Maternal Attachment, Paternal Overnight Contact, and Very Young Children's Adjustment: Comment on Tornello et al. (2013)

Millar, Paul; Kruk, Edward

doi:10.1111/jomf.12071

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some people argue that it is too stressful for infants and toddlers to alternate between two parental homes and that it interferes with the development of secure bonding (Tornello et al., ). Others hold the opinion that even infants and toddlers can live in joint physical custody arrangements, if their separation tolerance is respected (Millar & Kruk, ). Thus, appropriate age‐related arrangements are a very important factor: Preschool children may tolerate 3–4 days; at age eight, 5‐ to 7‐day cycles seem possible (Kelly & Lamb, ).…”

Section: Joint Physical Custody: Effects On Children's and Parents’ Wmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results of two empirical studies on the impact of frequent overnights with both parents on the attachment and well‐being of children under the age of five revealed some evidence that frequent overnights of very young children in two homes are associated with attachment insecurity and less regulated behaviors (McIntosh, Smyth, & Kelaher, ; Tornello et al., ). The methodological procedures, in particular, the conclusions drawn from the results of these studies, are seriously debated between the JPC‐supporters (Millar & Kruk, ; Warshak, ) and researchers who ask for caution (Emery & Tornello, ; McIntosh et al., ).…”

Section: Joint Physical Custody: Effects On Children's and Parents’ Wmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Children's and Parents’ Well‐Being in Joint Physical Custody: A Literature Review

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Joint physical custody (JPC), a parental care arrangement in which a child lives with each parent for at least 25-50% of the time after separation or divorce, is increasingly common in many Western societies. This is a major shift from the standard of sole physical custody, with mostly mothers providing primary childcare after a parental separation or divorce. The increasing share of separated or divorced parents who practice JPC, which in some countries, US states, and regions reaches 30% and more, results from increasing gender equality due to mothers participating considerably in the labor force and fathers being actively involved in their children's daily lives. This review focuses on the effects of JPC on children's and parents' well-being, based on 40 studies from North America, Australia, and Europe published between 2007 and 2018. In sum, there is empirical evidence from different countries that suggests that JPC arrangements can have positive effects on the well-being of children and of parents. However, the existing studies are conceptually, methodologically, and contextually very heterogeneous. In addition, self-selected highly educated parents with a high socio-economic status, a low conflict level, and children between the ages of 6-15 practicing JPC dominate the samples. Thus, the risks and benefits of JPC are not clear yet and are heavily debated by advocates and academics. The review concludes with suggestions for future research.

show abstract

Section: Joint Physical Custody: Effects On Children's and Parents’ Wmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Joint Physical Custody: Effects On Children's and Parents’ Wmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children's and Parents’ Well‐Being in Joint Physical Custody: A Literature Review

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Essentially three: “Ongoing Postdivorce Conflict: Effects on Children of Joint Custody and Frequent Access” (Johnston et al, 1989), “Child-focused and child-inclusive divorce mediation: comparative outcomes from a prospective study of postseparation adjustment” (McIntosh et al, 2008), and “Overnight Custody Arrangements, Attachment, and Adjustment Among Very Young Children” (Tornello et al, 2013). All these studies are burdened by huge bias and important methodological mistakes (Millar and Kruk, 2014; Nielsen, 2014; Poussin, 2016; Warshak, 2014, 2016). …”

Section: Is Shared Parenting Preventive Of Childhood Adversities and mentioning

confidence: 99%

New approaches to divorce with children: A problem of public health

Vezzetti

2016

Health Psychology Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This broad review elaborates on the most up-to-date knowledge on biochemical and psychobiological aspects of parental loss and other childhood adversities during divorce involving minor children. So far, divorce involving minor children was unfortunately considered by authorities only as a purely juridical problem, and this approach has often allowed a completely different approach according to the Courts. Now, scientific research, also making use of animal models, is demonstrating the biological basis of the problem and the indisputable consequences on the well-being and health of children. The innovative conclusion of this review is that this argument (because of its frequency and gravity) is primarily a question of public health and that it is necessary to further harmonize practices in this area.

show abstract

“…Our data for this case study are the original four empirical studies of overnights that included children four years and younger (McIntosh, Smyth, & Kelaher, ; McIntosh, Smyth, & Kelaher, ; Pruett et al, ; Solomon & George, , ; Tornello et al, ), along with 26 papers published within the past five years that included 12 reviews Cashmore & Parkinson, 2014; Kline Pruett, McIntosh, & Kelly, ; Lamb, ; McIntosh, ; McIntosh, ; McIntosh, Kline, Pruett, & Kelly, ; McIntosh & Smyth, ; Neilsen, , ; Smith, Caffino, Van Horn, & Lieberman, ; Solomon, ; Warshak, ), 9 critiques or commentaries (Garber, ; Hynan, ; Lamb, , ; Ludolph & Dale, ; Ludolph, ; Millar & Kruk, ; Smyth, McIntosh, & Kelaher, ), and 5 replies to critiques (Tornello et al, 2013; McIntosh, ; McIntosh, ; McIntosh, Smyth, & Kelaher, ; Parkinson & Cashmore, ) on these studies and on the subject more broadly. Each of the four single studies tested specific hypotheses about the association between overnight stays and indicators of young children's security of attachment, proxies for emotional regulation and/or emotional‐behavioral functioning.…”

Section: Example: the Role Of Scholar‐advocacy Bias In The Infant Ovementioning

confidence: 99%

“Bending” Evidence for a Cause: Scholar‐Advocacy Bias in Family Law

Emery¹,

Holtzworth‐Munroe²,

Johnston³

et al. 2016

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are a number of salient public policy issues in the family law field that have invoked impassioned policy debates on a recurrent basis. In the absence of a body of research to address these critical concerns, advocates under the guise of social science scholarship have exacerbated the confusion and controversy by construing the scant available research evidence to justify their own ends, without regard to the relevance, quality, utility, and limitations of the studies. This is one of two articles on this problem that we have named "scholar-advocacy bias." In this article, we discuss the difference between truth in social science and truth in law. We identify common ways in which social science researchers and reviewers of research-wittingly or unwittingly-can become advocates for ideological positions and social policies at the expense of being balanced reporters of research evidence as illustrated by recent debates about overnight parenting of infants and toddlers. We also consider how adherence to established scientific principles and methods prevents the misuse of research in this way. Key Points for the Family Court Community:Scholar-advocacy bias, the intentional or unintentional use of social science research to legitimize advocacy claims, is a problem that practitioners and policy makers must recognize and guard against in family law.Because of different methods of pursuing and establishing truth in science and the law, ironically, the less rhetorically convincing argument often represents science most faithfully. Practitioners-and scientists-must guard against using various rhetorical tactics that bend research evidence, for example, the rules of science dictate that we must prove our hypotheses; others need not disprove them.

show abstract

Maternal Attachment, Paternal Overnight Contact, and Very Young Children's Adjustment: Comment on Tornello et al. (2013)

Cited by 17 publications

References 18 publications

Children's and Parents’ Well‐Being in Joint Physical Custody: A Literature Review

Children's and Parents’ Well‐Being in Joint Physical Custody: A Literature Review

New approaches to divorce with children: A problem of public health

“Bending” Evidence for a Cause: Scholar‐Advocacy Bias in Family Law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About