This study produces a grounded theory of how 20 predominantly White, well‐educated women experienced sharing physical custody of their children with their former partners after divorce or separation. Three patterns of coparenting were identified in the data: continuously contentious, always amicable, and bad to better. Five negative factors and three positive factors that influenced mothers' coparenting relationships were identified. The type of relationship women had with their ex‐partners was related to how they shared custody of their children (e.g., how they exchanged their children). The findings of this study suggest that shared physical custody relationships are dynamic and can vary greatly.

Divorced individuals who share parenting responsibilities have to figure out ways to work together to raise their children. The purpose of this qualitative study of 49 divorced coparents was to examine how they used technology (e.g., cell phones, computers) to communicate. For parents in effective coparenting relationships, communication technologies made it easier for them to plan and make conjoint decisions about their children while living apart. Communication technology, however, did not necessarily make coparenting easier if parents were contentious. Contentious parents used communication technologies as tools to (a) reduce conflicts, (b) withhold information, (c) limit the ability of the coparent to have input into childrearing decisions, and (d) try to influence the behavior of the coparent.

This study produces a grounded theory of the process of communication with former partners for 30 men and women who share physical and legal custody of their children following divorce or separation. The formality of the custody arrangement was the core factor that influenced the ways in which study participants established and maintained boundaries regarding when, how, and what they communicated with their former partners. Other factors that played a role included the relationship with the former partner, the child, and the introduction of new partners. One cannot simply assume that because parents share physical and legal custody, they communicate with their former partners in a particular way; instead, the formality of the custody arrangement and the establishment of communication boundaries needs to be examined in order to understand how coparents communicate with their former partners.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relations between divorced mothers' (N ¼ 196) coparental role identity and their perceptions of how cooperatively they coparent. Data were gathered by questionnaires mailed to mothers who had participated in a court-mandated divorce education program. Using structural equation modeling, it was determined that mothers' perceptions of others' expectations for them to coparent and their own expectations, as well as their commitment to a coparental identity, were positively related to their perceived level of coparenting cooperation. Parent educators and therapists working with mothers should focus on the value of coparenting for mothers and their children; social pressure and legal requirements are less effective motivators.

Using data from 392 divorced mothers and fathers, living in the United States, with a child between 10 and 18 years old, we first identified three types of postdivorce coparenting relationships ( cooperative, moderately engaged, and conflictual and disengaged) based on coparenting communication, cooperation, and conflict. We then tested if three aspects of parent–youth relationships differed between those groups. Parental warmth and support, parental knowledge, and inconsistent discipline did not differ based on the type of postdivorce coparenting relationship participants had with their ex-spouses. Finally, we tested if repartnership (i.e., being remarried or cohabiting with a new partner) or parent–youth contact moderated the associations between postdivorce coparenting and parent–youth relationships. There was one significant moderation effect. When parent–youth contact was monthly or less, parental knowledge appears lower in the conflictual and disengaged cluster compared with the other two clusters.

Objective To determine which aspects of divorced parents' ongoing relationships with their former spouses were associated with children's and youth's postdivorce well‐being. Background Research on the associations between former spousal relationships and children's postdivorce well‐being has focused extensively on postdivorce coparenting, with less emphasis on other aspects of these multidimensional relationships. Method Divorced parents (N = 641), recruited via Amazon MTurk, reported on six aspects of their relationships with their former spouses (coparenting cooperation, general communication with former spouses, boundary ambiguity, how often they talk with their former spouses, and satisfaction with custody and child support), and three indices of postdivorce child well‐being (prosocial, internalizing, and externalizing behavior). Results Analyses were conducted separately for children (4‐ to 9‐years‐old) and youth (10‐ to 18‐years‐old). For children, coparenting cooperation was associated with more prosocial but less internalizing behavior; general communication and boundary ambiguity—family system were associated with greater externalizing and internalizing behavior. For youth, boundary ambiguity—family system was associated with more externalizing and internalizing behavior, boundary ambiguity—relationship with former spouse was associated with more externalizing behavior, child support satisfaction was associated with more prosocial behavior, and custody satisfaction was associated with less internalizing behavior. Conclusion For child and youth postdivorce well‐being, some aspects of former spousal relationships appear more impactful than others, with boundary ambiguity appearing particularly detrimental. Implications Divorce education programs may need to diversify their content, supplementing the common focus on postdivorce coparenting with resources that help parents reduce boundary ambiguity in the family system.

No abstract

No abstract