Abstract
Research on relational maintenance shows that mundane day-to-day talk is important in sustaining relationships. This study explores how absence associated with the visitation process shapes nonresidential parents’ communication with their children. Participants’ open-ended responses indicate that several factors facilitate and constrain interaction with their children during absence including their philosophy about communication boundaries, technology, and their relationship with the other parent. Participants who have limited interactions struggle to “know” their children, while those with frequent interaction with their children have access to the mundane stories of their children’s lives, which helps to maintain the relationships. This research suggests that the process of updating about what occurs during absence may be central to maintaining relationships.
Keywords
All relationships experience periods of absence that affect opportunities to engage in interaction. In most cases, the assumption has been that separation is to some extent voluntary or at least necessitated by circumstances that the partners accept (e.g., work). In some cases, separations are involuntary and undesired, but the partners retain some control over their opportunities for interaction. For example, existing research on long-distance relationships (LDRs) has examined how individuals maintain their LDRs through various kinds of efforts (Sahlstein, 2006; Weiner & Hannum, 2012). By contrast, some types of relationships are marked by periods of absence which are forced upon the relational partners and which significantly limit opportunities for day-to-day interaction and engagement in routines. The nonresidential parent–child relationship is one example.
Many nonresidential parents (NRPs) have limited, restricted, or specifically prescribed opportunities for meetings. Following Duck’s argument that the talk of everyday life “is the essence of relational maintenance,” NRP-child relationships may face greater challenges than relationships that have more opportunities for everyday talk (1994, p. 48). The research described here focuses specifically on understanding the role of talk in maintaining the NRP-child relationship, particularly during absence. Specifically, it examines how NRPs use talk to maintain relationships with their children and how absence acts to aid and/or constrain the process.
The role of talk in relationships
In an effort to examine and better understand the role of day-to-day talk in constituting and maintaining relationships, researchers have worked to identify what, exactly, people talk about and the effects of this talk on relationship functioning. Research on relationship maintenance has identified various forms of talk as important for relationship continuation. An early typology of strategic maintenance behaviors included categories that focus specifically on talk such as communication-related strategies (e.g., openness and sharing feelings) and metacommunication (talking about the relationship) (Dindia & Baxter, 1987). Later typologies of maintenance behaviors also described forms of talk as central to relational continuation and satisfaction. For example, Stafford and Canary’s (1991) five-factor typology of relational maintenance strategies includes several that tie to talk: (a) positivity (being affirmative and cheerful), (b) openness (directness and disclosure), and (c) assurances (showing love and demonstrating faithfulness). Other forms of talk noted as important to maintaining relationships include humor, letters and telephone calls, advice giving, and conflict management skills (Canary, Stafford, Hause, & Wallace, 1993; Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 2000).
Subsequent research has recognized that much maintenance communication is unconscious and routine (Dainton & Stafford, 1993). Duck (1995, 1999) argues that the process of a relationship sits in the mundane day-to-day interactions of relating and that most of the time relationships just “are”. Relationships are maintained (or “talked into being”) through regular talk and interaction, both the strategic and the mundane (Duck, 1994, 1995). Maintenance behavior, then, is both the experience of being in the relationship and the process of sustaining it, with little distinction between “mundane maintenance” and just conducting a relationship.
Research focusing on the forms and functions of talk in relationships also support the importance of mundane communication. Goldsmith and Baxter (1996) developed a taxonomy of college students’ daily interactions that included 29 different speech events categorized in 6 supragenres: (a) superficial talk (e.g., basic small talk); (b) informal talk (e.g., gossip, catching up); (c) positive talk (e.g., reminiscing, relationship talk); (d) negative talk (e.g., conflict, complaining); (e) formal and goal-directed talk (e.g., decision making and instructions); and (f) less formal goal-oriented talk (e.g., making plans, asking a favor). A similar study examining the content of romantic couples’ talk found that the most common conversational activity was self-report (describing one’s past or current experiences) (Alberts, Yoshimura, Rabby, & Loschiavo, 2005). The study also identified several categories of talk that were not previously included in maintenance research, noting that conversational behaviors such as observations (comments about the environment), plans (talk about activities in the future), television talk, and back-channel talk (talk that indicated listening) are so routine that they are not mentioned in self-report and diary studies typically used to study relational maintenance. Stepparents, stepchildren, and parents describe catching up, joking around, and recapping the day’s events as the most frequently used forms of everyday talk in managing stepfamily relationships (Schrodt et al., 2007). These studies all point to the great variety of talk that occurs between individuals and the importance of day-to-day, mundane conversations in cocreating and sustaining relationships.
Talk in parent–child relationships
Research on parent–child talk is limited; only a small percentage of articles in the primary communication research journals have focused on children at all (Miller-Day, Pezalla, & Chesnut, 2013). Much of the research that has been done has focused on patterns associated with periods in the life course. For example, research on parental talk with school-aged children has primarily considered parental socialization of children, particularly as it relates to the communication of warmth and control (Stafford, 2013). Parent–adolescent communication research tends to focus on conflict and the process of renegotiating the relationship to grant the child greater autonomy (Branje, Laursen, & Collins, 2013). Scholars have also examined specific types of communication patterns in families, for example, conflict (Roloff & Miller, 2006) storytelling (Langellier & Peterson, 2006), or considered overall orientations to communication, for example, Fitzpatrick and Ritchie’s (1994) family communication patterns (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2013). Research has not generally considered the content of mundane everyday interaction.
Dealing with absence
One problem with the research described above is that it tends to take a ‘presence’ perspective in that it assumes that relationships have regular, relatively unimpeded periods of interaction and that the normative state for enacting a relationship is face-to-face presence. The focus is on communication that occurs when people are together and emphasizes the importance of engaging in day-to-day, face-to-face talk in constituting and maintaining relationships. However, such research does not account for relationships where opportunities for copresence and talk are limited and particularly cases in which absence is the norm and the opportunities for talk are arranged, regulated, or supervised (Sigman, 1991).
Research on LDRs has considered absence, much of which has focused on the extent to which individuals are satisfied with a relationship that involves limited amounts of face-to-face interaction (Sahlstein, 2006). Given the importance of face-to-face interaction, one might expect that individuals in LDRs would be less satisfied than those involved in geographically close relationships. However, many members of LDRs experience satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, and trust at similar levels as those in geographically close relationships (Becker et al., 2009; Guldner & Swensen, 1995; Johnson, 2001).
Research on the maintenance of LDRs has examined face-to-face contact and relational outcomes. For example, individuals in LDRs without face-to-face interaction experience more relational uncertainty than those with some face-to-face contact (Dainton & Aylor, 2001). The former are also less likely to use certain maintenance behaviors, such as assurances and sharing tasks (Dainton & Aylor, 2001). Without face-to-face contact, individuals rely on other channels, such as the telephone or Internet, to help maintain the relationship (Dainton & Aylor, 2002). Individuals in LDRs with some face-to-face contact had higher levels of satisfaction and commitment than those without face-to-face contact (Dainton & Aylor, 2001). Those with infrequent face-to-face contact are also more likely to engage in idealization of the relationship and end the relationship once becoming proximal (Stafford & Merolla, 2007). Thus, the levels of face-to-face contact in LDRs are important in that it can affect the use of relational maintenance behaviors, perceptions, and outcomes like relationship uncertainty and satisfaction.
Although face-to-face contact is not crucial to maintaining satisfying relationships, distance appears to affect the way relationships are negotiated and how members feel about that negotiation. Sahlstein (2004) found that time apart and time together both constrained and enabled one another. Participants reported that being together rejuvenated them and created memories but they also experienced a lot of pressure for time together to be of high quality. Being apart creates a desire to want to be with the other person but also feel “let down” when separated and frustrated with the limitations of interaction when they are unable to communicate face to face. Furthermore, expectations are often unrealistic about the nature of interactions that will occur when the two people come together again.
These and other studies indicate that individuals are able to successfully maintain relationships, even during periods of absence, particularly when there is some communication during those periods of absence. Such relationships, however, are often voluntary; individuals recognize that separation is necessary to attain some goal, and the absence is often perceived to be temporary (Stafford, Merolla, & Castle, 2006). Research has not paid attention to cases where partners in a relationship may live in relatively close proximity and yet be restricted in their permission to make contact with one another. There is a need to examine how absence of day-to-day, mundane interaction influences relational maintenance in other types of relationships, particularly NRP-child relationships.
NRP-child relationships
Although all relationships face challenges, some of the obstacles associated with NRP-child relationships are due to the two-household living arrangements that exist for parents (Rollie, 2006). Contact between NRPs and their children are typically regulated by formal or informal custody arrangements. These often dictate how frequently, how long, and, sometimes, where NRPs and their children may engage in face-to-face interaction. Whereas individuals in many types of relationships are able to communicate freely as time, energy, and technology permit, the custody arrangements regulate face-to-face interaction in the NRP-child relationship.
The NRP-child relationship can be influenced by other obstacles as well. The extent to which parents are able to work together, share information, manage conflict, and coordinate schedules impacts the NRP-child relationship. For example, residential parents can act as gatekeepers and facilitate or hinder the visitation process (Pasley & Minton, 1997; Seltzer & Brandreth, 1994). Geographic distance, income, and work schedules can also affect opportunities for face-to-face interaction (Cooksey & Craig, 1998; Stewart, 1999). Additionally, when parents live away from their children, it becomes particularly difficult to enact a ‘traditional’ parental role and engage in parenting activities such as discipline and moral development (Rollie, 2006). Instead, NRPs often adjust their roles and activities with their children based on the structural constraints of custody arrangements (Hawkins, Amato, & King, 2006; Seltzer, 1991). As a result, NRPs report less satisfaction and lowered levels of self-efficacy as parents than those in first-marriage families (Minton & Pasley, 1996; Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2003).
Talk, absence, and the NRP-child relationship
As indicated above, research emphasizes the importance of day-to-day, mundane communication in maintaining relationships. Yet, individuals in LDRs can engage in satisfying relationships despite periods of absence, particularly when they have some communication during periods of absence. We know little about the ways in which absence and talk affect an entirely different kind of relationship, namely the NRP-child relationship. Because these relationships are important to child outcomes (Rollie, 2006), we need to understand how NRPs construct and maintain relationships with their children despite periods of absence and how periods of absence and opportunities for talk affect the process of maintaining these relationships. This leads to following research questions: RQ1: How does the two-household structure influence how NRPs talk with their children? RQ2: How do NRPs perceive absence associated with the visitation cycle as influencing interaction with their children?
In short, this research is focused on examining how the two-household structure and periods of absence associated with visitation cycles affect communication between NRPs and their children and how this, in turn, affects maintenance of the NRP–child relationship.
Methods
Participants
Twenty in-depth interviews were conducted with Midwestern NRPs about their experiences in maintaining relationships with their biological children. Participants were recruited through criterion and snowball sampling; flyers were posted in several locations in the community (grocery stores, day care centers, workout centers, and churches), and participants also learned of the study through word of mouth. Participants included both divorced and nonmarital (the child was born outside of marriage and the romantic relationship either failed or never existed) NRPs. For the purposes of this research, an NRP was defined as a parent who (a) resides in a separate location from the co-parent and (b) has access to his or her children 50% or less than of the time.
The majority (n = 18) of the participants were men, two were women. No noteworthy differences between men’s and women’s answers were detected during data analysis to suggest that the sample should be limited to men. All participants were White except one who was African American. Just over half (n = 12) of the participants were divorced; the other eight were nonmarital. Seven of the participants have since married someone else. Participants’ biological children ranged in age from 2 to 23 years; however, participants were instructed to focus only on children under the age of 18. This meant that participants focused on 29 children (M = 9 years of age), most of whom were aged 5 through 13 (n = 21). Most participants had either one (n = 9) or two (n = 9) nonresidential children and seven had stepchildren present at least some of the time. The time that the participants had lived away from their children ranged from 8 months to 16 years (M = 5.4). For those with specific visitation arrangements, the percentage of time participants spent with children ranged from 50% (7 of 14 days) to 21% (3 of 14 days). The specific percentages are as follows: three had 50% custody, five had about 40%, two had 29%, seven had 21%, and three had some other arrangement (i.e., summer and holidays). Because this research was exploratory in nature, the author did not focus on or limit the study to specific levels of custody.
Data collection procedures
After receiving approval from the institutional review board, the author met with each participant at a convenient location determined by the participant (e.g., home or office) and conducted face-to-face, in-depth, semi-structured interviews. The interview guide included questions that were open-ended to allow participants to describe their experiences and share their perceptions (Kvale, 1996). Because the study was exploratory, the researcher did not constrain or focus attention on one target child, but allowed the participant to answer questions freely. In the interviews, participants discussed their family structure, visitation arrangements, and details of the visitation process. Participants were asked to describe a typical visitation from beginning to end. Follow-up questions focused on how participants communicate with their children during each period of the visitation cycle (presence, exit, absence, and reunion) as well as their descriptions of how they maintain relationships with their children. The interviews ranged in length from 36 min to 120 min (M = 58). Each interview was audio recorded (with permission) using a digital recorder and then fully transcribed. All identifying information was removed or altered and each participant was given a pseudonym.
Data analysis
Thematic content analysis followed an inductive approach associated with grounded theory and used Creswell’s (2006) data analysis spiral as a guide. Analysis began by reading through the transcripts carefully and taking notes on recurring patterns and themes. Identification of themes during the note-taking and classifying processes was guided by Owen’s (1984) criteria for conducting a thematic analysis: recurrence (similar comments made in different ways), repetition (comments made multiple times), and forcefulness (comments made emphatically). These notes and reflections were used to form categories for describing, classifying, and interpreting the data. These concepts and themes were used as the basis for coding the data.
Coding proceeded using the constant comparison method (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). It began with open coding, followed by axial coding to develop specific categories. During this process, each datum was compared with other relevant data to determine similarities and differences. This was continued until all relevant data had been categorized. The author and a trained graduate student independently read through and coded the interviews to ensure consistency in themes. Finally, examples representing the final themes were identified. These themes are described in the next section.
Results
Data analysis produced five themes that focus on how absence associated with the visitation cycle shaped communication between the participants and their children: access to information, catching up, extraction, highlights, and other sources. Generally, participants described a need to connect with their children after a period of absence. For some, this connection is simple and smooth; for others it is a struggle. Participants who do not have regular communication with their children during absence reported having a difficult time relating to their children. The five themes illustrate how absence influences NRPs communication with their children. (The names of the participants have been changed to protect their identities. ‘D’ indicates the participant is divorced, ‘NM’ means the participant was never married to the other parent; the numbers represent the children’s ages; and the percentage represents the amount of visitation.)
Access to information
Participants conveyed that they do not know what is going on in their children’s lives when they are away because they lack access to information typically shared in daily conversation. This challenge is particularly relevant for participants without frequent contact during periods of absence or who have infrequent and/or shorter periods of presence. Specifically, when the children live in the other household, participants reported that they miss out on the basic, mundane details of their children’s lives, for example, what happened at school, with whom their children are playing, what they think about something they saw on television. Some participants do not share in the day-to-day conversations that help them feel like they really know their children. Chad (D; 7, 13; 43%) articulated this: Because I don’t live with them every day, I don’t have the background information that really lets you follow people’s routine and question them about their life in a way that really is good. And I know because I’m a teacher and I'm around adolescents all the time. It’s like you are following the story and you see someone every day and you’re checking in with them, you know what questions to ask to draw somebody out. But with my own kids I feel like I’m always trying to get the background information to start with so that from there I can really get to know them better. That’s been my greatest regret is not being able to know them as well, just sort of the minutia of their life.
Because Chad does not have access to the background stories and information about his children’s lives away, he does not know a lot of basic information about his children. He commented, “I don’t know their friends very well. I don’t know how they have friendships.” He viewed this as a particularly troublesome part of being an NRP. “It’s always going to be fragmented … we’ll only see parts of each other’s lives.” Participants who live with their children are more likely to have access to information that allows them to know their children on a more personal level.
Other participants also complained about lack of access to information about their children. Zach (D; 10; 21%) felt that absence is essentially the lost time that he cannot make up. He attempts to learn about what has happened during that time: Basically, it’s a lost week without him. So I have to find out how his week was. Actually, usually 2 weeks. There’s a 2-week period where he’s doing things that I’m not aware of. Not that they’re bad, but I just, there are a lot of times that he does things that I don’t [agree with]. We talk a couple times on the phone but he’ll have a 2-week period where I might not see him and that’s usually a challenge.
Likewise, Andrew (NM; 6; 21%) noted that he really does not know what his son does during absence, particularly in school. He stated, “My big deal is the things he’s been doing in school, so I can get a feel what he’s been doing for 2 weeks while I haven’t been able to see him. What’s going on in school? His dad doesn’t know.” Similarly, in referring to the time his children are away, Ian (D; 11; 29%) stated, “I don’t really exactly know what all they do.” In short, without daily interaction that provides access to their children’s lives, participants recognize that they miss out on learning about the mundane details that allow them to maintain strong relationships with their children.
Participants reported several factors that facilitate or constrain their access to information about their children. These subthemes include philosophy about communication boundaries, the nature of the relationship with the other parent, and communication channels. Each will be discussed briefly.
Philosophy of communication boundaries
Participants’ philosophies about communication boundaries associated with the visitation schedule shape communication patterns between participants and their children. One or both parents’ orientations about communication during the visitation process can facilitate or constrain the fluidity of interaction between households. In some cases, participants have a “separatist” orientation that leads to little to no interaction with their children during absence. Chad (D; 7, 13; 43%) illustrated this perspective, “I’ve established this pattern where it’s like in my mind I say well this is my time and this is my ex-wife’s time and I don’t want to intrude on that. Nor do I want her to intrude on my time with them.” Faith (D; 17, 17; 50%) shared a similar orientation, My ex-husband did a lot of phone-calling and I didn’t do that because my view of the situation was that this was his time, this was my time. And that’s why we had separated, because we weren’t successful parenting together, among other things. So I didn’t make a whole lot of effort to contact them … I would really very consciously try to let them have that time with their dad.
Accordingly, some participants work to control their desires to contact their children. For instance, after a complicated divorce, Hal (D; 14, 18; 21%) places responsibility for maintaining the relationship on his kids. He lets them contact him when they need or want something so that he is not “pressuring” them to maintain a relationship. He stated, “I don’t reach for the phone every time I miss them. I don’t want my needs to become the reason for them to see me. I want their needs to be the reason. So I don’t. If I need them, I kind of stifle it. And I wait for them to call me.”
Other participants conveyed a different orientation. They indicated that as parents, they expect to talk to their children during absence. Thus, these participants actively seek interaction with their children. Nick (D; 3, 6; 36%) described his perspective: I’ll call over there. I literally go to almost every practice that they have in whatever their sports are … and to me, that’s very important in demonstrating that we can have a good relationship and ‘family life’ with the divorce sort of in the middle there. Participating in those things to me is very important and being there for them is just crucial.
Similarly, Scott (D; 4, 6; 50%) interacts with his children regularly during absence. He stated, “Out of the 7 days, I’ll probably talk to them on the phone 4 days and I’ll probably see them twice.” He believes that talking to his children is an important part of being a parent. In fact, in referring to his ex-wife he says, “It bothers me when she doesn’t call to talk to the kids … the more she calls, the better. I’m happy with that.” Thus, parents’ conception of their boundaries associated with the visitation cycle directly influenced their communication patterns with their children.
Relationship with the other parent
The participants indicated that the other parent can facilitate or constrain the participant’s access to their children during absence. Some participants have a very open and flexible relationship with the other parent. For example, Karl (NM; 10, 6; 21%) has a good relationship with the mothers of his children. He noted, “Neither one of them have ever tried to keep me from seeing them … Both of them are pretty much willing to let me have ‘em whenever I want … basically as long as I let ‘em know ahead of time.”
Conversely, a couple of the participants have little or no contact with their children during absence either because the other parent will not allow it or because conflict often erupts between the parents; the other parent simply does not answer the phone or makes phone contact difficult. Brian (NM; 10; other) does not call his son because of conflict with the other parent. He stated, “It’s pretty much pointless to try to call there because I always end up fighting with her and that just fuels her fire.” Mark (D; 5, 7; 29%) calls his children regularly, but his conversations are limited by the other parent. He explained: I do have the right to daily phone contact with them, which is sometimes difficult because they’re at my ex’s boyfriend’s place sometimes. And she’s pretty strict like after 10 min. I’ll call ‘em in the morning, it can be morning or night is the general slot that she’s requested that I speak to them. And then she’ll cut me off sometimes. It’s like 5 min is enough, 10 min is enough. You’ve got to get ready for school. If you want, you call them earlier if you want to talk to them longer.
Several participants complained that it is difficult to track down or talk to their children when they are at the other parent’s house. The other parent can block or facilitate direct contact between participants and their children during absence.
Communication channels
Participants noted that the communication medium or channel facilitates and constrains access to their children. The primary means of communication between the participants and their children during absence is telephone, although some participants with older children report using the Internet as well. Ian (D; 11; 29%) noted, “There ain’t a whole lot you can do when they’re not there. I mean basically just phone call is all I can do.” In some cases parents arrange to call the children. John (D; 5; 21%) has a specific pattern, “We talk two, three times a week. I usually call like Mondays and Wednesdays, usually about 6 o’clock, 6.30 at night.” Other parents let their children contact them. Gary (NM; 9; 21%) talks to his daughter “usually at least once a day. Sometimes she’ll call and call and call.” About half indicated that both the participant and the child initiate contact. Ryan (NM; 6; 36%) typically calls his son, but his son calls him occasionally, “I will call him and talk with him at night. [Son’s mother] will have him call me for some reason. Like he lost his bottom teeth, so that was a huge event and he had to call and tell me about that, that he lost his tooth and the tooth-fairy is going to come.”
Participants indicated that the phone conversations are typically very brief, often 5 to 10 minutes. The children are often involved in other activities or may not feel like talking. Zach (D; 10; 21%) mentioned that his son may not want to spend a lot of time talking on the phone: I usually don’t keep the conversation very long because my dad and mom were divorced also, and I know there were a thousand things I wanted to do other than talk on the phone. So I just say hi and just calling to see how your day went, how school was. And just stuff like that. I usually tell him I know there’s a thousand things you’d rather be doing than talking to me right now, so I’m going to let you go. And he’s usually off the phone before I say bye.
When Andrew’s (NM; 6; 21%) son calls him, “it's almost like I call him up. He calls and wants to talk to dad, but when he gets on the phone, he’s not sure what to say. So dad has to initiate conversation and get him going.” Many of the participants recognize that the phone conversations are more about simply connecting with their children during absence than having meaningful conversations. For instance, Scott (D; 4, 6; 50%) described the conversations with his kids as, “‘Hi dad. I love you dad. Bye dad.’ It’s just a friendly hello.”
Catching up
Participants indicated that lack of knowledge about what their children are doing affects the way that they communicate and try to maintain relationships with their children. For participants who see their children less frequently, this lack of knowledge can make it difficult to communicate initially. For example, Brian (NM; 10; other) sees his son several times a year. The long length of absence combined with infrequent contact during absence affects communication with his child. He explained: Like when you see anybody you haven’t seen in 6 months or a year, there’s always that little bit of apprehension or that little bit of uncomfortablity around that person for the first 10 or 15 min until you get used to them again and until you realize that they’re the same person.
To compensate for the absence, participants engage in communication that is aimed at “catching up.” They want to try to learn about what they have missed during absence so they ask their children to provide them with updates. For example, Ryan (NM; 6; 36%) explained, “I try to do as much as I can as far as finding out how his week went or what he did throughout the week. If I know there were certain events that happened, I ask him about those events and things like that.” Karl (NM; 6, 10; 21%) recognizes that while the other parent learns about their child through daily conversation, he has to try to learn about life during absence all at one time. He commented, “My oldest daughter where she lives with her mom, she talks to her about school and whatnot on a day-to-day basis. Whereas I’m trying to learn everything that happened for the last 2 weeks in a weekend.” Chad (D; 7, 13; 43%) expressed that he cannot catch up with his children as he would like because it would draw attention to the situation. Instead, he tries to make it feel more normal: It’s hard because I feel like I want to catch up with them but I don’t want to pepper them with questions either. So I find that I ask a lot of the same things that I would probably ask them anyway, which is the how was your day kind of questions and what did you do?
The catching up process often continues throughout the presence period. Participants and their children talk about their children’s lives away, how the children are doing in school, their children’s friends, sports, and a wide variety of other topics
Extraction
Participants conveyed that while their children sometimes provide them with basic updates, particularly when they first see their children, these updates are often insufficient. One problem that participants encounter in catching up is that children are not always very good at describing what occurred during absence. Sometimes, children do not feel like talking about the past. As a result, parents must often dig for and try to extract information. Lynn (D; 11, 14; 43%) commented: I would say, ‘How’s your day?’ You have to question them extensively to get them to talk. Now I’m a little more conscious of trying to tell them something about my day and myself so they can know me. But mainly I’d just question them. Sometimes they would tell me stuff and sometimes it was one-word answers. I would try not to get offended or hurt by that.
Mark (D; 5, 7; 29%) also talked about inconsistency in what his children tell him. He stated, “We talk about whatever they bring up. It’s usually not very consistent. Maybe who they’ve been playing with and sometimes they’ll tell me about school. Sometimes it’s just, ‘Nothing. I don’t know. I played with Marty.” Brian (NM; 10; other) noted that he often has to work to learn about his son’s life. He explained: He doesn’t really talk too much. Unless you prompt the conversation he’s pretty, unless somebody brings up something that he’s interested in … He’s kind of a shy kid, so you have to kind of ask him a question and he’ll start going on the answer … There really isn’t too much conversation provoked from his end.
Wade (D; 9, 13; 36%), too, reported that he often has trouble “just getting their attention normally, because they’re so wrapped up in their friends.” As a result, when he talks to his children about their previous week, he usually has to “dig it out of them.” The process of extracting information from their children is a challenge for many participants.
Highlights
Even when children do provide updates about the events that occurred in their lives during absence, they tend to focus on the big, exciting, memorable elements rather than the day-to-day mundane details of their lives. For example, Mark (D; 5, 7; 29%) described the updating process with his children: They usually report what’s been going on, what maybe happened that day. Like their dog did something real cute or something that’s in their mind, more specific recent, poignant, or rememberable things that recently happened. Sometimes they’ll tell me if they saw a movie last night, but that’s about as far back as it usually goes.
Nick (D; 3, 6; 36%) also noted, “They don’t tell me every detail of what they did last weekend or something unless it was remarkable.” In short, participants indicated that they cannot depend on their children to provide thorough and accurate updates about their lives during absence. They must somehow extract the information from their children or go without it.
Other sources
Because some participants lack information about the day-to-day lives of their children, they often rely on other sources for additional information. Participants recognize that the other parent has a lot more knowledge about their children than they have. For instance, Andrew (NM; 6; 21%) acknowledged that when he wants to know about his son’s school performance, he needs to ask the other parent. He explained, “She knows. She’s with him 99 to 95% of the time. She knows more about him than I do.” Ian (D; 11; 29%) also gets updates about his children from the other parent. He stated, “I talk to her mom and find out what’s going on with them.” However, not all participants have good relationships with the other parent. The other parent can actively block access to information. Eric (NM; 2; other) receives little or no information about his child during absence because the other parent will not speak to him. He explained: Any time I call her, she sometimes picks up, which is one out of a hundred chances. I can’t call the house … I just gotta wait until she calls me back … I guess I’m probably missing out. I gotta wait until she calls me and tells me how Jacqueline is doin’ instead of her just callin’ me on a regular basis telling me how my daughter’s doing.
These participants recognize that the other parent is more informed about their children’s daily lives and complain about lack of information from the other parent about their children.
Another source of information is their kids’ conversations with others. Specifically, when stepsiblings or half-siblings are present, the kids will catch up together. Karl (NM; 6, 10; 21%) has children with two different women. He has his kids on the same weekend. He explained that he learns about the time they were away by listening to their conversations. A lot of times, they’ll spend a lot of their time talking to each other, telling each other what’s been going on, which helps. Sometimes they’ll tell each other things that they don’t think to tell me. So, if there’s something I was curious about that one of them said, then I can always ask them questions about it.
Chad (D; 7, 13; 43%) actually complained that his children “are much more interested in kids their age than the adults when they’re together.”
Discussion
The purpose of this research is to explore how absence associated with the visitation cycle influences communication patterns between NRPs and their biological children. This research suggests that parents construct and interpret their custody situations differently, which in turn shapes how they maintain relationships with their children. NRP-child interaction is influenced by several important factors: the structure of the visitation cycle, parents’ philosophies about communication boundaries, the relationship with the other parent, and the opportunities and means for communicating with their children during absence.
At a basic level, NRP-child communication is shaped by how much ‘presence’ time custody agreements grant the NRP. Many of the people in this study had their children every other weekend and sometimes one day during the week. As a result, opportunities for face-to-face contact and daily interaction are limited. Similar to findings in other research (e.g., Seltzer & Brandreth, 1994) NRPs’ relationships with the other parent could facilitate opportunities for interaction, for example, through phone calls or visits during absence, or constrain interaction when the relationship was negative or conflictual by restricting access to the child.
The NRPs’ attitudes and philosophies about the visitation cycle also influenced interaction. Some NRPs feel that they should be able to talk to their child at any point, while others viewed presence time exclusive to the present parent. These attitudes guided how much effort NRPs put into interacting with their children during absence. Other research also indicates that parents in stepfamilies can differ in the degree to which they view the divorce decree as a legal document that dictates the structure of the visitation cycle versus the degree as a negotiating guide (Schrodt, Baxter, McBride, Braithwaite, & Fine, 2006).
The net effect of these different factors seems to be the construction of a communication boundary between households that is permeable (free-flowing communication at any time), semipermeable (some interaction through phone calls, texting, or attending events), or nonpermeable (no nonfunctional interaction) during absence. The idea that families construct and manage boundaries is not new. Changes in family structure, for example, through divorce, necessitate changes in the conception and maintenance of boundaries. Family members work to create clear boundaries and when those boundaries are ambiguous, families, particularly divorced and stepfamilies, are likely to struggle (Afifi, 2003; Minuchin, 1974; Stewart, 2005). This research reveals more about how the construction of boundaries between households ultimately shapes communication patterns between NRPs and their children, particularly in facilitating or constraining opportunities for communication during absence.
Better understanding of the nature of these communication boundaries is important as interaction patterns are central to constructing positive or negative NRP-child relationships, which can affect children’s well-being following divorce (Simons, Whitbeck, Beaman, & Conger, 1994). Future research should examine the relationship between how parents construct communication boundaries, how they think about their roles as parents, and the nature of the parental relationship. For example, future studies could ask, how does the construction of communication boundaries influence communication among NRPs and their children? How do these boundaries get constructed? How are they negotiated? How are these boundaries tied to the ways that each parent views the other parent and their co-parenting relationship?
The findings also point to the importance of catching up and challenges that some NRPs face in interacting with their children. A number of NRP participants, particularly those who have limited contact with their children during absence, complain that they have a difficult time ‘knowing’ their children because they miss out on much of their children’s lives. They indicate that they do not have access to information that would normally emerge through face-to-face, day-to-day mundane conversations, for example, when getting ready for school, eating dinner, and playing. Although these NRPs report that they try to catch up with and extract information from their children when they reunite, children are often reluctant to share more than highlights. NRPs may rely on other sources for information or base conversations on the information they know, yet, for many, this information is insufficient for creating meaningful dialogue.
Previous research has identified catching up and recapping events as common communication patterns in daily conversation (Alberts et al., 2005; Goldsmith & Baxter, 1996; Schrodt et al., 2007). Sigman’s (1991) work on relational continuity constructional units also points to the importance of updating in relationships. He argues that individuals engage in retrospective communication, such as catching up and affirming, following absence to signal that the relationship does not end when individuals are not together. However, the findings in this study suggest that updating as a process may be more meaningful than simply indicating the ongoing nature of the relationship. Updating and storytelling may play an important role in actively maintaining relationships.
Scholars regularly point to narratives and stories as important in structuring one’s life and as a means of constructing and negotiating reality with others (Bruner, 1990; Fisher, 1984). These findings support Bamberg’s (2004) and Georgakopoulou’s (2006, 2007) work on small stories. They describe a genre of narratives that occur in ordinary conversations such as telling of recent or ongoing events (breaking news), future events (projections), and shared stories (De Fina & Georgakopoulou, 2012). Through day-to-day conversations, individuals update ongoing stories and share new stories of experiences. Engaging in storytelling is one of the ways that family members communicatively construct and “do” family (Langellier & Peterson, 2006). Participation in family storytelling, whether as a teller or a listener, is also important for understanding one’s place in the family (Stone, 1988). Engaging in small stories can play an important role in both connecting with family members and helping families create a shared identity (Georgakopoulou 2007; Tovares, 2010). The results from this study suggest that knowing one’s children occurs partly by being familiar with and participating in the storylines that make up the background of their lives.
In this sense, providing or receiving mundane updates on the many events that affect an individual’s life becomes both a way of knowing someone and a way of maintaining the relationship through talk. Without access to the storylines, for example, who their children’s friends are, what is going on in school, it becomes difficult for some NRPs to talk with their children. Because updates on mundane stories often emerge in the moment, they may not be revealed during the post-absence updating processes that tend to focus on about the most memorable or most recent events that occurred during absence. In short, this research suggests that storytelling and updating that emerges through naturally occurring day-to-day conversation becomes an important part of maintaining a relationship.
This is an area that should be studied further by communication researchers. Specifically, future research should examine how engaging in day-to-day updating and storytelling acts to maintain relationships. It seems that in many relationships, as we come to know someone, we come to understand their storied lives. Much of relationship maintenance then is asking about, updating, and following the stories of our relational partners. Conversely, when we have not spoken with someone for a while, we may lose track of the mundane stories. Updating processes may then focus on highlighting and summarizing major events. We may struggle to maintain close relationships when stories are not shared. Further understanding the role of updating as maintenance is important not just in NRP-child relationships but in other parent–child relationships in which absence is significant, for example, parents in the armed forces and parents who travel a lot for work.
Limitations and additional future research
This study is based on a sample of NRPs with a variety of visitation arrangements and children of different ages. Despite this variation, clear patterns emerged. Yet, future research should consider focusing on more homogeneous group, for example, with particular types of custody arrangements, martial/nonmarital backgrounds, or ages of children. This study also includes only the perspective of the NRP. Future research would benefit from gaining the children’s perspectives as well, particularly since they tend to be underrepresented in research (Miller-Day et al., 2013).
With the growth of social media and texting as a way of communicating, it would be prudent to further investigate how they shape NRP-child communication during absence. Only a few participants (who had teenage children) mentioned the use of technology such as e-mailing or texting in this study. It is likely that the frequency of using texting and social media sites has increased since this data were collected. Future research should examine how they help facilitate maintenance communication between NRPs and children during absence, particularly since they may seem less intrusive than phone calls.
Finally, the process of ‘updating’ is an important component of participating in a variety of types of social media like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Vine (e.g., Page, 2010). Research could examine how communicating in these systems influences relationship maintenance, particularly for relationships that involve limited face-to-face contact. It would be good to determine the extent to which following others’ status updates help in knowing someone and the ways in which it intersects with and influences face-to-face communication patterns.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.