1986; Clumpus 1996;Greif and Pabst 1988; Herrerias 1984). Although these studies provided important background information on these women, they did not theoretically frame their experiences, nor did they provide a detailed examination of social forces that affect non-custodial mothers.These omissions open up many possibilities for research with this population of women. One area that deserves attention is the social construction of motherhood for non-custodial mothers. With the exception of Babcock (1997) andBemiller (2005), researchers have failed to examine how non-custodial mothers define motherhood as well as how they enact mothering in light of the contradictions that exist between personal and social definitions of motherhood. It is important to understand how non-custodial mothers define motherhood and mothering because these definitions affect how they perceive themselves as women and mothers. How non-custodial mothers define and enact mothering may influence their day-to-day interactions with their children, ex-spouses, and family. It may also affect how they cope with the status of non-custodial parent.

Along these same lines, recent scholarship on motherhood has addressed the need to examine the diverse experiences of mothers in relationship to the intensive mothering paradigm. Non-custodial mothers provide a unique opportunity to examine accommodation of or resistance to the intensive mothering paradigm. Because these women do not live with their children the majority of the time, and because they are often in financially unstable situations, these mothers may have a difficult time intensively mothering their children (e.g., cooking for them, buying for them, and nurturing them). Bemiller (2005) has examined this issue with 16 non-custodial mothers, but further research must focus attention on non-custodial mothers and the intensive mothering paradigm.

Social stigma also warrants further examination. In her study of 100 mothers, Edwards (1989) reported mixed reactions regarding non-custodial mothers’ experiences. Some of the women in her study spoke of being stigmatized by family, friends, and acquaintances, whereas others pointed to the strong support that they received from people in their lives. Thus, not all women incurred harsh judgments because of their status. Babcock (1997), on the other hand, found that all of the women in her sample had experienced stigmatization, leading them to redefine the role of mother. Babcock argued that this redefinition of the mother role was connected to the social construction of motherhood. Further exploration into non-custodial mothers and social stigma would be useful. In particular, future research should focus attention on factors that lead some women to define their personal interactions as non-custodial mothers as stigmatizing while others do not. Like Babcock’s findings, new research may continue to find a connection between the social construction of motherhood and the definition of and internalization of stigma.

The relationship between custodial and non-custodial parents must also be explored. Past research has given this topic cursory attention, but has failed to discuss how the relationship between parents affects non-custodial mothers’ access to children and their feelings about motherhood. Although motherhood can be empowering for women (Collins 1987; Johnson 1988), it may also be viewed as disempowering if mothers do not have access to children. Given the barriers that some non-custodial mothers face when attempting to see their children, it is important to understand the short and long term effects on the family.

Last but certainly not least, research should continue to explore the connection between domestic violence and child custody in the family court system. Recent research has documented that fathers receive custody of children despite allegations of family violence (Kernic et al. 2005; Neustein and Lesher 2005; Rosen and Etlin 1996). To better understand how and why this happens research must continue to evaluate court processes and decision-making strategies. In particular, research should focus on court appointed custody evaluators, addressing how they handle contested custody cases that involve allegations of domestic violence.

The above-mentioned are only a few suggestions for areas of exploration. Research opportunities are numerous within this population of mothers. Future research should continue to explore the diversity of contemporary family life, contributing to our understanding of motherhood, fatherhood, and family as gendered social institutions.

Short Biography

Michelle Bemiller is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Kansas State University. Her research is located within the areas of gender, deviance, and criminology; she has authored or co-authored refereed articles and book reviews in these areas forSociological Focus, Journal of Family Issues, Gender & Society, Contemporary Sociology, and the Criminal Justice Review. She is currently completing a multi-method analysis of occupational burnout amongst sexual assault and domestic violence workers in the state of Kansas. She holds a BA in Political Science/Criminal Justice from the University of Akron, an MA in Justice Studies from Kent State University, and a PhD in Sociology from the University of Akron.

Note

* Correspondence address: Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Kansas State University, 204 Waters Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506–4003, USA. E-mail:Bemiller@ksu.edu

References

• Aldous, J., G. M. Mulligan and T. Bjarnason 1998. ‘Fathering Over Time: What Makes the Difference?’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 60: 809–20. Links

• Arditti, J. A. 1995. ‘Noncustodial Parents: Emergent Issues of Diversity and Process.’ Marriage and Family Review 20: 283–304. Links

• Arditti, J. A. and D Madden-Derdich 1993. ‘Noncustodial Mothers: Developing Strategies of Support.’ Family Relations 42: 305–14. Links

• Arendell, T. 1995. Fathers & Divorce. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Arendell, Terry 2000. ‘Conceiving and Investigating Motherhood: The Decade’s Scholarship.’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 1192–1207. Links

• Babcock, G. M. 1997. ‘Stigma, Identity Dissonance and the Nonresidential Mother.’ Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 28: 139–56. Links

• Bemiller, M. 2005. Mothering on the margins: the experience of noncustodial mothers. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Akron: Department of Sociology.
• Chesler, 1986. Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody. Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
• Christensen, D. H., C. M. Dahl and K. D. Rettig 1990. ‘Noncustodial Mothers and Child Support: Examining the Larger Context.’ Family Relations 39: 388–94Links

• Clumpus, L. 1996. ‘The Feminism & Psychology undergraduate prize 1995: Prizewinning Entry No-woman’s Land: The story of Noncustodial Mothers.’Feminism & Psychology 6: 237–44. Links

• Collins, Patricia Hill 1987. ‘The Meaning of Motherhood in Black Culture and Black Mother/Daughter Relationships.’ Sage 4: 3–10 Links

• Collins, Patricia Hill 1990. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

• Cowdery, R. S. and C. Knudson-Martin 2005. ‘The Construction of Motherhood: Tasks, Relational Connection, and Gender Equality.’ Family Relations 54:335–45 Links

• Cuthbert, C., K. Slote, M. G. Driggers, C. M. Mesh, L. Bancroft and J. Silverman2002. Battered Mothers Speak Out: A Human Rights Report on Domestic Violence and Child Custody in the Massachusetts Family Courts. Wellesley, MA:Battered mothers’ testimony project at the Wellesley Centers for Women.

• Dolan, M. and C. Hoffman 1998. ‘The Differential Effects of Marital and Custodial Status on Perceptions of Mothers and Fathers.’ Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29: 55–64 Links

• Edwards, H. 1989. How Could You: Mothers without Custody of Their Children.Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press.
• Ferguson, S. K. 1994. ‘Mothers Without Children: Implications for Practice.’ Affilia9: 401–16. Links

• Fischer, J. L. 1983. ‘Mothers Living Apart from Their Children.’ Family Relations32: 351–7. Links

• Fischer, J. L. and J. M. Cardea 1981. ‘Mothers Living Apart from Their Children: A Study in Stress and Coping.’ Alternative Lifestyles 4: 218–27. Links

• Fox, G. and R. F. Kelly 1995. ‘Determinants of Child Custody Arrangements at Divorce.’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 57: 693–708. Links

• Furstenburg, F., J. L. Peterson, C. L. Nord and N. Zill 1983. ‘The Life Course of Children of Divorce: Marital Disruption and Parental Contact.’ American Sociological Review 48: 656–78. Links

• Garey, A. 1999. Weaving Work and Motherhood. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

• Glenn, E. 1994. ‘Social Constructions of Mothering: A Thematic Overview.’ Pp.1–32 in Mothering: Ideology, Experience, and Agency, edited by E. N. Glenn, G.Chang and L. R. Forcey. New York, NY: Routledge.

• Grall, T. 2007. ‘Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2005.’Current Population Reports 60–234. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

• Greif, G. 1987a. ‘Mothers without Custody and Child Support.‘ Family Relations35: 87–93. Links

• Greif, G. 1987b. ‘Single Fathers and Noncustodial Mothers: The Social Worker’s Helping Role.’ Journal of Independent Social Work 1: 59–69. Links

• Greif, G. 1995. ‘Single Fathers with Custody Following Separation and Divorce.’Marriage and Family Review 20: 213–31. Links

• Greif, G. 1997. Out of Touch: When Parents and Children Lose Contact after Divorce. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Greif, G. and M. S. Pabst 1988. Mothers without Custody. Lexington, MA: DC Heath.
• Hays, S. 1996. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Heim, S., H. Grieco, S. D. Paola and R. Allen 2002. California National Organization for Women Family Court Report 2002. Sacramento, CA: California NOW.
• Herrerias, C. 1984. Noncustodial mothers: A study of self-concept and social interactions. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Texas at Austin: Social Work Department.
• Herrerias, C. 1995. ‘Noncustodial Mothers Following Divorce.’ Marriage & Family Review 20: 233–55. Links

• Hetherington, E. M. 1993. ‘An Overview of the Virginia Longitudinal Study of Divorce and Remarriage with a Focus on Early Adolescence.’ Journal of Family Psychology 7: 39–56. Links

• Hill Collins, P. 1987. ‘The Meaning of Motherhood in Black Culture and Black Mother/Daughter Relationships.’ Sage 4: 3–10. Links

• Hochschild, A. 1989. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. New York, NY: Viking Press.

• Johnson, Miriam 1988. Strong Mothers, Weak Wives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

• Kernic, M. A., D. J. Monary-Ernsdorff, J. K. Koepsell and V. L. Holt 2005.‘Children in the Crossfire: Child Custody Determinations among Couples with a History of intimate Partner Violence.’ Violence against Women 11: 991–1021.Links

• Maccoby, E. E. and R. H. Mnookin 1992. Dividing the Child: Social and Legal Dilemmas of Custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Mason, M. A. 1997. ‘Read My Lips: Are Mothers Losing Custody? Trends in Judicial Decision-Making in Custody Disputes.’ Family Law Quarterly 31: 215–37.Links

• Meyers, S. and J. Lakin 1983. Who Will Take the Children? New York, NY:Bobbs-Merrill.

• Neustein, A. and M. Lesher 2005. From Madness to Mutiny: Why Mothers Are Running from the Family Courts- and What Can Be Done About It. Boston, MA:Northeastern University Press.

• Rosen, L. N. and M. Etlin 1996. The Hostage Child: Sex Abuse Allegations in Custody Disputes Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

• Santora, J. and P. A. Hays 1998. ‘Coping Outside Traditional Roles: The Case of Noncustodial Mothers and Implications for Therapy.’ Women & Therapy 21:53–66. Links

• Schur, E. 1984. Labeling Women Deviant: Gender, Stigma, and Social Control.New York, NY: Random House.
• Stewart, S. D. 1999a. ‘Disneyland Dads, Disneyland Moms? How Nonresident Parents Spend Time with Absent Children.’ Journal of Family Issues 20:539–556. Links

• Steward, S. D. 1999b. ‘Nonresident Mothers’ and Fathers’ Social Contact with Children.’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 61: 894–907. Links

• Thompson, R. A. 1983. ‘The Father’s Case in Child Custody Disputes: The Contributions of Psychological Research.’ Pp. 53–1000 in Fatherhood and Family Policy, edited by M. Lamb and A. Sagi. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Zuravin, S. and G. Greif 1989. ‘Low-income Mothers Without Custody: Who Are They and Where Are Their Children?’ Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare16: 163–79.

Sociology Compass 2/3 (2008): 910–924, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00117.x

WordPress Tags: Kansas,State,CUSTODIAL,THEMATIC,FUTURE,DIRECTIONS,Michelle,Bemiller,Blackwell,Sociology,Compass,ABSTRACT,children,basis,expectations,Although,knowledge,nature,article,overview,attention,role,courts,DIGITAL,OBJECT,IDENTIFIER,About,Text,connection,woman,Schur,Glenn,Hays,activities,Arendell,Feminist,literature,Collins,result,scholarship,ideology,paradigm,Garey,Hill,subject,custody,cases,father,Despite,population,Arditti,Madden,Derdich,Fischer,Cardea,Greif,coverage,product,forces,Babcock,Chesler,Christensen,Clumpus,Dolan,Hoffman,Edwards,Ferguson,Furstenburg,Pabst,Herrerias,Hetherington,Maccoby,Mnookin,Meyers,Lakin,Rosen,Etlin,Santora,Stewart,Zuravin,numbers,Harriett,Could,notion,characteristics,notions,actions,Cowdery,Knudson,Martin,analysis,beliefs,Aldous,involvement,Hochschild,belief,virtue,gender,relationships,letter,movement,momentum,Kelley,parent,doctrine,workforce,culture,Thompson,system,rights,judges,approval,responsibilities,American,Association,Mason,advantage,Research,background,Some,data,collection,addition,adjustment,status,SOCIAL,stigma,comparison,friends,human,development,West,Texas,nest,situation,lifestyle,Findings,results,acquaintances,Thus,self,Apart,MATCH,goal,construction,convenience,male,persons,dedication,efforts,RELINQUISHMENT,Throughout,departure,distribution,relationship,wife,agreement,income,questionnaire,interaction,account,Peterson,Nord,Zill,difference,Oklahoma,York,decision,Parents,Partners,magazine,organization,degree,example,Disneyland,Dads,homework,times,fact,arrangements,California,doctor,appointments,problems,National,Survey,leisure,education,Level,earnings,impact,Overall,conclusion,Over,satisfaction,guilt,Personal,religion,affiliation,Similar,interests,depression,journal,feelings,pills,therapy,prayer,health,treatment,Michigan,college,words,employment,investigation,records,Minnesota,Dahl,Rettig,Upon,inspection,benefits,violence,assumption,Current,exception,depth,examination,framework,theory,Both,Western,notes,accommodation,resistance,payments,Grall,proportion,census,Women,Heim,corruption,denial,bias,Wellesley,Massachusetts,failure,Cuthbert,Kernic,retrospective,cohort,Seattle,history,supervision,proceedings,possibilities,area,interactions,Along,Further,exploration,definition,Past,topic,Johnson,Given,Last,Recent,Neustein,Lesher,life,Short,Biography,Assistant,Professor,Sociological,Focus,Contemporary,Criminal,Justice,Review,method,workers,Political,Science,Akron,Kent,Note,Correspondence,Department,Anthropology,Work,Waters,Hall,Manhattan,Mulligan,Bjarnason,Time,Marriage,Links,Noncustodial,Emergent,Support,Relations,Divorce,Thousand,Oaks,Sage,Terry,Decade,Dissonance,Nonresidential,Mother,Remarriage,margins,thesis,Trial,Battle,Seal,Child,Larger,Context,Feminism,Psychology,undergraduate,Entry,Land,Patricia,Black,Daughter,Thought,Politics,Empowerment,Boston,Unwin,Hyman,Tasks,Relational,Slote,Driggers,Mesh,Bancroft,Speak,Report,Domestic,testimony,Differential,Effects,Marital,Freedom,Practice,Affilia,Study,Alternative,Determinants,Course,Disruption,Parental,Contact,Philadelphia,Temple,Experience,Agency,Chang,Forcey,Routledge,Reports,Washington,Bureau,Single,Worker,Independent,Separation,Lose,Oxford,Lexington,Heath,Cultural,Haven,Yale,Grieco,Paola,Allen,Court,Sacramento,concept,Austin,Virginia,Longitudinal,Adolescence,Second,Shift,Revolution,Home,Miriam,Strong,Weak,Berkeley,Monary,Ernsdorff,Koepsell,Holt,Crossfire,Determinations,Partner,Legal,Cambridge,Harvard,Read,Lips,Judicial,Take,Bobbs,Merrill,From,Mutiny,Northeastern,Hostage,Abuse,Bloomington,Indiana,Outside,Traditional,Case,Deviant,Control,Random,House,Moms,Nonresident,Spend,Absent,Steward,Contributions,Psychological,Policy,Lamb,Sagi,Hillsdale,Lawrence,Erlbaum,Associates,Where,Welfare,TRENDS,scholars,fathers,caretakers,judgments,roles,decisions,methods,examples,differences,instruments,reactions,students,attitudes,lifestyles,accidents,categories,outcomes,evaluations,perceptions,participants,appraisals,analyses,repercussions,spouses,responses,questionnaires,distinctions,aspects,impediments,barriers,factors,symptoms,incomes,pensions,definitions,violations,allegations,authors,protections,omissions,contradictions,situations,strategies,suggestions,areas,institutions,articles,References,Publications,Implications,Constructions,Dilemmas,decades,heterosexual,qualitative,structural,lens,interpersonal,exceptions,respondents,homosexual,whether,visitation,husbands,month,visitations,third,socioeconomic