Individual,Relationship,and Family Structure Predictors of African American Noncustodial Father Involvement Satisfaction

Abstract

Purpose: The current study seeks to investigate the extent to which factors such as income and child support along with relationship factors such as family structure and communication with the custodial mother potentially mitigate overall parent satisfaction for African American noncustodial fathers (NCFs) with multi-partnered fertility (MPF). Methods: 163 noncustodial fathers without and with children other than the custodial parents were selected. An independent sample t-test was conducted to determine differences in satisfaction levels. Multiple linear regression was conducted to predict participants' overall level of parental involvement satisfaction by income, child support, and relationship factors. Results: The data illustrates the combined influence of income, child support, relationship factors, and family structure account for a significant amount of the variance in satisfaction. Fathers without MPF reported greater satisfaction levels. Conclusions: Future study is recommended to advance our understanding of the predictors of NCFs parent satisfaction among NCFs with and without MPF.

Keywords

African Amricans noncustodial fathers paternal involvement satisfaction

Prevalence of Noncustodial Fathers With and Without MPF

Demographic shifts in patterns of childbirth, marriage and divorce rates, and the diversification in family structure have broadened the fathering research foci (Guzzo, 2014). Fathering research advancement is met by an uptick in focus on noncustodial fathers (NCFs) (Schoppe-Sullivan & Fagan, 2020). Yogman and Eppel (2022) report that approximately 24 million children reside in a home without a father. Recent estimates show that between 7.5 and 9.5 million NCFs live in the United States; half meet the economic criteria of low-income status (Higgs et al., 2018).

Citing statistics from Martin et al. (2015), according to Higgs et al. (2018), the birth rate for unwed mothers between the ages of 15 and 44 in 2015 was 40.3%. Rates for non-Hispanic Caucasian women were 29.2%, 53% for Hispanic women, and 70.5% for Black women in 2015 (Higgs et al., 2018). Citing statistics from Martin et al. (2011), Cooper et al. (2015) state that in 2008, over 40% of births were attributed to unwed families compared to 6% of births by unwed families in 1960. Yogman and Eppel (2022) assert that NCF families are becoming common since one in five youth witness a break-up before age 10. Martin et al. (2018), and Pearson and Fagan (2019) show that childbirth has been on the rise, from a low of 5% in 1960 to a rate of 40% in 2017.

The accelerated childbirth rate is commonly politicized and erroneously tied to families of color. Edin et al. (2009) debunked this universal assertion by providing evidence of the increasing rate of unwed births in the United States, which extends racial lines. Unequivocally, unwed births among “whites are now as high as it was for African Americans,” which was one in five children born to unwed African American parents in the mid-1960s (Edin et al., 2009, p. 149). Nevertheless, it remains crucial that further research on African American NCFs be conducted as they remain disproportionately represented in child support cases, stigmatized as deadbeat dads, and often studied from a deficit point of view when examining their involvement.

For this paper, NCFs in African American families and their involvement with multi-partnered fertility (MPF) and NCFs without MPF are the subjects of the current study. Multi-partnered involves males and females 15 years old or older who have biological children with more than one single partner (Monte 2019). Monte (2019, 2017) estimates a significant proportion of MPF. Monte (2017) reported that one in 10 adults ages 15 and older reported having a child with at least two or single partners. In that same year, Monte (2017) reported that children with different partners represented 27.6% of MPF in 2014. African Americans and Hispanics disproportionately experience MPF compared to Caucasians (Guzzo, 2014; Schoppe-Sullivan & Fagan, 2020).

Relative to the available published research on married fathers or cohabitating fathers, paternal satisfaction of African American NCFs receives minuscule emphasis. Rollins (2021) does not view the unintentional absence of focus on African American fathers. Instead, from a systems theory perspective, Rollins (2021) sees the omission of focus on African American fathers as reoccurring exclusions across the policy, practice, education, and research venues in the helping professions’ empirical literature. In effect, rendering black fathers’ experiences invisible.

MPF and African American Noncustodial Father Involvement

There is scant empirical support predicting African American NCFs’ involvement with or without MPF. Predictors attenuating father involvement among NCFs vary since father involvement is multifactorially determined (Coley & Hernandez, 2006). There is empirical evidence supporting the role of fathers, which attenuates their involvement following the termination of the couple's relationship (Maslauskaitė & Steinberg, 2020). Their role is further diminished by a myriad of other attributes such as employment, education, income levels, child characteristics (gender, minors’ temperament), and mother characteristics (age, psychological distress, co-parent conflict) that directly and indirectly determine father involvement (Coley & Hernandez, 2006).

Using a sample of low-income custodial fathers and NCF families, Corley et al. (2006) used structural equation analysis methods to test several hypotheses that directly and indirectly predict father involvement. The data showed that many paternal, maternal, and child factors directly or indirectly predict father involvement “through parental conflict” (Coley & Hernandez, 2006, p. 1041). Their data further illustrates that fathers’ involvement “function with fair similarity across two-parent versus one-parent families and between Latino and African American fathers in this low-income sample” (p. 1050). Differences in the pattern of predictors of father involvement were noted across custodial and low-income NCFs. A limitation of the study is the absence of data on predictors of father involvement for NCFs with or without MPF.

Empirical evidence suggests that economic security and race predict paternal involvement among NCFs (Christiansen & Palkovitz, 2001; Coles & Green, 2010). However, despite these stereotypes being low, being a black father does not mean that those who are NCFs are uninvolved in the lives of their unmarried children (Coates & McHale, 2018; Ellerbe et al., 2018; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2009). The empirical literature identifying the relationship predictors of parental satisfaction among African American NCFs with and without MPF is mixed to date.

For example, in a study by Carlson (2017) of the patterns of father involvement among custodial and NCFs, the bivariate and regression analyses illustrated divergent patterns regarding father involvement. In the bivariate data analysis, custodial fathers tended to be more educated, married to the child's mother, lived with an intact family as a teenager, and expressed favorable attitudes about fathering than NCFs. NCFs tended to have MPF, identify as racially/ethnically diverse, and reported a history of corrections involvement.

Over the study period years one, three, five, and nine, the status of custodial fathers changed from 71% being married to 88% in year nine reporting that they were married. Among NCFs, 18% reported that they were romantically involved with the child's mother, and by year nine, that percentage changed to 10%. Additionally, some 32% of NCFs reported a new relationship at year 1. The percentage of NCFs with a new partner increased to 49.7% in year five but dropped to 38.1% in year 9. Also, during years one, three, five, and nine, the mean scores for the economic status of custodial fathers and their involvement with their children remained higher than the mean score for their NCF counterparts. Through regression analysis, the data yielded an alternative picture for both groups. For CFs, the higher their income, the less involved they were with their children. Alternatively, the more income earned by NCFs, the more child support paid was positively associated with increased father involvement.

Despite the results mentioned above, much of the existing science regarding paternal satisfaction with their father's involvement is unlikely for NCFs with MPF (Schoppe-Sullivan & Fagan, 2020). Research evidence shows that despite relationship disillusionment among unmarried couples with children, African American NCF's contact and engagement with the focal child do not decline (Goldberg & Carlson, 2018). It is important to note that research evidence illustrates the importance of the father's childbirth intentions on their involvement post-conception, independent of the father's residence status (Combs et al., 2020).

However, based on research by Goldberg and Carlson (2018), some conditions contribute to the lack of continued NCFs’ father involvement. These circumstances include (1) unwed couples whose relationship was failing around the time of the focal child's birth, (2) unwed mothers who found new partners, and (3) fathers with multiple custodial mother arrangements did experience adverse effects on co-parenting alliances between NCFs and custodial mothers. These circumstances are also consistent with earlier findings reported by Tach et al. (2010) and Berger et al. (2012).

Alternatively, the overall paternal satisfaction with parental involvement is likely influenced by the nature of the co-parenting relationship and the relationship quality between the NCF and the custodial mother (Varga & Gee, 2017) and the status of NCF without MPF. For example, the study by Fagan (2008) showed that fathers across residential status reported robust levels of father involvement following a pre-birth co-parenting intervention. The level of fathers’ involvement among fathers who received the comparison group childbirth intervention was lower than the rate of father involvement for the fathers (residential and NCFs) exposed to the pre-birth co-parenting intervention.

Additionally, there is evidence that the self-perception of the co-parenting relationship by the NCF serves a vital function. The extent to which the NCF perceives cooperation has implications on the quality and amount of the interaction with the custodial parent (CP), according to Dyer et al. (2018). If NCFs negatively perceive the co-parenting relationship, they are likely to develop unrealistic expectations for themselves and the CP, which can further strain co-parenting behavior. The alliance between the NCF and CP shapes the flow and exchange of vital information and fortifies the relationship between the NCF and the child. NCFs require communication to stay in the family loop Dyer et al. (2018). Maintaining a unified front by dignifying the CP helps her maintain fidelity to the parenting agreement with the NCF. It ensures his psychological presence and emotional connection with the child. The focal child's physical, psychological, and legal possession increases the extent of the CPs leverage over the NCF as she is the gatekeeper to his involvement. The CP represents the lifeline with the NCF by reducing his relegation, dismissal, or being othered an outsider to the authentic family process and homeostasis.

On the other hand, Dyer et al. (2018) posit that NCFs who believe they have an unproductive alliance with the CP could formulate impractical role expectations resulting in conflict between the NCF and CP. Maintaining empathic communication with the CP preserves the cooperative co-parenting relationship between custodial fathers and NCFs (Doyle et al., 2014). NCF's identity and involvement with their children are influenced by social support from friends and families and the absence of gatekeeping by the CP (Fagan, 2021). Most participants were African American, Hispanic, White, Asian American, or First Nation NCFs. Lee et al. (2020) demonstrate the concurrent influence of parenting on father involvement, caregiving, and child play activities for low-income custodial fathers and NCFs. The co-parenting relationship quality and other father factors such as psychological well-being, social support, and no conviction involvement following the baby's birth were associated with father involvement among African American NCFs (Coates & Phares, 2014).

Impact of Financial Means on NCFs With and Without MPF

As fathering research has advanced, parity in topical emphasis and foci among the published studies on NCFs is lacking. A dearth of empirical literature on the predictors of African American NCFs’ satisfaction with their father involvement is apparent compared to the frequently published studies of NCFs and child support compliance. NCFs are more likely to experience the additional burden that accompanies being late and behind on child support payments (Turner & Waller, 2017). At last count, as much as 113 billion dollars was owed in back child support (Robbins et al., 2022). The decreased fathers’ involvement among NCFs is one consequence of being in arrears with child support (Turner & Waller, 2017). The inverse association between father involvement and child support debt is mediated through the quality of the relationship between the NCF and custodial mother (Turner & Waller, 2017).

Guarin and Meyer (2018), in their study of NCFs, investigated whether earning and other related factors hindered fathers’ involvement with their children. According to the descriptive statistics, about 70% of the NCFs visited their unmarried children at least once a year (p. 5). About 30% of NCFs reported in-person visits with their children weekly. The average number of days for the entire sample N = 828 was 60 days during the previous year for each of the two annual periods assessed. As for the earnings of the NCFs, 20% had no economic means of support, and an additional 20% had earnings less than $5,000. Fourteen percent had earnings at or above $20,000. Concerning family structure, approximately 40% of the NCFs reported having a child with another female partner, while an additional 15% of NCFs reported fathering children with at least two or more female partners. Upon the time of the birth of the focal child, approximately 90% of the custodial mothers were unmarried. The study authors showed that NCFs with earnings at or above $20,000 reported more visits with their children than NCFs with earnings at or below $5,000. NCFs with income greater than $10,000 reported they were more likely to have weekly contact than (a) NCFs with income at or below $5,000 and (b) NCFs who live out of state. NCFs with at least three or more different custodial mothers were less likely to have weekly contact than NCFs with children with the same custodial mother. CPs with new romantic partners are a disincentive to in-person contact between the former romantically involved NCF and the focal child.

Schoppe-Sullivan and Fagan (2020) summarized the research on NCFs’ MPF. Their analyses suggest that NCFs with MPF disproportionately experience logistical, resource hardships, and mental health challenges, adversely influencing paternal involvement. Schoppe-Sullivan and Fagan (2020) analysis of Carlson and Furstenberg (2006) and Guzzo and Furstenberg (2007) research highlights the uneven logistical challenges and resource pressures accompanying NCFs without MPF.

In the current study, we hypothesize that relative to the pressures and needs of NCFs with MPF, paternal satisfaction with overall father involvement among NCFs without MPF is more likely to occur than NCFs with MPF. Coley and Hernandez (2006) recognize the dearth of empirical support on how NCFs with MPF allocate their time and in-person availability across multiple custodial mothers and nonresidential child relationship responsibilities.

In the current study, we seek to investigate the extent to which individual factors such as income and child support status along with relationship factors such as family structure and communication with the custodial mother are factors that potentially mitigate the overall parent satisfaction for African American NCFs with and without MPF. We also seek to determine whether MPF factors impact involvement satisfaction compared to NCP having children only with the CP.

Method

Study Design

This cross-sectional study aimed to advance the overall understanding of parental satisfaction among African American unwed fathers. Therefore, the two primary research questions were: (RQ1) Do individual, relationships, and family structure patterns predict parental involvement satisfaction? Thus, we hypothesize that the axiological value of the relationship and the unique coping that emerges even from distressed family structure predictors will determine NCFs’ paternal involvement satisfaction. (RQ2). Are there differences between NCPs with MPF and NCPs with children only with the CP concerning overall paternal satisfaction with parental involvement? We hypothesize that NCFs with multiple mother and child responsibilities will significantly differ in overall satisfaction, with children only with the CP being more satisfied.

Sample and Population

This study examined unmarried African American NCFs having one child with the CP and NCFs with children from other mothers. These fathers-initiated services from a Metropolitan Atlanta Parenting Time Visitation Program conducted by a significant nonprofit family service agency providing services throughout Georgia. Program participation was limited to 90 days. The following inclusion criteria were employed to determine participant eligibility: (a) African American male, (b) child support payments confirmed through Georgia's Office of Child Support Services, (c) enrolled in the program for at least one week and within the standard 90 day program period unless for programmatic reasons a case remained open beyond the standard time; the latter was taken into consideration as there were cases involving participation enrolled beyond the standard timeframe, (d) divorced, separated and never married to the CP, (d) has at least one child with the CP, (e) maintained current contact with the CP, and (f) NCP, CP, child and other children all reside in Georgia. Exclusion factors included evidence of a history of family violence, or allegations of violence within the case file, a diagnosis of severe mental health or substance abuse issue, location of the child or CP is unknown. The exclusion criteria eliminated individuals who had no contact with the mother and child or identified as the CP and limited the sample frame to African American men fully enrolled in the vastation program.

Out of our original sample of 300 unwed fathers, 120 individuals were excluded from the study population based on the aforementioned criteria, and 17 were excluded because of incomplete case files, leaving a final sample of 163 participants.

Description of the Site

The Parenting Time program was funded in 1997 by the Office of Child Support Enforcement Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It was initiated through State Child Access and Visitation (AV) Grant awards of $10 million to states to promote the development of programs to alleviate access problems (Pearson et al., 2005). The Visitation program was operated by a community-based nonprofit family service agency in Georgia. Program services include group parenting seminars, counseling sessions, negations for the development of parenting plans, and three forms of visitation services: supervised (where the case manager directly observes the entirety of the visit between the father and child), neutral exchanges where the case manager directly observes the drop-off and pick-up between the CP and noncustodial parent (father), and monitored visits where the case manager works with both parents by three-way phone conversations to supervise the arrangement of the visitation. All case managers possessed minimally a bachelor's degree in social work or a related field and related job experience working with the fatherhood population.

Data Collection

All fathers were introduced to the parenting time study during their initial intake and assessment or following their participation in the parenting time seminar, which tended to be the first service provided following the intake. Fathers were given three opportunities to voluntarily participate in the study, which was not a requirement to receive service: (1) following the seminar, which typically occurred one week after enrollment; (2) approximately 60 days after initial enrollment; or (3) toward the end of the standard length of program participation (90 days). They were all required to sign consent forms before completing the survey. All case managers were trained in administering the survey instrument. Fathers presenting with literacy issues were provided additional assistance completing the self-administered survey. No identifying information was included in the survey, and participants were informed that the study was designed to understand barriers to involvement better

Primary Outcome Variable

Drawn from White et al. (2016) Bidirectional Determinants of Father Involvement study, where variables included score range for satisfaction with Access (3–5), degree of Engagement (3–5), and amount of Responsibility (5–20) that a father shows toward his child. In this study, the scale combined score ranges from 10 to 50, where the higher the score, the greater the overall satisfaction level.

Predictor Variables

Income. Noncustodial fathers’ income considering all formal and informal income received monthly.

Child Support Payments. Considers the total amount of child support payment to the CP the father makes through the child support enforcement office. Informal payments and other contributions, such as buying things for his child(ren), were not considered as these contributions could not be verified.

Custodial Parent Communication. These determinants focus on the father's interaction with the CP. Satisfaction with communication represents a five-point Likert scale composite score ranging from Completely Dissatisfied (1) to Completely Satisfied (5). Questions include “how satisfied are you with the amount of communication you have with the CP” and how satisfied are you with the opportunities you get with the CP to discuss your child's related matters,” “how satisfied are you with the way you and the CP negotiate there are disagreements” and how satisfied are you with the way you set aside your disagreements for the benefit of the child.” The total score range is 4–20.

Satisfaction with the way the CP is raising the child. This question asks how the father is satisfied with how the CP is raising his child. The Likert format scale was used with responses 1 = Completely Dissatisfied, 2 = Somewhat Dissatisfied, 3 = Take it as it Comes, 4 = Somewhat Satisfied, and 5 = Completely Satisfied. This scale was re-coded from the original so that the higher the score reflects, the greater the satisfaction.

Satisfaction with Responsibility the CP shows toward the child. Using the same reverse coded Likert format, this variable measured the NCFs’ view of their satisfaction with the “amount of responsibility the CP demonstrates toward the child's well-being.” Including the overall health, appearance, and well-being of the child. This variable acknowledges the formal contribution the father makes toward the child.

Analysis

A descriptive analysis presents socio-economic demographic variables: age, income, monthly child support payments, and child support status (current or behind). They also identify the degree to which they believe their child support obligation is fair or not, whether they have more than one child support case, CP communication, satisfaction with responsibility the CP shows toward the child, satisfaction with the way the CP is raising the child, and overall satisfaction with fathers’ level of parental involvement. An independent sample t-test was calculated to determine if parental involvement satisfaction levels were significantly different for NCPs having children only with the CP compared to those with children other than the CP. Multiple regression was employed to predict fathers’ overall involvement satisfaction levels based on income and child support, relationship factors, family structure, and communication with the custodial mother.

Results

For this study, data from N = 163 African American NCFs were used for the analysis and separated by whether they have children with multiple mothers and those with children only with the CP. As indicated, Table 1 displays key social demographic study sample characteristics. On average, fathers’ ages ranged from 30 to 39 years old (M = 1.95; SD = 0.788), and eight out of 10 (80%) were less than 40 years old. Income ranged between $0.00 (25%) and $5,000 a month (3.7%). The largest percentage of participants (n = 25, 15%) reported monthly income between $1,500 and $1,999. The amount of monthly child support payment by NCFs, the current status of the sample’s child support compliance, and their views on the fairness of the amount of child support they are obliged to pay are reported as shown in Table 2. Table 2 also shows child support payments, which ranged between $71.00 and $1,179, (M = $319, SD = $184). Of the N = 163 fathers, n = 95 (58%) reported owing child support payments; n = 83 (51%) had at least one previous marriage; and n = 98 (60%) had children with other women.

Table 1.

African American Fathers’ Socio-demographics of N = 163.

	Ever Have Children Other than with the Custodial Parent?
Variables	Yes (N = 96)		No (N = 67)		Total
Age (in years)	N	%	N	%	M	%
20–29	31	32.3	17	25.4	48	29.4
30–39	50	52.1	30	44.8	80	49.1
40–49	11	11.5	18	26.9	29	17.8
50 +	4	4.5	2	3.0	6	3.7
Income (monthly)
100–499	25	26	17	25.4	42	25.8
500–999	9	9.4	8	11.9	17	10.4
1000–1499	10	10.6	11	16.4	21	12.9
1500–1999	14	14.6	11	16.4	25	15.3
2000–2999	19	19.8	6	9.0	25	15.3
3000–3999	5	5.2	8	11.9	13	8.0
4000–4999	3	3.1	2	3.0	6	3.7
5000 +	4	4.2	2	3.0	6	3.7

Table 2.

African American Fathers’ Child Support Responsibility and Custodial Parent Interaction.

	Ever Have Children other than with the Custodial Parent?
Variables	Yes (N = 96)		No (N = 67)		Total
Child support monthly	N	%	N	%	N	%
Less than $100	4	42	1	1.5	5	3.1
$101–$199	25	26	7	10.4	32	19.6
$200–$299	32	33.3	18	26.9	50	30.7
$300–$399	16	16.7	14	20.9	30	18.4
$400–$499	8	8.3	15	22.4	23	14.1
$500–$599	5	5.2	7	10.4	12	7.4
$600 +	6	6.3	5	7.5	11	6.7
Are you currently on child support?	40	41.7	28	41.8	68	41.7
Amount I pay in child support is fair	56	58.3	39	58.2	95	58.3
Satisfaction with custodial parent communication
Not satisfied	40	41.7	28	41.8	68	41.7
Take it as it comes/completely satisfied	51	51.3	38	56.7	89	54.6
Satisfied with the way a custodial parent is raising a child	45	46.9	29	43.3	74	45.4
Satisfaction with responsibility CP show toward the child
Not satisfied	39	40.6	22	32.8	61	37.4
Take it as it comes/completely satisfied	57	59.4	45	67.2	102	62.6

Independent Sample T-Test

An Independent Sample t-test was employed to determine differences in satisfaction with parental involvement levels between fathers with children with only the CP and those with multiple mothers.

(RQ1). Is there a difference in overall paternal involvement satisfaction between NCPs with multi-partnered fertility (MPF) and NCPs with children only with the custodial parent?

H1. It is hypothesized that participants with children only with the custodial parent (N = 67) and those with additional children by other mothers (N = 96) were associated with statistically significant different means of overall parental satisfaction levels.

The homogeneity of variance was tested and satisfied via Leven's F test, F(161) = 1.75, p = .138. There was a statistically significant difference in scores for participants having children only with the CP (M = 2.79, SD = 12.40) and those with additional children involving other mothers. (M = 25.89, SD 11.17); t(161) = 2.09, p = .038, although a small effect size was found (d = 0.33 95% CI [0.1–0.3]). Fathers having children only with the CP were more satisfied with the overall level of parental involvement.

Multiple Regression

Multiple linear regression was calculated to predict participant's overall level of parental involvement satisfaction by their monthly income (INC), child support obligation (CS), quality of CP communication (CPC), the satisfaction with the responsibility of the CP shows toward the child (RCPTC), the way the CP is raising the child (SCPRC), and whether the NCF has additional children other than with the CP (NCFCOCP).

(RQ2) Do individual, relationships, and family structure patterns predict parental Involvement satisfaction among African American noncustodial fathers?

H2. we hypothesize that the axiological value of the relationship and the unique coping that emerges even from distressed family structure predictors will determine NCFs’ paternal involvement satisfaction.

As shown in Table 3, a significant regression equation was found F (6, 146) = 25.214; p ≤ .001] with an R² 0.509. Participants predicted satisfaction is equal to 50.845 −1430 (CPC) and −0.150 (RCPTC). CPC and Responsibility Custodial Parent Shows Toward Child are measured by score increments on each scale. Participants’ Overall Parental Involvement Satisfaction increased by 0.588 points for every one-point decrease in CP communication and increased by 0.150 points for every one-point decrease in Satisfaction with Responsibility the Custodial Parent Shows Toward the Child. The Total Monthly Income, Total Monthly Child Support Payments, Satisfaction with how the CP is Raising the Child, and the number of children the fathers have with other mothers were not significant. The calculated model fit indicates that the predictive model can explain 51% of the variance in overall satisfaction with parental involvement.

Table 3.

Regression on Overall Satisfaction with Parental Involvement by Custodial Parent Interaction and Child Support Determinants.

Determinants	B	SE(B)	Β	t	P
1. Constant	51.014	2.745		18.587	<.001
2. Total monthly income	0.001	0.000	0.074	1.173	.243
3. Total monthly child support payment	0.005	0.004	0.079	1.242	.216
4. Custodial parent communication (CPC)	−1.430	0.167	−0.588*	−0.8537	<.001
5. Responsibility CP shows toward child (RCPTC)	−1.196	0.516	−0.150*	−2.317	.002
6. With way CP is rising the child (SCPRC)	−0.439	0.643	−0.054	−0.684	.495
7. Ever have children with other mothers	−1.160	1.418	−0.049	−0.818	.415

Note: R² = 0.509.

* p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01; *** p ≤ .001.

Discussion

This study sought to answer two primary questions: (1) to what degree, if any, does the father's income, amount in monthly child support, whether he is current or behind in child support, quality of communication with the CP, his satisfaction with the responsibility the CP show toward the child, satisfaction way the CP is raising the child, and whether the father has additional children with women other than the CP, can predict his overall satisfaction with his level of parental involvement; and (2) determine if satisfaction with overall parental involvement were statistically different between families comprised of a single mother and NCFs’ dyad and families containing multiple mothers with children from the same father.

Results of the regression analysis indicating overall satisfaction with parental involvement increases as satisfaction as CP communication and interaction decreases are consistent with other studies which examine the impact of co-parenting conflict on father involvement (Insabella et al., 2003; Coley & Hernandez, 2006). Quality of Communication with the CP and responsibility the CP shows toward the child explained 50% of the variance in fathers’ satisfaction levels. In both cases, these differences were inverted. Overall paternal satisfaction levels tended to increase, resulting from decreased satisfaction with CP communication and satisfaction with how the CP is raising the child. These differences may be influenced by the frequency of harmful contact, hostility between the parents, or strained communication patterns. In this vein, the concomitant embrace of the father's role and less contact with the CP serves as a protective buffer, an emotional adaption, and a coping mechanism that mitigates the negative aftereffects and unresolved parental conflict that survives relationship dissolution (Maslauskaitė and Steinbach, 2020; Millings et al., 2020).

There were, however, significant differences in overall parental satisfaction levels between fathers with children only with the CP and those with children other than with the CP. Fathers having children with multiple mothers face the challenge of managing multiple and possibly competing co-parenting dynamics and multiple children demands for time and financial support. On the other hand, single CP fathers tended to be more satisfied with their involvement. There, parenting time and child support payments only involve one parent. These findings were consistent with the results observed in former studies by Carlson and Furstenberg (2006) and Guzzo and Furstenberg (2007).

An additional study of NCFs with MPF is warranted to investigate the short and long-term effects of living in a family comprised of NCFs with MPF. Such studies should be guided by theory to advance knowledge and understanding about the correlates, consequences, and impacts of families comprised of NCFs with MPF. Future studies may determine if there are differences in paternal satisfaction levels based on fathers’ legal status (visitation order vs. no visitation order) for NCFs with MPF. This was not examined as such data was not accessible for this study.

Since multi-fertility partners are a reality for mothers and fathers’ future studies of MPF and single parenthood would broaden the extent to which MPF by both the NCF and CP changes paternal satisfaction levels. Whether the CP has additional children with fathers other than the focal NCF with and without MPF impacts overall paternal satisfaction levels remains an empirical question. Future studies of NCFs and NCP may also investigate whether parental childbearing intentions of the NCF with and without MPF, directly and indirectly, predict overall parent satisfaction.

Limitations of the Study

The scope of this paper was limited to African American NCFs residing in Georgia who initiated services from a Parenting Time Visitation Program. A significant limitation of the program is that it primarily served NCFs residing in Metropolitan Atlanta and Savannah, Georgia. Another limitation concerns the degree of validity of participants’ responses. Many program participants may desire to appear favorable to the case managers or respond with a degree of caution concerning their income or child support payment status, considering the office of child support enforcement funded the program. Recent courts or child support enforcement encounters may also impact satisfaction levels.

Discussion and Application to Practice

The findings of the current study present implications for future research. The aforementioned results raise several questions regarding the impact of co-parenting communication on fathers’ perceived level of satisfaction with involvement. Does the hostility between the parents alter the fathers’ view of mothers’ caretaking abilities? Do fathers prefer parallel parenting over co-parenting to avoid conflicts that may impact their access to, engagement with, and level of responsibility they may show toward their children? To what degree do fathers with children from mothers other than the CP face logistical challenges with remaining consistently involved with all of their offspring?

Furthermore, can these challenges explain his overall satisfaction with involvement? To what degree does his legal status (legitimization, visitation rights, or joint custody) impact his satisfaction with co-parenting communication and views regarding how the CP is raising the child. Does it place tremendous strain on co-parenting communication without legal recourse for CP gatekeeping? Results from the abovementioned future research inquiries would provide greater clarity regarding the complexities of multi-fertility partners and the quality of father involvement. Programmatic interventions may include increased conflict resolution and de-escalation techniques to improve co-parenting communication, leading to greater satisfaction with parental participation.

For social work practitioners working with fathers, these findings are critical to understanding the many logistical challenges fathers face to facilitate healthy co-parenting relationships and improve parental engagement when multiple CPs are involved. MPF expands beyond those cases for which he formally pays child support to include children not known to the child support system. His undocumented contributions may directly impact his income and ability to support his children. Fatherhood programs aimed at improving access to and involvement with children may consider improving co-parenting communication by involving the mothers in their programs; some parenting relationships may be too fragile to repair without counseling from trained social work practitioners.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Harold E. Briggs

References

Berger

L. M.

Cancian

Meyer

D. R.

(2012). Maternal re-partnering and new-partner fertility: Associations with nonresident father investments in children. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(2), 426–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.11.012

Carlson

M. J.

Furstenberg

F. F.

(2006). The prevalence and correlates of multipartnered fertility among urban U.S. parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(3), 718–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00285.x

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12324

Christiansen

Palkovitz

(2001). Why the good provider role still matters: Providing as a form of paternal involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 84–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251301022001004

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, 3096–3106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1082-8

Coates

E. E.

Phares

(2014). Predictors of paternal involvement among nonresidential, black fathers from low-income neighborhoods. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(2), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032790

Coles

R. L.

Green

(2010). The myth of the missing black father . Columbia University Press

Coley

R. L.

Hernandez

D. C.

(2006). Predictors of paternal involvement for resident and nonresident low-income fathers. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1041–1056. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1041

Combs

K. M.

Knauer

Altschul

Lee

S. J.

(2020). Associations between fathers’ rebirth pregnancy intentions and involvement with their child 15 months later: A propensity score analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 42(10), 2464–2484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X20983382

10.

Cooper

C. E.

Beck

A. N.

Hognas

R. S.

Swanson

(2015). Mothers’ partnership instability and coparenting among fragile families. Social Science Quarterly, 96(4), 1103–1116. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12161

11.

Doyle

Goldston

D. B.

Dzirasa

Fontes

Estroff

Burriss

(2014). “You gotta have a good help mate:” African American fathers’ co-parenting experiences. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(4), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034732

12.

Dyer

W. J.

Fagan

Kaufman

Person

Caberera

(2018). Self-perceived coparenting of nonresident fathers: Scale development and validation. Family Process, 57(4), 927–946. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12331

13.

Edin

Tach

Mincey

(2009). Claiming fatherhood: Race and the dynamics of paternal involvement among unmarried men. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 62(1), 149–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716208325548

14.

Ellerbe

C. Z.

Jones

J. B.

Carlson

M. J.

(2018). Race/ethnic differences in nonresident fathers’ involvement after a nonmarital birth. Social Science Quarterly, 90(3), 1158–1182. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12482

15.

Fagan

(2008). Randomized study of a prebirth coparenting intervention with adolescent and young fathers. Family Relations, 57(1), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00502.x

16.

Fagan

(2021). Associations between low-income nonresident fathers’ parenting identity and involvement with children. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 22(3), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000295

17.

Goldberg

J. S.

Carlson

M. J.

(2018). Patterns and predictors of coparenting after unmarried parents part. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(3), 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000078

18.

Guarin

Meyer

D. R.

(2018). Are low earnings of nonresidential fathers a barrier to their involvement with children? Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.06.023

19.

Guzzo

K. B.

(2014). New partners, more kids: Multiple-partner fertility in the United States. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214525571

20.

Guzzo

K. B.

Furstenberg

F. F.

(2007). Multi-partnered fertility among American men. Demography, 44(3), 583–601. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/30053103.

21.

Higgs

Gomez-Vidal

Austin

M. J.

(2018). Low-income nonresident fatherhood: A literature review with implications for practice and research. Families in Society, 99(2), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044389418767826

22.

Insabella

G. M.

Williams

Pruett

M. K.

(2003). Individual and coparenting differences between divorcing and unmarried fathers: Implications for family court services. Family Court Review, 41, 290–306. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/1531244503041003003.

23.

Lee

J. Y.

Volling

B. L.

Lee

S. J.

(2020). Longitudinal relations between coparenting and father engagement in low-income residential and nonresidential father families. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(2), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000612

24.

Martin

J. A.

Hamilton

B. E.

Osterman

M. J. K.

Driscoll

A. K.

Drake

(2018). Births: Final data for 2017. National Vital Statistics Reports, 67(8), 1–50. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_08-508.pdf

25.

Martin

J. A.

Hamilton

B. E.

Osterman

M. J. K.

Driscoll

A. K.

Mathews

T. J.

(2015). Births: Final data for 2015 [National vital statistics report, 66(1)]. National Center for Health Statistics.

26.

Martin

J. A.

Hamilton

B. E.

Ventura

S. J.

Osterman

M. J. K.

Kirmeyer

Mathews

T. J.

(2011). Births: Final data for 2009. [National vital statistics Report. 60 (1). National Center for Health Statistics.

27.

Maslauskaitė

Steinbach

(2020). Paternal psychological well-being after union dissolution: Does involved fatherhood have a protective effect? In Kreyenfeld

Trappe

(Eds.), Parental Life Courses after Separation and Divorce in Europe (pp. 215–234). Springer.

28.

Millings

Hirst

S. L.

Sirois

Houlston

(2020). Emotional adaptation to relationship dissolution in parents and non-parents: A new conceptual model and measure. PLOS One, 15(10), e0239712. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239712

29.

Monte

L. M.

(2017). Multiple Partnered Fertility Research Brief (Current Population Reports No. P70BR-146). U.S. Census Bureau.

30.

Monte

L. M.

(2019). Multiple-partnered fertility in the United States: A demographic portrait. Demography, 56(1), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0743-y

31.

Pearson

Davis

Thoennes

(2005). A new look at an old issue: An evaluation of the state access and visitation grant program. Family Court Review, 43(3), 372–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2005.00040.x

32.

Pearson

Fagan

(2019). State efforts to support the engagement of nonresident fathers in the lives of their children. Families in Society, 100(4), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044389419874172

33.

Robbins

N. L.

Waller

M. R.

Nepomnyaschy

Miller

D. P.

(2022). Child support debt and the well-being of disadvantaged fathers of color. Journal of Marriage & Family, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12841

34.

Rollins

(2021). Overview of systemic exclusion of African American fathers and the case for engagement. In Rollins’

L. S.

(Ed.), Engaging and working with African American fathers: Strategies and lessons learned (pp. 1–16). Routledge.

35.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Fagan

(2020). The evolution of fathering research in the 21st century: Persistent challenges, new directions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12645

36.

Tach

Mincy

Edin

(2010). Parenting as a “package deal”: Relationships, fertility, and nonresident parents. Demography, 47(1), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0096

37.

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), 496–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9593-9

38.

Turner

K. J.

Waller

M. R.

(2017). Indebted relationships: Child support arrears and nonresident fathers’ involvement with children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79,(1) 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12361

39.

Varga

C. M.

Gee

C. B.

(2017). Co-parenting, relationship quality, and father involvement in African American and Latino adolescents. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 63(2), 210–236. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.63.2.0210

40.

White

G. L.

Murty

K. S.

White

C. M.

(2016). Understanding parental involvement among African American unwed fathers: A strengths perspective. Green Legacy Publishing.

41.

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). Springer.