Pre- and Post-Conception Relationship Duration and Parental Involvement Satisfaction among Noncustodial African American Fathers

Abstract

This study examines how parental involvement satisfaction (PIS) in terms of accessibility, engagement, and responsibility (A-E-R) among of noncustodial African American fathers (NCAAFs) may be explained by the pre- and post-conception relationship durations they have with their children’s mothers, controlling for quality of communication satisfaction (QCS) with the mothers. Method: A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed with a sample size of N=163 NCAAFS who were surveyed participants in the Parenting Time Visitation Program (PTVP) in Atlanta and Savannah, Georgia communities. Results: There no significant relationships found between pre/post-conception relationship durations and PIS in terms of A-E-R, even when controlling for QCS. Correlational and crosstabulation analyses did reveal some interesting patterns of note. Discussion: This study extends the literature on noncustodial father involvement with their children and provides valuable insight to co-parenting studies.

Keywords

parental involvement fatherless homes Unwed fathers noncustodial fathers African American fathers

The rise in the rates of divorce, the increase in child birth to single cohabitating, co-residence, and noncustodial unmarried parents has increased as two-parent nuclear family structures have been declining (Johnson, 2001). Thus, the untethering of marriage and childbirth has been accompanied by a redefinition of family structure (Su & Emory, 2020). The diversity in family structures has witnessed a shift in what constitutes fatherhood (Su & Emory, 2020). According to Su and Emory (2020) “…men are increasingly navigating their roles as parents and partners without the institutionalized norms and expectations associated with marriage” (p. 1625).

Prior to the early twenty-first century, research on fatherhood, compared to the extensive body of knowledge on motherhood, had been sorely lacking in the social work literature (Hooks & Chalasani, 2008; Strug & Wilmore-Schaeffer, 2003). Reasons for this sparse attention includes: (1) the obscure recognition of the positive influences fathers have on child development in policies and practices; (2) the lack of research evidence on the benefits of fatherhood on child development; (3) a culture of research bias that links child development primarily to the role of mothers; and (4) the lack of the appropriate inclusion, eligibility criteria, and financial support for fathers in social service policies (Cabrera et al., 2000; Marsiglio et al., 2000; Strug & Wilmore-Schaeffer, 2003; Bronter-Tinkew et al., 2010; Nygren et al., 2019). More than ever before, current policy initiatives, such as paternal leave, have resulted in increased involvement of socioeconomically fragile noncustodial fathers with their children (Knoester et al., 2019).

Recent estimates suggest that about 24 million children reside in homes with a father (Yogman & Eppel, 2022); and that 1:4 children live in homes without a step, biological, or adoptive father (Fatherhood Initiative, 2020). Additionally, numerous studies found a negative relationship between the absence of fathers and mental health outcomes for children and their custodial parent (Cabrera et al., 2000; Harris, 2002; Mendle et al., 2009; Steinberg, 1987) with long-standing and pervasive implications on intergenerational well-being, behavioral health, poverty, and criminal justice (National Fatherhood Initiative, 2016; McLanahan et al., 2014; Gupta & Featherstone, 2016). In terms of policy priorities in the United States, the barometer for a fathers' involvement in their children’s lives has primarily been the provision of financial support (Cancian et al., 2013). Eventually, the presence and engagement of fathers was seen as nurturing and vital to a child’s overall psychological, physical, and social wellbeing, which broaden the barometer for paternal involvement in policy and practice (Arditti & Keith, 1993; Argys et al., 1998; Mincy & Sorensen, 1998; Yogman & Eppel, 2022). For example, in 2000, President George W. Bush shined the light on responsible fatherhood with intentional focus on the role of noncustodial fathers. Thus, research on fathers and fatherhood ensured with more prevalence and impact in the child and family wellbeing, child development, and child welfare spaces.

Literature on Fatherhood

The literature on fatherhood includes a range of studies on the lived experiences of custodial and noncustodial fathers, their impact on multiple ecological conditions, and factors that affect their level of involvement with their children. Overwhelmingly, studies found that custodial fathers were more likely to be older, educated, married, and Caucasian (Carlson et al., 2017; Lindberg et al., 2017). Custodial fathers were also more likely to report intended births, reflect higher levels of interactions with their children, and less likely to report mistimed or unwanted births than their noncustodial counterparts (Lindberg et al., 2017). Also, no matter the status of custody, those who intended and wanted to become fathers reported higher levels of self-appraisals of their roles as fathers than their counterparts (Lindberg et al., 2017). Further, intended and wanted births and embracing the role of being a father were associated with frequent and quality father involvement and father–child interactions (Lerman, 2010).

Literature on Parental Involvement of Noncustodial Fathers

Lamb (2000) reviewed the literature and identified three categories of paternal involvement, which were accessibility, engagement, and responsibility. Per the literature, accessibility referred to access to the child (i.e., cooking while the child is in another room), while engagement referred to direct interactions with the child (i.e., helping the child with their homework), and responsibility to actively owning and being involved in ensuring the child’s care and welfare (i.e., knowing when the child needs to go to the pediatrician) (Lamb, 2000). Regarding the involvement of fathers who do not have custody of their child(ren), there are numerous studies that examined factors that facilitated and hindered their involvement with their children. One such study conducted by (Roberts et al., 2014) found that parent education and training on fathering, a supportive relationship with the custodial mother, supports from their family of origin, and church positively facilitated father involvement. Conversely, hindrances to involvement included custodial mother’s interference with the relationship between father and child, negative messaging by the custodial mother to the child about the noncustodial father, conflict with the custodial parent, visitation with their children being contingent on making child support payments, and financial hardships and limited resources (Roberts et al., 2014; Strug & Wilmore-Schaeffer, 2003; Yuan, 2016). Other factors identified were the nature of his relationship with his father, the family structure of his upbringing, religious belief and participation, having children with multiple women, having children with someone other than their current wife (from a previous marriage or relationship), geographical distance from their children, and psychological wellbeing (Guzzo, 2014; Yogman & Eppel, 2022).

There is also a robust body of research on the involvement of noncustodial fathers during the post-conception period—during and after pregnancy. According to Yogman and Eppel (2022) the prenatal stage is where father involvement begins. A google search bears out the lack of focus in research on the prconception role of fathers (with exceptions noted, for example, see Roy, 2008). This makes perfect sense. Given the lack of any embryio there is no reason to ascribe parenthood status when conception has not commenced. Yet, the research on the nature of the unmarried couples’ relationship is informative. Edin and Tach (2012) depict the causal nature of the unmarried couples’ preconception relationship as a one-sided view held by the unmarried male, which differs from the views of his unmarried female counterpart. Edin and Tach (2012) observe that many of the pregnancies that result from these casual relationships are not planned births. Yet, we know that, post-conception paternal involvement is associated with decreased risks of prenatal crises (i.e., early preterm birth, low birth weight.) (Alio et al., 2010; Ghosh et al., 2010) and improved maternal mental health outcomes (Ghosh et al., 2010; Ngui et al., 2009). Ellberbe et al. (2018) found that the quality of post-conception relationships between the nonresident fathers and mothers and its effect on paternal involvement has also been found to be a strong indicator of their ability to co-parent effectively and how involved the father will be throughout their children’s lives.

Literature on NCAAF Parental Involvement

The literature of noncustodial fathers also reveals the unique experiences of NCAAFs compared to others (Yogman & Eppel, 2022). A common theme in the literature regarding NCAAFs is that they had fewer intact and consistent relationships with their children than noncustodial fathers of other races. In addition to grappling with the hindrances mentioned above, other distinct issues NCAAFs reported as impediments to their involvement and engagement include being more likely to have nonexistent or infrequent contact with their fathers during childhood (Varga, 2011), a history of incarceration (Arditti et al., 2019), and increased psychological distress (Yuan, 2016). However, in a more positive light, NCAAFs who were involved in their children’s lives have been found to have higher quality father-child interactions and relationships than those of other races (Ellerbe et al., 2018; Yuan, 2016). Achatz and MacAllum (1994) documented evidence that NCAAFs were more engaged and participatory in prenatal care and early childhood development activities. Citing findings from research conducted by Jones & Mosher (2013) and Edin & Nelson (2013), Yogman and Eppel (2022) stated, “Black fathers, while more likely to be nonresident than white fathers (24% versus 8%), were found to be more engaged than nonresident white fathers, giving support with dressing, bathing, and reading to their children in the early months” (p. 25). Similarly, Tamis-Lemonda, Kabana-Kalman, and Yoshikawa (2009) found high levels of involvement during the prenatal stages among Dominican, Mexican, and African American fathers in their longitudinal research on the prenatal predictors and correlates of postnatal involvement. This study reported evidence that high prenatal involvement was a strong predictor of postnatal involvement in terms of time spent alone, eating meals, serving as the primary caregiver in the mother’s absence, and engaging in other activities with their children.

On the contrary, however, other race-based comparative studies have presented different results. For example, Varga (2011) found that NCAAFs fathers were less likely to be involved during the prenatal phase of child development than their Caucasian and Hispanic/Latino counterparts. Gee et al., 2007 posited that NCAAFs offered less in-kind paternal involvement and support than Caucasian and Latino fathers. Similarly, Lerman and Sorensen (2000) pointed out more involvement among Latino noncustodial fathers than noncustodial African American and Caucasian fathers.

Nevertheless, for all fathers, Knox et al. (2011) provided evidence that responsible fatherhood programs increased child support compliance by noncustodial parents. However, these programs designed to work solely with noncustodial fathers have faced challenges increasing father engagement with their children due to focusing on the provision of financial support. Fortunately, due to the emergence of impactful research, evidence is now available on the positive effect of parent education and skill enhancement programs on noncustodial father-child interactions and co-parenting relationships with mothers (Fackerall et al., 2011; Sigal et al., 2011).

Taken altogether, it is well-documented that the quality of the father–mother relationship during pregnancy, married or not, has a significant impact on the parental involvement of the noncustodial parents. In other words, the extant literature is primarily focused on how well noncustodial fathers and custodial mothers get along and mostly after learning they are pregnant. However, to dive deeper, it begs to question if the duration of relationships, pre-conception (up to the time of becoming pregnant) and post-conception (during pregnancy and beyond), also influence later involvement or satisfaction with involvement of noncustodial fathers with their children. On a more granular level, this study will explore whether the duration of pre- (PreCon) and post-conception (PostCon) relationships between NCAAFs and mothers explains the extent these fathers are satisfied with their parental involvement (PIS) in terms access to their children, engagement with their, and responsibility for their children [A-E-R] (Lamb, 2000); and how their satisfaction with the quality of communication (QCS) with mothers moderate relationships between the primary factors. Currently, there is a dearth of research on this topic, especially as it pertains to NCAAFs (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2009) and even less, on the relationship between fatherhood fulfillment and father involvement (Trahan & Cheung, 2018). Thus, the overarching goal of this study is to further advance knowledge and understanding of challenges to fathers being involved in their children’s lives. The aim is to specifically expand the knowledge and facilitate better outcomes for NCAAFs and their children by informing and promoting stronger policies and programming that target this population.

Method

Study Design

The purpose of this study was to highlight factors that may explain the extent of fulfillment NCAAFs have being involved in their children’s lives and advance the overall welfare of African American fathers and their children. Specifically, PreCon and PostCon relationship durations between NCAAFs and the mothers of their children and the father’s PIS were examined. Thus, this explanatory cross-sectional study was designed to ascertain if the PreCon and PostCon relationship durations explain PIS in terms of A-E-R, as well as any moderating effect of QCS. Therefore, the research questions were as follows:

1. Do PreCon relationship durations significantly effect PIS in terms of A-E-R among NCAAFS participating in a Parenting Time Visitation Program (PTVP)?

2. Do PostCon relationship durations significantly effect PIS in terms of A-E-R among NCAAFs participating in a PTVP?

3. Does the QCS with mothers moderate the relationship between PreCon and PostCon relationship durations and PIS among NCAAFs?

According to Engel and Schutt (2017), the research design for this study is appropriate because it “seeks to identify causes and effects of social phenomena and to predict how one phenomenon will change or vary in response to variation in some other phenomenon” (explanatory) (pg. 13) and the data for analysis was collected at one point in time (cross-sectional) (Drake & Jonson-Reid, 2008; Engel & Schutt, 2017).

Research Criteria

There were several criteria for being a participant in this study. Participants must have been a) an African American male, b) divorced, separated, and/or never married, c) a father, d) a noncustodial parent to at least one child, d) required to pay child support through the Georgia Office of Child Support Enforcement, and e) enrolled in the PTVP for at least one week. These fathers voluntarily sought assistance with seeing their children from the PTVP. They were also residents of Georgia, who reported both the mother (custodial parent) and child also lived in the state.

The PTVP began in June 1998 to address the needs of noncustodial parents seeking access to and visitation with their children. Services provided through this program include a parenting seminar, initial assessment, counseling, mediation, development of parenting plans, and three forms of visitation: supervised, neutral drop-off and pick-up, and monitored visits. Upon the initial intake session, program participants were required to attend a two-hour seminar called “Parenting Time,” This seminar consisted of an overview of program services and state visitation laws, which included topics on establishing paternity, legitimation, and obtaining visitation. Fathers with a history of family violence were excluded from the program. Following the seminar each program participant was given an appointment within seven days to meet with one of nine licensed social workers, who served as Parenting Time Case Managers throughout metropolitan Atlanta, to receive services. These case managers had a bachelor’s degree in a social science field and related experience working with fathers.

Further, to conduct this study, researchers received approval from the Institutional Review Board of Clark Atlanta University Human Subjects Office initially in 2007 and 2016 (approval renewed).

Study Sample

Using a convenience sampling method, data were extracted from databased case records of 200 current and former program participants located in Atlanta and Savannah, Georgia areas. Participants were selected based on file completeness, enrollment in the program for at least one-week, and acknowledgement of involvement with the child or contact with the custodial parent. Seven participants did not satisfy these criteria leaving a resultant sample for final analyses of N = 163 participants.

Data Collection

The data used for this study were collected via the “Parent Involvement Survey.” Program participants completed the survey within 90-days of program enrollment, which allow for flexibility to accommodate schedules of the fathers. Fathers completed the survey independently unless assistance was needed due to literacy issues. When necessary, case managers, who received survey training, would administer the instrument to participants. Program participants were informed that the survey was part of a study designed to understand barriers to father involvement and completing it was voluntary and not a condition or requirement of their PTVP participation or child support compliance. They were also informed that their identity and responses would remain confidential. However, fathers were required to sign an informed consent form prior to completing the survey.

Instrumentation

For this study, a modification of White’s (1997, 2016) Factors that Influence Parental Participation among African American Unwed Fathers instrument was used. Literature on Fatherhood of the instrument solicited demographic information such as age and ethnicity on the custodial parent. Literature on Parental Involvement of Noncustodial Fathers collected information on the parent’s history of companionship and the number of children with the custodial parent, their marital status, length of time together before, and after the child was conceived. Literature on NCAAF Parental Involvement queried legal status regarding the father’s established paternity, legitimation, visitation rights, and shared custody status. In Methods, fathers were asked how satisfied they were with their parental involvement, in terms of accessibility, engagement, and responsibility. There were three items that measured satisfaction with accessibility (physical access to child(ren), telephone access to child(ren), correspondence with child(ren)) and engagement (regular visits with child(ren), visiting child(ren) at school, participating in activities with child(ren)); and four items that measured satisfaction with responsibility (for healthcare, providing homework assistance, listed as an emergency contact, financial contributions to meet child(ren)’s needs). In Results, fathers were asked how satisfied they were with the quality of their communication with the mothers of their children (amount of communication with the mother, opportunity to speak with mother to discuss child-related issues, ability to negotiate disagreements, the way disagreements are set aside for the child(ren)’s benefit), which was measured with four items. Table 1 displays the items for Sections IV and V; and each item was measured using a Likert Scale where 1 = Completely Satisfied, 2 = Somewhat Satisfied, 3 = Take it as it comes, 4 = Somewhat dissatisfied, and 5 = Completely Dissatisfied.

Table 1.

Demographics and Variable Characteristics (N = 163).

	M (SD)	# (%)
Age	34.26 (7.47)
My monthly child support amount	319.36 (184.87)
My child support is current (1) behind (2)	1.58 (0.50)
Access total score	7.78 (4.42)
Engagement total score	7.59 (4.27)
Responsibility total score	12.13 (4.47)
Quality of communication satisfaction	10.19 (2.79)
Pre-conception relationship duration
< 1		20 (12)
1–3		18 (11)
4–6		15 (9)
7–12		37 (23)
13–42		48 (29)
43–88		18 (11)
89 ≤		7 (4)
Post-conception relationship duration
< 1		47 (29)
1–3		19 (12)
4–6		14 (9)
7–12		20 (12)
13–42		32 (20)
43–88		21 (13)
89 ≤		10 (6)

The modified data collection instrument was tested for its reliability using the Cronbach’s alpha (α) statistic, which provides a coefficient of internal consistency based on the average inter-item correlations (Engel & Schutt, 2017). For this study, the Cronbach’s alpha model was conducted for three scales (A-E-R) and QCS. The Cronbach’s alpha of each variable was α = 0.921, 0.912, 0.731, and 0.907, respectively. Inter-item correlations were also within acceptable limit. The “access” measure would only slightly increase in reliability (+0.003) if item “satisfied with physical access to my child” were removed. Given the current strength, it was determined to retain this item. “Engagement” and “responsibility” measures would weaken if questions were removed. Scale reliability for the QCS measure would also increase by .057 if item, “satisfied with opportunity to get with custodial parent (CP) to discuss child related issues,” is removed. Therefore, it was determined that removing the item would not significantly affect the current strength of the measure, as it was well within the desired range.

Treatment of the Data

For analyses, several data transformations were performed. First, the Likert Scale items used to assess levels of A-E-R were transformed so that the higher values would indicate increased satisfaction. For example, “completely satisfied” was changed from 1 to 5 and “completely dissatisfied” from 5 to 1. Then, a summative score for the A-E-R variables were computed and scores ranges for “access” and “engagement” was 3 to 15 and 4 to 20 for “responsibility.” Thus, the lowest score indicates the least satisfied and higher scores, the most satisfied. The A-E-R variables were also transformed to categorical so that satisfaction scores for “access” and “engagement” were grouped as “practically no satisfaction” (scores between 3–5), “low satisfaction” (6–8 scores), “moderate satisfaction” (9–11 scores) and “high satisfaction” (12–15 scores); and for “responsibility,” “practically no satisfaction” (4–7 scores), “low satisfaction” (8–11 scores), “moderate satisfaction” (12–15 scores), and “high satisfaction” (16–20 scores). Lastly, new categorical variables for PreCon and PostCon were also created to group the relationship durations (months). Therefore, the six groups for PreCon and PostCon relationship durations were “less than a month,” “1–3 months,” “4–6 months,” “7–12 months,” “13 to 42 months,” “43–88 months,” and “89 or more months.”

Measures

PIS was conceptualized in terms of Lamb’s (2000) three categories: access, engagement, and responsibility, which were the dependent variables for this study.

(1) Access to the child(ren) refers to the father’s ability to reach the child in person, through phone calls, and/or using social media. His perceived level satisfaction here is critical to his ability to engage in the parenting process.

(2) Engagement with the child(ren) refers to the father’s participation in the parenting process, including but not limited to, regular visitation, visiting child at school, and attending school functions and extra-curricular activities such as church outing, sporting events, and field trips.

(3) Responsibility for the child(ren) refers to the father’s general caretaking role of raising children, including but not limited to, making decisions regarding healthcare, assisting with homework, being listed as an emergency contact for the school, and meeting financial needs of the child to include, and/or go beyond, child support obligations.

The Independent Variables were:

(1) Pre-conception (PreCon), defined as the duration of the relationship before the child was conceived (up to the time of becoming pregnant). Participants were asked “before conception, how long were you together?”

(2) Post-Conception (PostCon), defined as the duration of the relationship after the child was conceived (during pregnancy and beyond). Participants were asked “After conception, how long were you together?”

Both PreCon and PostCon variables were numerically expressed as number of months such that responses of “0” indicated that the mother and father were together for less than a month up to the moment of conception. During data entry of surveys, some participants made notes on the instrument that duration together would be better reflected as days or weeks. This suggests patterns of engaging in sexual activity without traditional nuances found in dating or courtship.

Lastly, the moderator variable was “quality of communication satisfaction” (QCS) with the mothers, who are the custodial parent (CP), of the study participants’ children. QCS referred to the NCAAFs’ ability to communicate productively, respectfully discuss child-related matters, and negotiate and set aside disagreements for the best interest of their child(ren) with the mothers of their child(ren). This element of the relationship between the NCAAFs and CP can significantly moderate the involvement of NCAAFs with their children and provide insight into the strength of co-parenting relationships. This assumption is consistent with commonly cited views in the literature of CPs at times serving as gatekeepers (Fagan & Palkovitz, 2011).

We also hypothesize that longer PreCon and PostCon relationship durations, especially the greater the QCS, will coincide with increased PIS in terms of access, engagement, and responsibility. That is, NCAAFS that had longer relationships (PreCon and PostCon) with the mothers of their child(ren) were more satisfied with their parental involvement than those with shorter relationships; and their QCS with the mothers influenced the extent of their PIS.

Analytic Strategy

Multiple rounds of analyses (univariate, bivariate, and multivariate) of these variables were conducted to compute descriptive and correlational statistics. Additionally, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed to answer the research questions above. Performing a MANCOVA test is appropriate here because it test the statistical significance of the effect of one or more independent variables (PreCon and PostCon) on a set of two or more dependent variables (A-E-R), after controlling for covariate(s) (QCS) (Rubin, 2012). All analyses were conducted using version 28 of IBM’s Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

Results

Univariate Analyses

Table 1 displays the demographics and variable characteristics for the N= 163 NCAAFs participating in this study. Their ages ranged between 20 and 62 years (M = 34.26; SD = 7.47). All reported having monthly child support payments that ranged between $71 and $1,179 (M = 319.36; SD = 184.87). Sixty-eight (41.7%) reported being current while the majority (n = 95; 58.3%) reported being in arrears. A majority (n = 95; 58.3%) reported that their payment amount was fair. The mean scores for the “access” and “engagement” dimensions of PIS were M = 7.78 and 7.59, respectively. These scores represented low satisfaction with their access to and engagement with their child(ren). Regarding the “responsibility” dimension, the M = 12.13, which indicates moderate satisfaction with the level of responsibility they have for their child(ren). Table 1 also shows the descriptive statistics for the IVs. Of the N = 163 NCAAF participants, more reported being in PreCon relationships 13–14 months (n = 48, 29%), 7–12 months (n = 37, 23%), and less than a month (n = 20, 12%). In terms of PostCon relationships, more reported less than a month (n = 47, 29%), 13–42 months (n = 32, 20%), and 43–88 months (n = 21, 13%).

Bivariate Analyses

Correlational analyses were conducted to ascertain the direction and strength of relationships between the dependent (A-E-R), independent (PreCon and PostCon), and moderator (QCS) variables. As shown in Table 2, all significant correlations between variables were found to be positive, but the strengths of the relationships varied. Only “access” and “engagement” were found to be strongly correlated (r = 0.85; p < .01) with a strong effect size which indicate the variables are strongly correlated. However, moderate correlations were found between “access” and “responsibility (r = 0.59; p < .01), “access” and “QCS” (r = 0.56; p < .01), “engagement” and “responsibility (r = 0.70; p < .01), and “engagement” and “QCS” (r = 0.52; p < .01). These results present a moderate to strong effect size or correlation between varibles. Low correlations were found between “responsibility” and “QCS” (r = 0.48; p < .01) and the IVs (PreCon and PostCon) (r = 0.45; p < .01). However, the effect size suggests that these factors are moderately correlated.

Table 2.

Correlation between the Independent and Dependent Variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Before conception	1
2. After conception	.45**	1
3. Access total	.01	.06	1
4. Engagement total	.05	.07	.85**	1
5. Responsibility total	−.01	−.001	.59**	.70**	1
6. Quality of communication satisfaction	.05	.07	.56**	.52**	.48**	1

***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05

Crosstabulations were performed to determine relationships between variables. Figure 1 shows the crosstabulation between PreCon and PostCon relationship durations, which indicates that a little over half of those who had PostCon relationships to end within 3 months only had a relationship with the mother 0–3 months PreCon. As stated earlier, many participants within this group indicated that the timeframe for their relationship with the mother would have been better represented in terms of days or weeks and suggested “0” time relationship duration as a more accurate depiction. Ungrouped frequencies showed 20 (12%) individuals reported “0” relationship duration before conception, while 47 (29%) reported a “0” time frame after conception. This suggests sex occurred within days of meeting without time for forming a relationship and then, little to no attachment to the mother forming after conception. These patterns support the significant positive but low correlation between PreCon and PostCon relationship durations.

Figure 1.

Before conception by after conception relationship duration.

Additional crosstabulations were performed to examine the intersection between the PreCon and PostCon relationship durations of the NCAAF participants and PIS in terms of A-E-R. As shown in Table 3, a significant interaction was found between PreCon and PostCon (x²(36) = 106.392, p < .001). More of the NCAAFs (n = 17, 10%) reported having a relationship with the mother less than one month before and after conception. However, 11 (7%) who reported being a PreCon relationship for 7–12 months only continued in that relationship less than a month after conception. There were also 11 (7%) of NCAAFs who reported being in a relationship with the mother before and after conception at least one to three years. All other interactions between PreCon and PostCon and A-E-R were not found to be statistically significant, but there were a few notable patterns that emerged when time together was taken into consideration.

Table 3.

Bivariate table for A-E-R and Pre-Conception Relationship Duration (N = 163).

Independent Variables	Pre-Conception Relationship Duration (months)
Independent Variables	< 1 # (%)	1–3 # (%)	4–6 # (%)	7–12 # (%)	13–42 # (%)	43–88 # (%)	89 ≤ # (%)	x²(df)*
Access								9.017 (18)
Practically no satisfaction (3–5 score)	8 (5)	9 (5)	5 (3)	13 (8)	20 (12)	8 (5)	4 (3)
Low satisfaction (6–8 score)	5 (3)	2 (1)	4 (3)	6 (4)	5 (3)	3 (2)	0 (0)
Moderate satisfaction (9–11 score)	2 (1)	3 (2)	3 (2)	9 (6)	8 (5)	2 (1)	1 (1)
High satisfaction (12–15 score)	5 (3)	4 (3)	3 (2)	9 (6)	15 (9)	5 (3)	2 (1)
Engagement								13.270 (18)
Practically no satisfaction (3–5 score)	11 (7)	6 (4)	7 (4)	16 (10)	17 (10)	8 (5)	3 (2)
Low satisfaction (6–8 score)	2 (1)	5 (3)	2 (1)	4 (3)	5 (3)	3 (2)	1 (1)
Moderate satisfaction (9–11 score)	3 (2)	3 (2)	5 (3)	11 (7)	10 (6)	3 (2)	1 (1)
High satisfaction (12–15 score)	4 (3)	4 (3)	1 (1)	6 (4)	16 (10)	4 (3)	2 (1)
Responsibility								20.159 (18)
Practically no satisfaction (4–7 score)	2 (1)	4 (3)	0 (0)	6 (4)	11 (7)	3 (2)	1 (1)
Low satisfaction (8–11 score)	7 (4)	3 (2)	4 (3)	9 (6)	13 (8)	8 (5)	0 (0)
Ate satisfaction (12–15 score)	6 (4)	6 (4)	9 (6)	15 (9)	15 (9)	3 (2)	2 (1)
High satisfaction (16–20 score)	5 (3)	5 (3)	3 (2)	7 (4)	9 (6)	4 (3)	4 (3)
Post-conception relationship duration
< 1	17 (10)	5 (3)	6 (4)	11 (7)	5 (3)	3 (2)	0 (0)	106.392 (36)*
1–3	1 (1)	7 (4)	2 (1)	3 (2)	6 (4)	0 (0)	0 (0)
4–6	0 (0)	2 (1)	5 (3)	3 (2)	4 (3)	0 (0)	0 (0)
7–12	2 (1)	1 (1)	1 (1)	2 (1)	9 (6)	4 (3)	1 (1)
13–42	0 (0)	3 (2)	0 (0)	10 (6)	11 (7)	7 (4)	1 (1)
43–88	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (1)	6 (4)	9 (6)	3 (2)	2 (1)
89 ≤	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (1)	4 (3)	1 (1)	3 (2)

Note. *p < .001.

For example, the NCAAFs reported being either practically unsatisfied (n = 67, 41%) or highly satisfied (n = 43, 26%) with the access they have to their child(ren). Of those who were unsatisfied, most of them were in pre-conception relationships with the mother 13–42 months (n = 20, 30%) or 7–12 months (n = 13, 19%). Similarly, of those who were highly satisfied with their access, most of them were in pre-conception relationships with the mother for 13–42 months (n = 15, 35%). Regarding engagement with their child(ren), most also reported being practically unsatisfied (n = 68, 42%); and of those, most had pre-conception relationships between 7 and 12 months (n = 16, 23%) or 13–42 months (n = 17, 25%). Additionally, those reporting moderate satisfaction (n = 36, 22%) were mostly in PreCon relationships between either 7–12 months (n = 11, 31%) or 13–42 months (n = 10, 28%); and most who reported being highly satisfied (n = 37, 23%) with their engagement were in relationships between 13and 42 months (n = 16, 43%).

Lastly, regarding NCAAFs’ responsibility for their child(ren), most reported a moderate degree of satisfaction (n = 56, 34%); and of them, they were in PreCon relationships equally between 7 and 12 months and 13–42 months (n = 15, 27%). Also, many in a PreCon relationship between 13 and 42 months, reported low satisfaction (n = 13, 23%), practically no satisfaction (n = 11, 20%), or high satisfaction (n = 9, 16%). There were only 7 (4%) NCAAFs that reported being in a PreCon relationship for 89 or more months and more of them reported practically no satisfaction with access (57%) and engagement (43%) compared to high satisfaction with responsibility (57%).

PostCon relationship duration interactions with A-E-R, as shown in Table 4, were fairly like the PreCon interactions. In terms of access, most reported being either practically unsatisfied (n = 67, 41%) or highly satisfied (n = 43, 26%). Of those who were unsatisfied, most had relationships for less than a month (n = 20, 30%) and between 13 and 42 months (n = 15, 22%). Of those who were highly satisfied, most had relationships less than a month (n = 15, 35%) and 7–12 months (n = 8, 19%). In terms of engagement, most were also either unsatisfied (n = 68, 42%) or highly satisfied (n = 37, 23%). Of those that reported practically no satisfaction, most were in PostCon relationships less than a month (n = 22, 32%); and likewise, those who had high satisfaction (n = 10, 27%). Lastly, in terms of responsibility, most reported either moderate satisfaction (n = 56, 34%) or low satisfaction (n = 44, 27%). However, of those who reported moderate and low satisfaction with responsibility, most were in PostCon relationships for less than a month [(n = 17, 30%) and (n = 16, 36%), respectively]. Regarding those in PostCon relationships 89 or more months (n = 10, 6%), there was little variation across all levels of satisfaction in terms of access, engagement, and responsibility.

Table 4.

Bivariate table for A-E-R and Post-Conception Relationship Duration (N = 163).

Independent Variables	Post-Conception Relationship Duration (months)
Independent Variables	< 1 # (%)	1–3 # (%)	4–6 # (%)	7–12 # (%)	13–42 # (%)	43–88 # (%)	89 ≤ # (%)	x²(df)*
Access								13.638 (18)
Practically no satisfaction (3–5 score)	20 (12)	10 (6)	6 (4)	5 (3)	15 (9)	8 (5)	3 (2)
Low satisfaction (6–8 score)	7 (4)	3 (2)	3 (2)	4 (3)	4 (3)	3 (2)	1 (1)
Moderate satisfaction (9–11 score)	5 (3)	5 (3)	2 (1)	3 (2)	7 (4)	3 (2)	3 (2)
High satisfaction (12–15 score)	15 (9)	1 (1)	3 (2)	8 (5)	6 (4)	7 (4)	3 (2)
Engagement								11.424 (18)
Practically no satisfaction (3–5 score)	22 (14)	6 (4)	7 (4)	7 (4)	13 (8)	10 (6)	3 (2)
Low satisfaction (6–8 score)	5 (3)	4 (3)	2 (1)	2 (1)	6 (4)	2 (1)	1 (1)
Moderate satisfaction (9–11 score)	10 (6)	7 (4)	3 (2)	4 (3)	7 (4)	3 (2)	2 (1)
High satisfaction (12–15 score)	10 (6)	2 (1)	2 (1)	7 (4)	6 (4)	6 (4)	4 (3)
Responsibility								10.153 (18)
Practically no satisfaction (4–7 score)	5 (3)	3 (2)	2 (1)	5 (3)	7 (4)	3 (2)	2 (1)
Low satisfaction (8–11 score)	16 (10)	4 (3)	2 (1)	7 (4)	8 (5)	5 (3)	2 (1)
Moderate satisfaction (12–15 score)	17 (10)	8 (5)	6 (4)	3 (2)	12 (7)	7(4)	3 (2)
High satisfaction (16–20 score)	9 (6)	4 (3)	4 (3)	5 (3)	5 (3)	6 (4)	3 (2)

Note. *p < .001.

Multivariate Analyses

A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed to determine the effect of PreCon and PostCon relationship durations on NCAAF’s overall satisfaction with their parental involvement in terms of A-E-R, while controlling for QCS with the mothers/CPs of their children. QCS was significantly related to A-E-R (F(3, 124) = 22.764, p = < .001). No significant effect was found (Wilks' Λ(69, 371.302) = .693, p > .05). Neither access, engagement, or responsibility measures of parental involvement satisfaction among NCAAFs were significantly influenced by PreCon or PostCon relationship durations.

Discussion and Application to Practice

The purpose of this study was to determine if the duration of relationships between NCAAFs and the mothers (CP) of their children, before and after conception, had any influence on the father’s satisfaction with the amount of access they have to their children, opportunities to engage with their children, and the responsibility they have for their children. Their satisfaction with the quality of communication with the CPs was also included in analyses as potential a moderating factor.

Although the multivariate analyses found no significant interactions between pre- and post-conception relationship durations and PIS in terms of A-E-R satisfaction, QCS was found to have a significant effect on NCAAFs’ PIS. This finding is actually consistent with the literature on communication quality between parents that suggests it leads to better co-parenting and better outcomes of children (Fackerall et al., 2011; Sigal et al., 2011). It is also safe to assume that, given mothers (CPs) often act as gatekeepers and regulators of father’s access to their children, the quality of communication would impact the father’s satisfaction levels (Coates & McHale, 2018).

Crosstabulation results also revealed some interesting patterns such as number of participants who only had PreCon relationships with the mothers of their child(ren) less than a month and the number that ended relationships less than one month after conception. The former suggests that superficial or one-night stand sexual encounters that resulted in pregnancies, which suggests the pregnancies were unwanted by the fathers. This finding is consistent with that of Lindberg et al. (2017), who posited that noncustodial fathers were more likely to report mistimed or unwanted births compared to custodial fathers. The latter pattern also speaks to this phenomenon as these very fathers tended to end their relationships with the mothers within the first trimester of pregnancy. For social work practitioners, understanding the commitment and relational patterns are a critical first start when developing effective intervention strategies toward improving PIS.

Nevertheless, the fact that, in this study, PreCon and PostCon relationship durations had no significant influence on the noncustodial parent’s satisfaction levels of A-E-R, suggests that a myriad of other factors may affect PIS such as the noncustodial father’s child support compliance status, income or educational achievement levels, and/or the couple’s relationship quality regardless of duration. These variables may serve as mediating factors and should be taken into consideration for future studies examining the role of PreCon and PostCon relationship duration on PIS. After conception, however, it is quite possible that factors such as the noncustodial father’s relationship with a new intimate partner, the noncustodial father’s employment status, the noncustodial father’s educational achievement level, or the number of children with different custodial mothers may be better predictors or correlates of the noncustodial father’s satisfaction with their levels of involvement with their non-marital child(ren).

Despite these findings, there were a few limitations to this study. First, given the convenience sampling method, there could have been issues with response bias since participation in the PTVP was due to a child support compliance matter. Also, the fact that the surveyed participants were all African American fathers, results could not be generalized to those of another race. Lastly, it is also possible that the reliability statistics for the data collection instrument may be different if administered to fathers of another race.

To better understand barriers to father involvement among noncustodial fathers attempting to improve levels of parent–child involvement, focus was placed on the duration of their relationship before and after conception. The assumption was that the greater the attachment between parents, the more likely the father would remain in his child’s life. It must be made clear that this study did not focus on disengaged fathers nor those referred to as “Dead-Beat Dads,” but rather took a strengths-based approach to better understand those fathers engaged in parental enhancing behaviors such as participating in programs designed to aid with involvement. Effective solutions to understanding father absence must be conceptualized within the context of a strengths approach. Thus, greater understanding of the co-parenting relationship should be further investigated to understand the mechanisms used to produce and maintain levels of healthy functioning.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Harold E. Briggs

Huggins-Hoyt

References

Achatz

MacAllum

C. A.

(1994). Young unwed fathers: Report from the field. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Alio

A. P.

Kornosky

J. L.

Mbah

A. K.

Marty

P. J

Salihu

H. M.

(2010) The impact of paternal involvement on feto-infant morbidity among Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 14(5), 735–741, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-009-0482-1

Arditti

J. A.

Keith

T. Z.

(1993). Visitation frequency, child support payment, and the father-child relationship post-divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55(3), 699–712. https://doi.org/10.2307/353350

Arditti

J. A.

Molloy

Spiers

Johnson

E. I.

(2019). Perceptions of noncustodial father involvement among low-income youth and their single parents. Family Relations, 68(1), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12346

Argys

L. M.

Peters

H. E.

Brooks-Gunn

Smith

J. R.

(1998). The impact of child support on cognitive outcomes of young children. Demography, 35(2), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.2307/3004049

Bronte-Tinkew

Scott

M. E.

Lijia

(2010). Single custodial fathers’involvement and parenting: Implications for outcomes in emerging adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(5), 1107–1128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00753.x

Cabrera

N. J.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

Bradley

R. H.

Hofferth

Lamb

M. E.

(2000). Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71(1), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00126

Cancian

Yang

M-Y.

Slack

K. S.

(2013). The effect of additional child support income on the risk of child maltreatment. Social Service Review, 83(3), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1086/671929

Carlson

M. J.

VanOrman

A. G.

Turner

K. J.

(2017). Fathers’ investments of money and time across residential contexts. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79(1), 10–23.

10.

Coates

E. E.

McHale

J. P.

(2018). Triangular interactions of unmarried african american mothers and fathers with their 3-month old infants. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(10), 3096–3106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1082-8

11.

Drake

Jonson-Reid

(2008). Social work research methods: From conceptualization to dissemination. Boston. MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

12.

Edin

Nelson

(2013). Doing the best I can. Berkeley: University of California Press.

13.

Edin

Tach

(2012). Becoming a parent: The social contexts of fertility during young adulthood. In Early adulthood in a family context (pp. 185–207). Berlin, Germany: Springer

14.

Ellberbe

C. Z.

Jones

J. B.

Carlson

M. J.

(2018). Race/ethnic differences in nonresident fathers’ involvement after a nonmarital birth. Social Science Quarterly, 99(3), 1159–1182. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12482

15.

Engel

R. J.

Schutt

R. K.

(2017). The practice of research in social work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

16.

Fackerall

T. A.

Hawkins

A. J.

Kay

N. M.

(2011). How effective are court-affiliated divorcing parents education programs? A meta-analytic Study. Family Court Review, 49(1), 107–119.

17.

Fagan

Palkovitz

(2011). Co-parenting and relationship quality effects on father engagement: Variations by residence, romance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(3), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00834.x

18.

Gee

C. B.

McNerney

C. M.

Reiter

M. J.

Leaman

S. C.

(2007). Adolescent and young adult mothers’ relationship quality during the transition to parenthood: Associations with father involvement in fragile families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(2), 213–224, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10964-006-9130-x

19.

Ghosh

J. K.

Wilhelm

M. H.

Dunkel-Schetter

Lombardi

C. A.

Ritz

B. R.

(2010). Paternal support and preterm birth, and the moderation of effects of chronic stress: A study in Los Angeles County mothers. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 13(4), 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-009-0135-9

20.

Gupta

Featherstone

(2016). What about my bad? Black fathers in the child protection system. Critical and Radical Social Work, 4(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1332/204986015x14502659300361

21.

Guzzo

K. B.

(2014). New partners, more kids: multiple-partner fertility in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654(l), 66–86.

22.

Harris

S. M.

(2002). Father absence in the African American community: Towards a new paradigm. Race, Gender, & Class, 9(4), 111–133

23.

Hooks

J. L

Chalasani

(2008) Gendered expectations? Reconsidering single fathers’ child‐care time. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70 (4), 978–990. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00540.x

24.

Johnson

W. E.

(2001). Engaging nonresident fathers in social work with fragile families. Social work practice: Treating common client problems, (pp. 324–338), Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.

25.

Jones

Mosher

(2013). Fathers’ involvement with their children: United States, 2006-2010. Natl Health Stat Rep, 71, 1–21.

26.

Knoester

Petts

R. J.

Pragg

(2019). Paternity leave-taking and father involvement among socioeconomically disadvantaged US fathers. Sex Roles, 81(5), 257–271.

27.

Knox

Cowan

P. A.

Cowan

C. P.

Bildner

(2011). Policies that strengthen fatherhood and family relationships: What do we know and what do we need to know? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 635(1), 216–239; https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716210394769

28.

Lamb

M. E.

(2000). The history of research on father involvement: An overview. Marriage & Family Review, 29(2–3), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v29n02_03

29.

Lerman

R. I.

(2010). Capabilities and contributions of unwed fathers. The Future of Children, 20(2), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2010.0001

30.

Lerman

Sorensen

(2000). Father involvement with their nonmarital children: Patterns, determinants, and effects on their earnings. Marriage & Family Review, 29(2–3), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v29n02_09

31.

Lindberg

L. D.

Kost

Maddow-Zimet

(2017). The role of Men’s Childbearing Intentions in father Involvement, Journal of Marriage and Family, 19, 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12377

32.

Marsiglio

Amato

Day

R. D.

Lamb

(2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990’s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 1173–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01173.x

33.

McLanahan

Tach

Schneider

(2014). The causal effects of father absence. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 399-427, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145704

34.

Mendle

Harden

K. P.

Turkheimer

Van Hulle

C. A.

D’onofrio

B. M.

Brooks Gunn

Rodgers

J. L.

Emery

R. E.

Lahey

B. B.

(2009). Associations between father absence and age of first sexual intercourse. Child Development, 80(5), 1463–1480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01345.x

35.

Mincy

R. B.

Sorensen

E. J.

(1998). Deadbeats & turnips in child support reform. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1520-6688(199824)17:1<44::aid-pam3>3.0.co;2-h

36.

National Fatherhood Initiative . (2016). Statistics on the father absence crisis in America. Gaithersburg, MD: National fatherhood initiative.

37.

National Fatherhood Initiative . (2020). The proof is in: Father absence harms children. Gaithersburg, MD: National fatherhood initiative. https://www.fatherhood.org/father-absence-statistic

38.

Ngui

Cortright

Blair

(2009). An investigation of paternity status and other factors associated with racial and ethnic disparities in birth outcomes in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 13(4), 467–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-008-0383-8

39.

Nygren

Walsh

Ellingsen

I. T.

Christie

. (2019). What about the fathers? The. presence and absence of the father in social work practice in England, Ireland, Norway, and Sweden—A comparative study. Child & Family Social Work, 24(1), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12592

40.

Roberts

Coakley

T. M.

Washington

T. J.

Kelley

(2014). Fathers’ perspectives on supports and barriers that affect their fatherhood role. Sage Open, 4(1), 2158244014521818.

41.

Roy

K. M.

(2008). A life course perspective on fatherhood and family policies in the United States and South Africa. Fathering, 6(2), 92–112. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0602.92

42.

Rubin

(2012). Statistics for evidence-based practice and evaluation. Cengage Learning.

43.

Sigal

Sandler

Wolchik

Braver

(2011). Do parent education programs promote healthy post-divorce parenting? Critical distinctions and a review of the evidence. Family Court Review, 49(1), 120–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2010.01357.x

44.

Steinberg

(1987). Single parents, stepparents, and the susceptibility of adolescents to antisocial peer pressure. Child Development, 58(1), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1987.tb03505.x

45.

Strug

Wilmore-Schaeffer

(2003). Father in the social work literature: Policy and practice implications. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 84(4), 503–511. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.145

46.

J. H.

Emory

A. D.

(2020). Repackaging fatherhood: Father engagement and cooperative coparenting in mid-pregnancy marriages and cohabitations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(5), 1625–1636. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12698

47.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

Kahana-Kalman

Yoshikawa

(2009). Father involvement in immigrant and ethnically diverse families from the prenatal period to the second year: Prediction and mediating mechanisms. Sex Roles, 60(7–8), 496–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9593-9

48.

Trahan

M. H.

Cheung

(2018). Fathering involvement to engagement: A phenomenological qualitative roadmap. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 35(4), 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-018-0529-5

49.

Varga

C. M.

(2011). Relationship quality, coparenting and father involvement in african American and hispanic adolescent mothers and fathers: A mediational model (doctoral dissertation). Washington, D.C: George Washington University.

50.

Yogman

M. W.

Eppel

A. M.

(2022). The role of fathers in child and family health. In Engaged fatherhood for men, families and gender equality (pp. 15–30). Berlin, Germany: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75645-1_2

51.

Yuan

A. S. V.

(2016). Father–child relationships and nonresident fathers’ psychological distress: What helps and what hurts? Journal of Family Issues, 37(5), 603–621.