Content uploaded by Emma Fransson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emma Fransson on May 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Why should they live more with one of us when they are children to
us both?
Parents' motives for practicing equal joint physical custody for children aged 0–4
Emma Fransson
a,
⁎
,AnnaSarkadi
b
, Anders Hjern
a,c
, Malin Bergström
a
a
Center for Health Equity Studies (CHESS), Stockholm University & Karolinska Institutet, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
b
Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, 751 85 Uppsala, Sweden
c
Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Instiutet, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 18 February 2016
Received in revised form 17 May 2016
Accepted 17 May 2016
Available online 18 May 2016
Joint physical custody, i.e., children spending an equal amount of time in both parents' home after a separation or
divorce, is increasing in many countries. In line with the national policy to promote paternal involvement in par-
enting, two-thirds of Swedish preschoolers with non-cohabiting parents live in two homes. Internationally, there
has been a debate regarding the benefits or risks with joint physical custody for infants and toddlers. The aim of
this qualitative study was to explore the reasons given by divorced parents for sharing joint physical custody of
children 0–4 years of age. Interviews were conducted with 46 parents (18 fathers and 28 mothers) and analyzed
using systematic text condensation. Two themes emerged in response to the research question. In the theme
Same rights and responsibilities, parents described that joint physical custody was ‘agiven’ as both parents were
seen to have equal rights to and responsibility for the children. Both men and women described involved father-
hood as an ideal goal. In the theme For the sake of the child, parents emphasized that joint physical custody was in
the best interest of the child. Some parents had conflicts with their ex-spouses, but were still convinced of the
benefits of joint physical custody and strove to make it work.
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Keywords:
Gender equality
Parenthood
Family policy
Divorce
Alternate residence
Shared parenting
1. Introduction
Children in joint physical custody (JPC) spend an equal amount of
time in each parent's respective home after a parental separation or di-
vorce. JPC arrangements are increasing in many Western countries but
are particularly common in Sweden (Nielsen, 2014a, 2014b; Swedish
Government Official Report, 2011).
Internationally, there has been a debate regarding JPC for infants and
toddlers, for example, in Norway, Australia, and the U.S. with some ar-
guments against JPC (George, So lomon, & McIntosh, 2011; Norsk
Psykolog Foren ing, 2014; Smyth, 2009) and some in favor (La mb &
Kelly, 2010; Nielsen, 2014a; Pruett, McIntosh, & Kelly, 2014; Warshak,
2014). A similar debate was ongoing in Sweden, around the beginning
of the 2000s (Barnombudsmannen, 2000; Swedish B oard of Health
and Welfare, 2001; The Swedish Government Offices, 1999). Arguments
favoring JPC highlight joint parental involvement and the benefitofev-
eryday contact with both parents along with the potential value of hav-
ing access to both parents' financial and social resources. In contrast,
concerns for children under the age of four emphasize the potential
stress of being separated from a primary attachment figure and risks
for not developing secure emotional attachment relations. Thus, attach-
ment theory, which describes how children form relationship(s) of a
special emotional quality from birth onward (Bowlby, 1988), has been
central in the debate regarding JPC. In the literature, the mother is
most often supposed to act as a primary caregiver; this position, howev-
er, is not gender related and parents may take turns in being the child's
first choice. Some developmental psychologists and other social scien-
tists recognize children's capacity to establish parallel attac hment
relationships to both parents and recommend ov ernights in order
to strengthen both relations (Lamb & Kelly, 2010; Warshak, 2014 ),
while others emphasize the risks associated with frequent separations
from the primary attachment figure (George et al., 2011) such as the
risk of insecure attachment to the mother (Solomon & George, 1999;
Tornello et al., 2013).
In Sweden, previous recommendations stressed the special needs of
children b 3 years of age, m ostly regarding their nee d for proximity
to the mother as well as th e child's vulner ability for the frequent
Children and Youth Services Review 66 (2016) 154–160
Abbreviations: JPC, joint physical custody.
⁎ Corresponding author at: Center for Health Equity Studies, Stockholm University/
Karolinska Institutet, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
E-mail addresses: emma.fransson@ki.se (E. Fransson), anna.sarkadi@kbh.uu.se
(A. Sarkadi), anders.hjern@chess.su.se (A. Hjern), malin.bergstrom@ki.se (M. Bergström).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.05.011
0190-7409/© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Children and Youth Services Review
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth
separations (Swedish Board of Health and Welfare, 2001). These recom-
mendations, however, have been withdrawn by the administrative au-
thority, but have not been replaced with other recommen dations,
creating ambiguity and reliance on personal opinions.
Parallel to the ongoing debate among researchers and professionals,
JPC arrangements for the youngest children have increased in Sweden.
About one-third of children aged 0–5-years-old with separated parents
spend an equal amount of time in both parents' homes. When including
children who live in the home of both parents but spend more time with
one of them, about 60% share their time between the parents' homes
(Statistics Sweden, 2014; Swedish Government Official Report, 2011).
An increase in JPC has also occurred in other Western countries, howev-
er, to a lesser extent than in Sweden. Recent figures report the share of
JPC among children with separated parents to be 25% in Norway
(Kitterod & Lyngstad, 2014), around 20% in Denmark (Ottosen, 2004),
and 16% in the Netherlands (Spruijt & Duindam, 2009). An increase
was reported in Belgium from 10% for families divorc ed before 1995
to 33% when divorce occurred in the 2010s (Sod ermans, Ma tthijs, &
Swicegood, 2013). In the United Kingdom, the share of JPC was 17%
(Peacey & Hunt, 2008), and after legal changes in Australia and Italy,
JPC is increasing (Smyth, 2009; Lavadera, Caravelli, & Togliatti, 2013).
In the United States, the numbers vary between states, with over 30%
living in a JPC setting in Wisconsin (Melli & Brown, 2008; Cancian,
Meyer, Brown, & Cook, 2014). Despite being widely spread, JPC is less
practiced among families with a non-Swedish background (Bergström
et al., 2013) and among those in the lowest income category (Swedish
Government Official Report, 2011).
1.1. Swedish family policy
Swedish family policy is one factor beh ind the popularity of JPC.
Since the 1970s, Sweden has had an active policy for increased parental
equality (Wells & Be rgneh r, 2014) with the goal of engaging both
parents in paid work as well as in the household work and childcare
responsibilities (Daly, 2011). In 1974, Sweden was the first country to
offer both the mothers and fathers to use the paid parental leave; how-
ever, fathers could transfer this right to the mother. Today, Swedish
parents are entitled to 13 months of publicly financed parental leave,
where two months are earmarked and non-transferable for each parent
in the time period 2002–2015 (changed to three months in 2016). Since
the beginning of the 2000s, the public policy goal has been for the par-
ents to share the parental leave equally (Daly, 2011; Klinth, 2008). In
2012, fathers used 24% of the Swedish parental leave (Social Insurance
Report, 2013), thus, not reaching the role of gender equity in this regard
(Wells & Sarkadi, 2012). The strivings for gender equality in parenting
are also expressed in various privileges for both the mothers and fa-
thers, such as the right to stay home with a sick child and the availability
of subsidized childcare. In line with these policies, Sweden has the larg-
est proportion of women in the labor force among the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, 80.7% in
2013 (OECD, 2014).
Separated or divorced parents in Sweden most often continue to
share the legal custody (Swedish Government Official Report, 2011
).
Most
of the separated parents mutually agree on how to organize the
living arrangement for their children and make a plan for this, without
any professional or judicial involvement (Swed ish Government
Official Report, 2011). An estimated 14% of separating parents seek ad-
vice to tackle their conflicts regarding legal and physical custody plans
(Swed ish Board of Health and Welfare, 2011), and about 2 % have
their custody disputes resolved in court (Rejmer, 2003). This is a low
number compared to other countries see e.g., Rešetar and Emery
(2008). Swedish family policies generally support the dual earner
model, so both mothers and fathers are financially self-reliant; thus,
the reasons for financial disputes involving custody have dec reased
(Haas, 1996).
1.2. Attitudes toward gender equality in parenting
For the past several decades, changes in society have moved the fa-
therhood ideal from the breadwinner to a more “involved fatherhood”
(Barclay & Lupton, 1999; Draper, 2003). Swedish public policies may
have influenced fathers' involvement as well as views of fatherhood
among the Swedish parents (Wells & Sarkadi, 2012). The ideal is to
be an available father who is important to the child from early on
(Johansson, Hildingsson, & Fenwick, 2013; Haavind, 2011; Mellström,
2006; Yoshida, 2012). Swedish contemporary fatherhood could also
be defined as “child oriented” and defined according to the man's prox-
imity to the child (Bekkengen, 2002).
The aim of this study was to explore the reasons given by separated
or divorced parents for sharing parenthood equally through joint phys-
ical custody of children 0–4yearsofage.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Recruitment
Participants were recruited through advertisements in the local and
national Swedish newspapers, radio, and the TV from December 2011 to
February 2013. Interested parents were invited to fill out a form on the
research group's website. The inclusion criterion was currently having a
child 0–4 years of age living in a JPC setting. JPC was defined as the child
living equal amounts of time in each parent's home. On the website
form, child(ren)'s age, proportions of time spent with each parent, and
socio-demographic data were recorded. All pare nts who fulfilled the
inclusion criteria were cont acted by telephone or e-mail and given
oral and/or written informati on about the study. Parents were
interviewed by phone. Efforts were made to include parents of diverse
backgrounds. Informed consent was obtained from all the individuals
participating in the study. The study has been approved by the Ethics
committee at Karolinska Institutet. All procedures were in accordance
with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or compa-
rable standards.
Table 1
Sociodemographic data for participating parents and their children.
Children
(n = 50)
Fathers
(n = 18)
Mothers
(n = 28)
Child variables
Child's age in years
1–24
2–314
3–425
4–57
Child's age in months at parental
separation or divorce, Mean (range)
21 (0–49)
Child's gender, girl (boy) 19 (31)
Parental variables
Age in years, mean, (range) 36.3 (27–50) 34.1 (26–44)
Highest level of education, n (%)
Primary school 1 (5.5) 0 (0)
Secondary school 4 (22) 1(4)
College or University 12 (67) 2 (7)
Missing 1 (5.5) 25 (89)
Monthly Income in SEK
⁎
, n (%)
Low (b 13.500) 1 (5.5) 0 (0)
Median (13.500–31.500) 4 (22) 16 (57)
High (N 31.500) 10 (55.5) 6 (21.5)
Missing 3 (17) 6 (21.5)
Home district, n (%)
City N 200,000 9 (50) 21 (75)
City b 200,000 6 (33) 5 (18)
Rural areas 3 (17) 2 (7)
⁎
Low and High income in Swedish kronor (SEK) represents the lowest and highest
income quartiles in Sweden 2013 http://www.scb.se/en_/Finding-statistics/Statistics-by-
subject-area/Household-finances/In come-and-income-distribution/Income-and-tax-
statistics/Aktuell-pong/302201/Income–Persons/The-entire-country/303237/.
155E. Fransson et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 66 (2016) 154–160
2.2. Participants
Forty-six parents (18 fathers and 28 mothers) of 50 children (31
boys and 19 girls ) under 5 years of age were interviewed. The mean
age of the children was 37.4, with a range of 13–59 months. For all chil-
dren but one, only one parent in each family was interviewed. Charac-
teristics of the participating parents and their children are presented
in Table 1.
2.3. Interviews
Before the telephone interview, the interviewers reminded the par-
ent again of the aim of the study and the possibility to withdraw from
participation at any time. Their oral consent to participate and to be re-
corded during the interview was noted. The interviews lasted between
30 and 120 min. We used a semi structured interview guide covering
various themes but allowing for follow-up questions on interesting
statements. Examples of probing questions used: “Could you give me
an example…” “So what I hear you saying is…” “How do you feel
about…” The interview guide was pilot tested with a mother of a nearly
five-year-old living in a JPC setting. No alterations were made in the
guide after this interview, and the material was included in the analyses.
The interviews covered themes concerning the parent's attitudes and
experiences of JPC for themselves and their children. For the purpose
of this article, we used descriptions and answers to the interview ques-
tions presented in Table 2.
2.4. Analysis
Background data were collected from the web form and the inter-
views. Descriptive statistics were computed for the numeric data
(parental age, child's age, income, etc.). The parent being interviewed
provided the information about how much time the child lived in each
home.
Analysis of the interview data was performed using systematic text
condensation (Malterud, 2012), see Table 3. To achieve dependability
of the analytical process, the identification of the themes was conducted
separately by the three co-authors who then met to discuss and agree
on the final themes. The categorization process was done individually
with each author responsible for the separate themes. Narrative data
on practical solutions, such as parenting schedules, were categorized
separately and summarized.
3. Results
Table 4 summa rizes the ways in which parents arrived at their
shared parenting agreement for each child age interval (1–2, 2–3, 3–4,
and 4–5 years). Parents of 38 children (76%) had agreed on JPC without
any reported involvement from the family court or social services, while
the parents of five children had a court decision on JPC, and another
seven parents reported having solved the living arrangements through
assisted negotia tion/me diation available through the social services.
Children spent about half of the time with the participating parents, re-
gardless of whether the partic ipati ng parent was the father or the
mother.
Two themes emerged for the parents' reasons for having equally
shared joint physical custody (Table 5). In the theme Same rights and
responsibi lities, the parents described that JPC was ‘agiven’ as both
parents had equal rights to and responsibility for the children. In the
theme For the sake of the child, the parents emphasized that JPC was in
their children's best interests.
3.1. Same rights and responsibilities
This theme involved three categories: JPC is a given, Unequal parent-
ing roles prior to separation make it harder to agree on JPC, and Equal
JPC isn't always voluntary. The majority of the parents in this study
felt that JPC was ‘
a given.’ The
y believed that both parents had equal
rights to the child, as well a s in the importance of a gender-equal
parenthood. Althoug h most parents agreed that both parents should
have equal right s and responsibility for the children, problems in
implementing JPC arose when unequal parenting roles were a problem
in the relationship before the divorce, when the circumstances of the
Table 2
The interview guide.
Questions
How is it that you chose JPC?
What is your view of mothers and fathers?
Did you seek and/or get any support in choosing the living arrangement?
What is your view of the role of mothers and fathers for a small child?
Can you tell about your experience of JPC for you and your child(ren)?
Table 3
The steps of the analysis process in systematic text condensation according to Malterud.
Steps in data analysis Examples from the data
1 Total impression of the data:
→Finding themes
Both the mothers and the fathers feel that JPC is a “given”–that seems to be the very words
they use. Most of them view 50–50% as the most straightforward solution. Even those who
disagree with details around the arrangement view sharing custody as such as something that is
a right for both parents. Some parents clearly resent the negotiation process.
Theme: Same rights and responsibilities
2 Identifying and sorting relevant text units under the designated theme
→ From themes to categories
Both wanted them to live with both parents, it was really a given right from the start (Mother)
It was really a given. Why should they live more with one of us when they are children to us
both? (Mother)
It was the ideology from the start, that both parents should be as important (Father)
It was [the father] who wanted to have him 50% [when the child was 18-months-old] and so I
couldn't really say a lot (Mother)
Category: JPC is a given
3 Condense the meaning in each category as if it were a story told by a parent
→ From category to meaning through abstraction
JPC is a given to us both and it should be 50–50%. Neither of us is prepared to give up the child and
even if it feels strange sometimes, there is really not much I can protest about since both of us have
the right to the child.
4 Summarize each category, prepare the analytical text and select quotes
→ From abstraction to presentation
Both the mothers and the fathers described JPC as ‘agiven,’ and a majority of parents emphasized
that the sharing should be equal, i.e., 50–50%. The reason given for this was that both parents had
equal rights to and responsibility for the child.
“It was really a given. Why should they live more with one of us when they are children to us
both?” (Mother)
“It was the ideology from the start, that both parents should be as important.” (Father)
5 Compare the resulting themes and categories with the unbroken text
→ Recontextualisation
The theme and one or more of its categories appear in every re-read interview.
156 E. Fransson et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 66 (2016) 154–160
separation were more dramatic, including betrayal during pregnancy or
violence, and when custody was awarded by the court rather than by
mutual agreement. Partly contradictory and despite the parents' views
regarding equal rights, both the mothers and the fathers agreed that fa-
thers sometimes have to fight more for their rights for equal JPC com-
pared with mothers.
Both the mothers and the fathers described JPC as ‘a given,’ and a
majority of the parents emphasized that the sharing should be equal,
i.e., 50–50%.
“It was really a given. Why should they live more with one of us when
they are children to us both?” (Mother with a four-year-old child)
“It was the ideolo gy from the start, that both parents shou ld be as
important.” (Father with an 18-month-old child)
The parents talked about “fairness” and emphasized that equal shar-
ing was the only model of JPC that was easy to defend and agree upon. It
was quite common that both parents just assumed their partner would
not allow anything but an equal division of parenthood, and therefore
never considered any other options than equal JPC. Most parents
could agree on JPC and even those mothers who did not like the idea
of equal sharing right away felt that they had no valid reason to object.
“It was [the father] who wanted to have him 50% [when the child was
18-months- old,] and so I couldn't really say a lot.” (Mother with two
children, two- and three-years-old)
One mother and one father thought that JPC was not a good option for
children, although they both had JPC arrangements. The father said he pit-
ied the children for being forced to have two homes, whereas the mother
thought the concept of JPC suited the adults more than the children.
“I think this every other week custody is an adult construction to suit the
needs of adults. It works well with the career's agendas to do it that way.”
(Mother with a two-year-old child)
Problems in implementing JPC arose when unequal parenting roles
were a problem in the relationship before the separation or divorce.
The mothers in this category claimed that the unequal gender roles
were in fact the cause of the divorce, and they felt it was unfair or unre-
alistic that their partners, who had previously been so uninvolved
would be credited to take care of the young child alone.
“When we separated, [the father] barely knew the size of his clothes or
how they are washed.” (Mother with a three-year-old child)
Disputes relating to equity in parenting, however, were not neces-
sarily linked to the gender roles between men and women. A lesbian
couple that had separated seemed to have much the same issue.
“I guess it was the old usual stuff, I breastfed, got up at night, put him to
bed more often and took more responsibility overall. (…)Shewasveryin-
secure and left most of it to me, during the first…really until we separated.
So it's like a situation now when she wants to show off that she can manage
on her own.” (Mother with a two-year-old child)
Nevertheless, many mothers felt that that the JP C arrangement
made men become more responsible and, in fact, parenting more gen-
der equal than before the separation or divorce.
“What I want is for us to share. That was one of the things that didn't
work out for us. It is actually more equal now than it was when we lived
together.” (Mother with a three-year-old child)
Many mothers saw a good relationship developing between their
former partner and the child, and they liked what they saw. This made
them become increasingly positive to and comfortable with the decision
to have an equal JPC arrangement.
“Part of why we separated was because he wasn't an engaged parent,
but he is now and that's great.” (Mother with a three-year-old child)
From th e fathers' perspective, unequal gende r roles prior to the
divorce were perceived as something that was held against them and
not a valid argument for decreasing their time with the child.
“H
is mother breastfed him until he was 2.5; she tried to stop when he
was 6 months, but co ntinued. The breastfeeding was used as an argu-
ment against me having him the same amount of time, because I hadn't
helped out during the nights she breastfed.” (Father with a two-year-old
child)
Equal JPC was not always voluntary, and there were several reasons
as to why couples had difficulties agreeing on equal amounts of time
for the child with each parent. One such reason was when the circum-
stances of the separation or d ivorce were especially hurtful and/or
the person left behind had lingering feelings of sorrow, anger, or
resentment.
“I think he is a real asshole for leaving me while I was pregnant, and
then I still had feelings for him (…) But from the day [the child] was
born, he said that, just for my information, he was just as important as
me and the child should have bo th his parents. For me, this has become
like an equity troll somehow.” (Mother with a two-year-old child)
The former partner's efforts to achieve equal JPC were viewed as
something threatening and not justified in the eyes of these mothers.
Especially when the children were very young, mothers often felt that
JPC on an equal basis or with too long a time in between changes was
harmful to the child. They protested against their ex-partners' claims
to have the child for longer periods of time.
“I was pretty skeptical to how it would play out, from the start it was
basically just [the child] and me and now [the father] was suddenly going
to have him over a whole weekend (…) It was a ver y scary thought for
me.” (Mother with a two-year-old child)
When the decision on having equal JPC came from the court,
both the mothers and fathers showed resentment. Moth ers felt
that the court decision was informed by strong ideologies regard-
ing the importance of fathers, rather than the best interest of the
child.
“You get that pretty much everywhere, at the child psych services, at
family court, the social services, that it is the child's right and it's important
and good for the child to have both its parents.” (Mother with a three-year-
old child)
Some mothers experienced this ideology as being so strong that they
did not feel they could voice their concerns regarding the child's
wellbeing.
“It didn't feel like I had the right, because of the authorities… I actually
thought he was too young to sleep at his father's place right from the start,
but I didn't feel I had the support to say that.” (Mother with a three-year-
old child)
Fathers, on the other hand, claimed that the court system discrimi-
nated against the fathers or displayed attitudes in their decisions that
regarded the child's relationship to the mothers as more valuable, espe-
cially in young children.
Table 4
Reasons for JPC and time with the participating parent by child's age.
Child's age 1–2 years
(n = 4)
2–3 years
(n = 14)
3–4 years
(n = 25)
4–5 years
(n = 7)
Reasons for JPC, n (%)
Mutual (n = 38) 4 (100) 8 (57) 20 (80) 6 (86)
Mediation (n = 7) 0 (0) 4 (29) 3 (12) 0
Court decision (n = 5) 0 (0) 2 (14) 2 (8) 1 (14)
Time in % with the participating parent, mean (n)
Father 49 (3) 48 (6) 49 (7) 48 (4)
Mother 50 (1) 53 (8) 51 (18) 50 (3)
Table 5
The resulting themes and categories.
Same rights and responsibilities JPC is a given
Unequal parenting roles prior to the divorce make
it more difficult to agree on JPC
Equal JPC is not always voluntary
For the sake of the child! The child's right to both of us
Involved fatherhood as the ideal
Minimize the damage done by the divorce
Attentive parenting
157E. Fransson et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 66 (2016) 154–160
“Being a dad, you're a little… you've got the system against you. Of
course, both parents should be equally valuable, but that's not how I think
it works. It depends on which judge you get.” (Father with a two-year-old
child).
3.2. For the sake of the child
This theme involved four categories: The child's right to both of us,
Involved fatherhood as the ideal, Minimize the damage of the divorce,
and Attentive parenting.
The parents described JPC to be in the best interest of the child, since
the child has the right to an everyday life with both the parents. Both
men and women described involved fatherhood as an ideal goal. For
parents who had a nuclear family as an ideal, JPC was described as a
way of minimizing the damage from the divorce. Parents were also
pleased that the child no longer had to be exposed to the conflict that
might have been ongoing in the relationship. The child had gotten hap-
pier parents, was one way of putting it. When seeing the child only half
of the time, both the mothers and the fathers experienced that they
could focus on and give their children more attention.
The majority of parents regarded joint physical custody as the natu-
ral choice, since they were convinced that the child had the right to both
the parents. ‘Having access to’ implicitly meant being taken care of and
building a strong relationship to both. This reinforced the need to have
an equal amount of time living with both the parents. The assumption
was sometimes based on the engaged parenting style of both the par-
ents prior to the separation, making it impossible to suddenly disrupt
one of the child's close relations.
“It would feel totally wrong to let go of our close connection.” (Father
with a two-year-old child)
For some, JPC was seen as especially important in the long run. They
regarded the secure relationships that the child formed to both the par-
ents as an investment in the child's future wellbeing.
“I want my children to feel wanted and loved, so therefore, I like the fact
that X and I have them just as much. In the future, he won't feel rejected by
anyone. He feels that both of us want him.” (Mother with two children, one-
and three-years-old)
Both the men and the women described involved fatherhood as an
ideal goal. Some of the mothers had initially been reluctant to share par-
enting equally but, after having tried JPC for a while, felt that they need-
ed to keep the practice since it seemed beneficial for the child.
“I have sometimes felt that I egoistically would like him to stay only with
me, but this makes him fare well.” (Mother with a three-year-old child)
The parents also contrasted the value of involved fatherhood with
their own experiences – both positive and negative – of parental sepa-
ration and concluded that children need both of their paren ts and
when fathers are not present in the children's lives, they will long for
them.
“It is difficult, growing up without a father, and it has really been influ-
ential in my life. So I think there should be a possibility for children to get to
know both of their parents.” (Father with a two-year-old child)
The value of sharing everyday ups and downs was portrayed as a
more “authentic” parenthood than that of every other weekend “fun”
parenting.
“For her to only stay with one parent, I think that would've been pretty
worthless. That's how it was for me when I grew up and it was fine, but it
isn't an ideal situation for a parent because you need to share everyday
life with each other.” (Mother with a two-year-old child)
In their narratives, parents referred to JPC as a way to “mi
nimize the
damage.” For many of the parents, a nuclear family was assumed to be
the best family form for the children; therefore, they often had feelings
of guilt.
“The worst for the children, I assume, is that mom and dad don't stick
together. (…), but the children must not suffer because things didn't work
out between us.” (Father with a three-year-old child)
Several of the parents also pointed out that it is the adults' responsi-
bility not to let either parent's relationship to the children be harmed by
adult conflict.
“You have to separate your own conflict from the children's relation to
the parent. Maybe the adult relationship doesn't work, but it doesn't have
to mean that parenting does not work.” (Mother with two children, two-
and three-years-old)
Parents seemed aware of the deleterious effects of chronic conflict
on children. Therefore, one of the main advantages of the separation
and thus minimizing its possible damage on the child was seen to be
the avoidance of exposure to adult conflict. Allowing the children
equal access to both the parents on an everyday basis was viewed as a
way to ke ep many of the features from the nuclear famil y that they
found important and positive.
“If you consider that there is never going to be a ‘best case scenario,’ I
still think it [JPC] is as good as it can get.” (Mother with a two-year-old
child)
When everything worked well, some of the parents spoke about the
benefits of shared parenting as compared to a nuclear form. Living in
two homes was assumed to foster independence in the child and
being able relate to different kinds of people. Saving the child from hav-
ing to choose between the parents was another assumed benefit.
Parents talked about ‘attentive parenting’ as one of the benefits of
JPC. This meant that parents were able to give the child their full atten-
tion during the time they were together – and vice versa. When the
child arrived, the parent could put aside chores and obligations and pri-
oritize being together. Parents also talked about the presence that is
demanded of them as lone parents, but they also acknowledged that
havin g half the time off allowed them to be more ready for these
demands.
“I would say that we formed an even deeper relationship. You have to be
constantly available as a parent. You don't need to do that when there's two
parents.” (Father with a two-year-old child).
One mother felt that the child did not favor his father as much as be-
fore, since both parents were now play-partners as well as busy making
dinner.
“Our relationship has become stronger during this year when every-
thing happened, before he was more of Daddy's little boy; it was Daddy
doing all the fun things and Mommy was busy with other things, but now
it's different.” (Mother with two children, one- and three-years-old).
When reunited with the child after a week, some parents had imple-
mented certain routines to help the child to adjust. Parents prepared to
just be together, not planning for visits, etc. the first evening. Both the
fathers and the mothers also expressed some concerns that the child
could be spoiled being in JPC, as the parents felt that they more often
gave in to the child's wishes and that their parenting boundaries were
mo
re lax.
“You are so thrilled to see him so you kind of relax a bit on your princi-
ples.” (Mother with a three-year-old child).
4. Discussion
4.1. Is JPC becoming an internalized norm?
This study explored the reasons given by parents for choosing JPC for
their young children. Participating parents represent both those who
have a mutual agreement with the other parent as well as those who
started practicing JPC after a court decision or an agreement negotiated
through th e social services. A majority of the parents in the study
expressed the view that JPC was “agiven” and also that it was a natural
consequence of two involved parents prior to the separation. The recent
figures show that about 30% of preschool children with separated or di-
vorced parents live in equal JPC settings. Thus, the values regarding JPC
presented by many of the p articipants could be rather common
(Swed ish Government Official Report, 2011). Swedish family policy
has for a long time emphasized the similar roles of mothers and fathers.
158 E. Fransson et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 66 (2016) 154–160
The notion that JPC is a given and that JPC is the best for children, as they
need to maintain an everyday contact with both the fath er and the
mother, shows how Swedish family policies might have been internal-
ized by many of the parents. Simila r conclusions have been drawn
from other parental practices in Sweden, e.g., fathers' involvement in
perinatal care (Plantin, Olukoya, & Ny, 2011).
Nevertheless, embracing the practice of JPC was not without ambiv-
alence. Some parents in the study were hesitant toward having JPC for
reasons such as the child being very young, or not having enough confi-
dence in the other parent. However, these hesitant parents still had a
feeling that JPC was the eventual goal. For parents who had a nuclear
family as an ideal, JPC was described as a way of minimizing the damage
done by the divorce. Parents were also pleased that the child no longer
had to be exposed to the conflict that might have been ongoing in the
relationship. Compared to children living only with one parent, older
children living in a JPC setting have previously been shown to report
higher wellbeing and less symptoms of ill-health e.g., (Bergström et
al., 2013; Bergström, Fransson, Hjern, Köhler, & Wallby, 2014; Pruett,
Ebling, & Insabella, 2004), thus, supporting the parents' beliefs.
4.2. Fathers and mothers are believed to be equally important
The parents described that the child had two equally important rela-
tionships that both of the parents needed to continue, irrespective of the
divorce. One of the reasons for this given by both the mothers and the
fathers was the fathers' early involvement in the care of the infant. In
many cases, this derived from the father's use of the right to have paren-
tal leave, i.e., they stayed at home with the sole responsibility for the
child during longer periods during the child's first and second year.
The putative importance of parental leave for father's involvement in
early child care was also reported by Almqvist and Duvander (2014),
whose study indicated that when fathers took a long parental leave,
they shared both household tasks and childcare more equally with
their partners than other fathers.
Most parents in the study seem to acknowledge the child's attach-
ment to both parents equally; they refer to, different but equally impor-
tant, relationships between the infant/child and the two parents. In
some of the cases, however, mothers talked about taking extra precau-
tions to ensure the child's attachment to them, and parents had experi-
ences of someprofessionals who also stressed attachment to the mother
more than to the father in case of infants. Other studies have also point-
ed out that several influential discourses impact how motherhood and
fatherhood are pictured, specifically, the discourse of gender equality
as well as discourses based on biology or the notion of different predis-
positions of men and women (Bergnéhr, 2008; Fägerskiöld, 2008).Thus,
while many parents truly believe in the gender equality ideal, the ex-
pectations could still be gendered when it came to the relative impor-
tance of early attachment relationships (Widarsson, Engström, Tydén,
Lundberg, & Hammar, 2015; Bergnéhr, 2008).
4.3. Methodological considerations
The participants volunteered to be interviewed in this study, and the
sample is not necessarily representative of the population of Swedish
parents living apart.
Within qualitative research, the terms credibility, dependability, and
transferability are used to control for quality: 1) credibility refers to the
confidence one has with respect to the truth of the data in relation to the
research question; 2) dependability refers to the stability of the data, i.e.,
the extent to which the results can be corroborated or confirmed by
others; and 3) transferability refers to the extent to which the findings
can be transferred to other settings or contexts.
4.3.1. Credibility
Using an interview guide helped the interviewers cover the same
topics in each interview. However, probing questions were employed
beyond the interview guide. Peer debriefing is when sessions are con-
ducted with peers for reviewing and exploring the different aspects of
the research. In this study, the design, the ads used, and the planned
analyses were discussed in multiple research team meetings.
4.3.2. Dependability
Several measures to improve the dependability were utilized: using
co-analysts, researcher reflexivity, and leaving a clear decision trail. Co-
analysts were used to identify the themes; the authors then met to dis-
cuss and agree on the
fina
l themes. Researcher reflexivity means care-
fully considering the possible preconceptions held by each analyst to
minimize the effect of subjective bias. Three of the four authors were
born and raised in Sweden in a culture where gender equity in parent-
hood was considered a strength, from both the child's and the parent's
perspectives. These authors also have personal experiences of shared
parenting after separation or divorce in different ways (as a child, par-
ent or grand-parent). The third author was raised in Hungary, where a
more traditional perspective on gender- and parental roles was pre-
dominant. The authors discussed their preconceptions in relation to
the findings during the entire process of analysis and when preparing
the manuscript.
4.3.3. Transferability
Our sample included both parents who have no conflict as well as
those who have had their custody disputes resolved in court. Some par-
ents in our sample found it easy to accommodate for JPC, while others
had a hard time adjusting. Thus, a range of relevant experiences of JPC
has been elucidated; moreover, a sample size of 46 was very large for
being a qualitative study with in-depth interviews. On the other hand,
our sample was recruited through advertisements in the local and na-
tional Swedish newspapers, radio, and TV; thus, the participants active-
ly chose to participate in a study about JPC. Their reasons might have
been either a strongly positive or negative experience of JPC , but in
any case, their participation could be regarded as being driven by a de-
sire to share their personal experiences, possibly even a statement in its
own right. To increase the transferability, negative case anal ysis was
also employed, meaning that we paid special attention to accounts
that seemed to differ from that presented in the majority of the
descriptions.
Since parents who did not have equal shared custody were excluded,
the sample only represents parents who – either through their own or
the court's will – actually shared custody equally. It is possible that
shared custody with different proportions of time spent with each par-
ent might have other drivers and/or parental perceptions attached to it.
Future studies with representative samples are needed to confirm
whether the results represent the general population of parents with
JPC.
5. Conclusions
In this unique qualitative study with 46 parents, of 0–5 year-olds,
who had opted for equal physical custody, we showed that pare nts
were convinced of the benefits of JPC and strove to make it work. For
most parents in thi s study, JPC was ‘agiven,’ as both parents were
seen to have equal rights to and responsibility for the children. Parents
also emphasized that JPC was in the best interest of the child, yielding
two involved parents, hence ‘minimizing the damage’ of the divorce.
Difficulties sometimes arose when conflicts lingered between the cou-
ple or when a court decision was involved. In sum, however, the partic-
ipating parents considered JPC as the most acceptable and often, even
most desirable option after a separation or a divorce.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
159E. Fransson et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 66 (2016) 154–160
Acknowledgements
The research was funded through Länsförsäkringsbolagens
forskningsfond and the Swedish research council for health, working
life, and welfare: FORTE 2014-0843 (EF and MB). AS was funded
through The Gillbergska Foundation. We would also like to thank the
participants for sharing their experiences.
References
Almqvist, A. -L., & Duvander, A. -Z. (2014). Changes in gender equality? Swedish fathers'
parental leave, division of childcare and housework. Journal of Family Studies, 20(1),
19–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/jfs.2014.20.1.19.
Barclay, L., & Lupton, D. (1999). The experiences of new fatherhood: A socio-cultural anal-
ysis. Journal of Adv anced Nursing, 29(4), 1013–1020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.
1365-2648.1999.00978.x.
Barnombudsmannen (2000). Barndom pågår: Rapport från barnens myndighet [Childhood
ongoing: Report from the children's authority]. ,104–114 Stockholm.
Bekkengen, L. (2002). Man får välja: Om föräldraskap och föräldraledighet i arbetsliv och
familjeliv [One can choose: On parenthood and parental leave in work life and family
life]. Malmö Liber.
Bergnéhr, D. (2008). Timing parenthood. Independence, family and ideals of life. (Doctoral
thesis). 432, . Linköping: Linköping University.
Bergström, M., Modin, B., Fransson, E., Rajmil, L., Berlin, M., Gustafsson, P. A., & Hjern, A.
(2013). Livi ng in two homes-a Swedish national survey of wellbeing in 12 and
15 year olds with joint physical custody. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 868. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-868.
Bergström, M., Fransson, E., Hjern, A., Köhler, L., & Wallby, T. (2014). Mental health in
Swedish children living in joint physical custody and their parents' life satisfaction:
A cross-sectional study. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55(5), 433–439. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12148.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London:
Routledge.
Cancian, M., Meyer, D. R., Brown, P. R., & Cook, S. T. (2014). Who gets custody now? Dra-
matic changes in Children's living arrangements after divorce. Demography, 51(4),
1381–1396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13524-014-0307-8.
Daly, M. (2011). What adult worker model? A critical look at recent social policy reform
in Europe from a gender and family perspective. Social Politics: International Studies in
Gender, State & Society, 18(1), 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxr002.
Draper, J. (2003). Men's passage to fatherhood: An analysis of the contemporary rele-
vance of transition theory. Nursing Inquiry, 10(1), 66–77 (doi: 157 [pii).
Fägerskiöld, A. (2008). A change in life as experienced by first-time fathers. Scandinavian
Journal of Caring Sciences,
22(1
), 64–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.
00585.x.
George, C., Solomon, J., & McIntosh, J. (2011). Divorce in the nursery: On infants and over-
night care. Family Court Review, 49(3), 521–528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
1617.2011.01389.x.
Haas, L. (1996). Family policy in Sweden. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 17(1),
47–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02265031.
Haavind, H. (2011). Loving and caring for small children. Nordic Psychology, 63(2), 24–48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1901-2276/a000031.
Johansson, M., Hildingsson, I., & Fenwick, J. (2013). Fathers want to stay close to their
partner and new baby in the early postnatal period: The importance of being able
to room in after a surgical birth. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare, 4(1), 35–36.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2012.11.002.
Kitterod, R. H., & Lyngstad, J. (2014). Characteristics of parents with shared residence and
father sole custody. Evidence from Norway 2012. Vol. 780, . Norway: Discussion Papers.
Klinth, R. (2008). The best of both worlds? Fatherhood and gender equality in Swedish
paternity leave campaigns, 1976–2006. Fathering, 6(1), 20–38.
Lamb, M. E., & Kelly, J. B. (2010). Improving the quality of parent-child contact in separat-
ing families with infants and young children: Empirical research foundations. In R. M.
Galatzer-Levy, L. Kraus, & J. Galatzer-Levy (Eds.), The scientific basis of child custody de-
cisions (2nd ed.)Vol. 49, pp. 2p.
Lavadera, L. A., Caravelli, L., & Togliatti, M. (2013). Child custody in Italian management of
divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 34(11), 1536–1562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0192513x12462528.
Malterud, K. (2012). Systematic text condensation: A strategy for qualitative analysis.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 40(8), 795–805.
Melli, M., & Brown, P. (2008). Exploring a new family form — The shared time family.
International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 22,231–
269.
Me
llström, U. (2006). Nytt faderskap i skärningspunkten mellan pr oduktion och
reproduktion? [New fatherhood in the intersection of production and reproduction].
Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift, 2.
Nielsen, L. (2014a). Parenting plans for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers: Research and
issues. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 55(4), 315–333.
Nielsen, L. (2014b). Shared physical custody: Summary of 40 studies on outcomes for
children. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 55(8), 613–635.
Norsk Psykolog Forening (2014). Samvær 0–3. Anbefalinger om samvær for de minste
barna etter lov om barn og foreldreVisitation 0–3. Recommendations regarding parenting
visitation for the youngest children under the Act on Children and Parents. Oslo: Norsk
Psykolog Forening.
OECD (2014). Labour force participation rate by sex, 15+, 15–64 and 15–24 years old. from
http ://www.oecd.org/gender/data/labourforceparticipati onbysex15and15-
24yearsold.htm.
Ottosen, M. H. (2004). Samvær og børns trivsel [Joint custody and children's well-being].
København: Socialforskningsinstituttet.
Peacey, V., & Hunt, J. (2008). Problematic contact after separation and divorce? A national
survey of parents. London: Gingerbread.
Plantin, L., Olukoya, A. A., & Ny, P. (2011). Positive health outcomes of fathers' involve-
ment in pregnancy and childbirth paternal support: A scope study literature review.
Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, & Practice about Men as Fathers, 9(1), 87–102.
Pruett, M. K., Ebling, R., & Insabella, G. (2004). Critical aspects of parenting plans for young
children: Interjecting data into the debate about overnights. Family Court Review,
42(1), 39–59.
Pruett, M. K., McIntosh, J. E., & Kelly, J. B. (2014). Parental separation and overnight care of
young children, part I: Consensus through theoretical and empirical i ntegration.
Family Court Review, 52(2), 240–255.
Rejmer, A. (2003). Vårdnadstvister: En rättssociologisk studie av tingsrätts funktion vid
handläggning av vårdnadskonflikter med utgångspunkt från barnets bästa [Custody dis-
putes: A socio-legal study of the role of district courts in the handling of custody disputes
with the child's best interest as a base]. Lund: Lunds Universitet.
Rešetar,B.,&Emery,R.E.(2008).Children's rights in European legal proceedings: Why are
family practices so different from legal theories? Family Court Review, 46(1), 65–77.
Smyth, B. (2009). A 5-year retrospective of post-separation share care research in Austra-
lia. Jo
urnal of Family Studies, 15(1), 36–59.
Social Insurance Report (2013). De jämställda föräldrarna. Vad ökar sannolikheten för ett
jämställt föräldrapenninguttag?The equal parents. What increases the chance of an
equal use of the financed parental leave?. The Swedish Social Insurance Agency.
Sodermans, A. K., Matthijs, K., & Swicegood, G. (2013). Characteristics of joint physical
custody families in Flanders. Demographic Research, 28,821–848 doi: Artn 29.
Solomon, J., & George, C. (1999). The developme nt of attachment in separated and divorced
families. Effects of overnight visitation, parent and couple variables. Attachment &
Human Development, 1(1), 2–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080 /1461 673990 0134011.
Spruijt, E., & Duindam, V. (2009). Joint physical custody in the Netherlands and the well-
being of children. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 51(1), 65–82.
Statistics Sweden (2014). Olika familjer lever på olika sätt — Om barns boende och
försörjning efter en separation [Different families live in different ways — A survey
on residence and support of children after a separation]. Demografiska rapporter.
Örebro, Sweden: Statisktiska Centralbyrån.
Swedish B oard of Health and Welfare (2001). Växelvis boende för små barn —
Utvecklingspsykologiska aspekter [Joint physical custody of young children — Per-
spectives from developmental psychology]. Expertbilaga i växelvis boende: Att bo hos
både pappa och mamma fast de inte bor tillsammans (pp. 49–63). Sweden: Stockholm.
Swedish Board of Health and Welfare (2011). Familjerätten och barnet i vårdnadstvister.
Uppföljning av hur 2006 års vårdnasreform har slagit igenom i socialtjänstens arbete
[Family law and children in custody disputes. Follow-up of how the 2006 custody reform
has had an impact in social service work]. Sweden: Stockholm.
Swedi sh Government Official Report (2011). 2011:51 Fortsatt föräldrar — Om ansvar,
ekonomi och samarbete för barnets skull [Continuous parenthood: About responsibilities,
economy and cooperation for the sake of the child]. Stockholm: Fritze Retrieved from
http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/108/a/170332.
The Swedish Government Offices (1999). Gemensam vårdnad för ogifta föräldrar [Joint cus-
tody for unmarried parents]. Stockholm: Ministry of Justice.
Tornello, S. L., Emery, R., Rowen, J., Potter, D., Ocker, B., & Xu, Y. S. (2013). Overnight cus-
tody arrangements, attachment, and adjustment among very young children. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 75(4), 871–885. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/Jomf.12045
.
W
arshak, R. A. (2014). Social science and parenting plans for young children: A consensus
report. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(1), 46–67.
Wells, M. B., & Bergnehr, D. (2014). Families and family policies in Sweden. In M. Robila
(Ed.), Handbook of family policies across the globe (pp. 488). New York, NY: Springer
New York.
Wells, M., & Sarkadi, A. (2012). Do father-friendly policies promote father-friendly child-
rearing practices? A review of Swedish parental leave and child health centers.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(1), 25–31.
Widarsson, M., Engström, G., Tydén, T., Lundberg, P., & Hammar, L. M. (2015). ‘Paddling
upstream’: Fathers' involvement during pregnancy as described by expectant fathers
and mothers. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24(7–8).
Yoshida, A. (2012). Dads who do diapers: Factors affecting care of young children by fa-
thers. Journal of Family Issues, 33(4), 451–477.
160 E. Fransson et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 66 (2016) 154–160