Children’s perspectives on their changing families

Children’s perspectives on their changing families Judy Dunn Institute of Psychiatry King’s College London

Children’s perspectives • It is increasing argued that we need to include the views of children on family transitions • Over 70% of the children who experience separation of their parents are under 10 years old (ONS) • How can we assess their perspectives?

Children’s perspectives • In the programme of research based on the ALSPAC study, a nested design included the Avon Brothers and Sisters Study, in which various forms of family were over represented: 50 single mother, 50 stepfather, 50 complex stepfamilies, and 50 control families. More than one child in each family was studied.

Percentage of families in different family types who took part in the study Single but not alone families 7% Single-parent families 18% Two step- parent families 12% Stepmother families 11% Two biological parent families 26% Stepfather families 26%

Ages of participating children Ages 5 6-7 8-9 10-12 13-15 16+ 0 50 100 150 200 Number of children

Children’s perspectives • Children aged between 7 and 15 were interviewed and completed various self-report assessments • Children between 4 and 8 completed ‘maps’ of their families (n = 258) • Children between 4 and 7 drew their families (n = 182) • Longitudinal assessments were made at 2 year intervals

Children’s perspectives • Who is part of the family? Interviews: • Fathers: *Resident f. included in family by all children living with him *Nonresident: 40% children with NR fathers did not include as member of family * Stepfathers: * 84% children included resident stepfathers *Only 36% children included nonresident stepparents as family members

Children’s perspectives • Children’s age, time in household, extent of conflict between resident parents, extent of shared family activities—all important in relation to children’s adjustment and well-being—not related to their views on who is part of the family

Children’s perspectives: Interviews • Confiding and communication at time of separation • Key confidants: Grandparents and friends • Longitudinal data on child-grandparent relations over 5 years shows stability in closeness, though decrease in contact

Child-grandparent relations • Follow-up five years later • Stability of child reported closeness • highlights intergenerational links: mothers’ accounts of childhood relations with g.mother correlated with current closeness to g.mother reported by child. Association especially strong for single mother families

Children’s accounts of conflict between parents • Children’s involvement in conflict between mother and NR father key to adjustment problems • This particularly clear for children in single-mother families • Involvement in conflict between mother and Stepfather also linked to adjustment

Figure 3.1aAn example of a fourfield map from a child in a stepfather family FAMILY (M = Mother, SF = Stepfather, YS = Younger Sister) SCHOOL (Fr = Friends, T = Teacher) T Fr SF Fr Fr Fr Female Fr Fr Fr M Male Fr Fr YS Fr Fr x 1 2 3 4 5 Fr SFM MGM c Fr MGF c N F SFF c A A A u c A c A c RELATIVES (MGM/MGF = Maternal Grandmother/Grandfather, A = Aunts, U = Uncle, C = Cousins, SFM/SFF= Stepfather’s Mother/Father, F = Father) FRIENDS/ NEIGHBOURS (Fr = Friends, N = Neighbour)

Figure 3.1bCloseness to fathers: Differences in map placement by relatedness and family type Child from non stepfamily Father’s own child in stepfather family * Stepchild in stepfather family * 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percentage of children Close * Significantly different from father’s own child in stepfather family Not close

Closeness to fathers: map placement and adjustment • Significant association between where children placed their father/stepfather, and children’s adjustment (externalising) • Stepfathers most likely to be placed ‘not close’

Closeness to fathers: map placement and adjustment • Regression analyses showed this made an important additional contribution to externalising beyond the variance explained by mother-father conflict, father’s account of his relationships with child, his educational level, emotional well-being, biological relatedness to child and family income

5-7 year-old children’s drawings of their families • 182 children, average age 5.6 years • Who did they include/exclude from their drawings? • How did they group the family members? • Was exclusion or grouping related to family type? • Was exclusion or grouping related to children’s adjustment?

Figure 1.2 a Full sibling Half sibling Mother Child

Figure 1.2b Half Sibling Non resident father Sibling Self Mother

Figure 1.2 c Cousin Self Grandmother Grandfather Sibling Mother

Who is excluded? • Step-parents were more likely to be excluded than biological parents • Stepfathers were more likely to be excluded than stepmothers • Half- and step-siblings over four times more likely to be excluded than biological siblings

Grouping parents: 62% of children drew their parents together: • Children with 2 biological parents much more likely to draw them together • No children in stepfather families drew their stepfather in the same group as themselves

Longitudinal follow-up on drawings, interviews and maps • Stability of ‘who is excluded’ from drawings over 3 years • Notable sensitivity of young children to distinction between relations with birth and stepparents • Significance of g.parents in adjustment • Longitudinal stability children’s views

Children’s perspectives on their changing families