Risk and Resilience after Divorce PDF

Chapter 5 Risk and Resilience after Divorce Shannon M. Greene Edward R. Anderson Marion S. Forgatch David S. DeGarmo E. Mavis Hetheri...

Chapter 5 Risk and Resilience after Divorce Shannon M. Greene Edward R. Anderson Marion S. Forgatch David S. DeGarmo E. Mavis Hetherington D ences ivorce and life in a single-­parent household have become common experi- for parents and children in contemporary American society. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the kinds of stresses and adaptive challenges that adults and children face when confronting transitions that surround divorce. We start by discussing the prevailing model of divorce as part of a continuous process of family reorganization, before examining the prevalence of divorce and subsequent transitions. Following a review of the consequences of divorce on physical and mental health outcomes, we explore concomitant changes in family processes, relationships, and life experiences. We conclude with a brief focus on two emerging areas in the literature: (1) how courtship and nonmarital cohabitation affect family processes and the well-being of individual family members, and (2) how families navigate the legal system in addressing initial and ongoing parenting concerns. A Process Model of Divorce The most commonly accepted theoretical model of divorce involves a process perspective that addresses stress, risk, and resilience. In this model, divorce is viewed as a cascade of potentially stressful changes and disruptions in the social and physical environments of adults and children, rather than as 102  Risk and Resilience after Divorce 103 reactions to a single negative event (e.g., Amato, 2010; Hetherington, 2006; Strohschein, 2005). Thus, marital instability and divorce introduce a complex chain of marital transitions and family reorganizations that alter roles and relationships, and affect individual adjustment. Each transition presents new adaptive challenges, and the response to these challenges is influenced by pre- vious family functioning and experiences. The success with which individuals cope with these stressors depends on the presence of protective and vulnerability factors. Protective factors buffer the person or promote resilience in coping with the challenges of divorce; vul- nerability factors complicate adjustment, increasing the likelihood of adverse consequences. Examples include personal characteristics of the individual; family processes and relationships; and ecological systems external to the family, such as friends, extended family, school, the workplace, and the larger neighborhood. Additionally, developmental factors play a central role in the adjustment of children and adults to marital transitions. Individuals may be more sensitive to stresses and opportunities presented by marital transitions at specific developmental periods; some challenges may trigger delayed adjust- ment effects to divorce (i.e., so-­called “sleeper” effects). In addition to the normative challenges associated with changes in age, family members must confront non-­normative challenges associated with the event of divorce (e.g., adjusting to life in a single-­parent household, parental dating, remarriage). Thus, this model underscores the importance of studying the postdivorce adjustment of parents and children over time, as marital transitions and fam- ily reorganizations unfold. In some cases, divorce may offer parents and chil- dren potential benefits: an escape from an unhappy, conflictual family situa- tion; the opportunity to build more fulfilling relationships; and the potential for personal development. In other words, what is perhaps most striking about this model is not the inevitability but the diversity of responses for parents and children who face the challenges of divorce. We turn next to a consideration of the prevalence of divorce and related transitions. Prevalence of Divorce and Related Transitions The divorce rate for the United States peaked in 1981, the culmination of a dramatic increase that began in the 1960s (Krieder, 2005). The rate has declined since, with most recent reports showing a lower rate in 2009 com- pared to earlier in the decade (Tejada-Vera & Sutton, 2010).1 Lifetime prob- ability of a first marriage ending in divorce still approaches 50% (Amato, 2010; Raley & Bumpass, 2003; Schoen & Canudas-Romo, 2006) but may be lower for more recent marriages (Cherlin, 2010). By the 5-year anniversary, 20% of marriages have been disrupted due to separation or divorce. This pro- portion increases to 33% and 43% by 10 and 15 years, respectively (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002). 104 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES About half of all dissolving marital unions consist of families with chil- dren (Amato, 2000; Krieder, 2005; Raley & Bumpass, 2003), with the major- ity of children (84%) residing primarily with their mothers (Grall, 2009). Even prior to the actual divorce decree, many families already may be in transition: A mixed sample of mothers and fathers showed that half had some experience with dating new partners within 60 days of the filing, rising to 79% by 1-year postfiling (Anderson et al., 2004). Moreover, 27% of parents in this study had experienced a “serious” dating relationship at the time of filing, increas- ing to 53% by 1 year. By 2 years, a sample of residential mothers showed that 89% reported experience with dating (Anderson, Hurley, Greene, Sullivan, & Webb, 2009). As repartnering progresses, family life continues to be transformed. By 2 years after filing for divorce, two-­thirds of residential mothers report hav- ing a new romantic partner spending the night while the children are present (Anderson et al., 2009). Many families go on to experience full-time cohabita- tion; the proportion of mothers and fathers who cohabit full-time with a new partner increases from 8% by 60 days after divorce filing, to 24% by 1 year after filing (Anderson et al., 2004). Families also may experience breakups, with 32% of mothers and fathers reporting having dated three or more part- ners by 1-year after filing for divorce (Anderson et al., 2004). Collectively, these events have important potential implications for adjust- ment, because multiple transitions increase the adaptive challenges that con- front parents and children (Anderson & Greene, 2005; Anderson et al., 2004; Capaldi & Patterson, 1991; Cavanagh & Huston, 2008; Fomby & Cherlin, 2007; Martinez & Forgatch, 2002; Osborne & McLanahan, 2007; Raley & Wildsmith, 2004). Thus, the process perspective on divorce is being extended to include more microaspects of changes in family formation. Risk Factors That Contribute to Divorce Relative risk for experiencing divorce depends on a variety of factors, including age at marriage, education, household income, race/ethnicity, religiosity, par- ents’ marital history, and community characteristics (e.g., the crime rate, the community unemployment rate, and the percent of families in poverty; Bram- lett & Mosher, 2002). Some of these relations are relatively straightforward. For example, 48% of women first married before age 18 have divorced within 10 years, compared to 24% of women who married after 25. Other factors may interact with one another in complex ways. Among non-­H ispanic white women, for instance, education is inversely related to risk of divorce: 48% of non-­Hispanic white women without a high school degree have divorced after 10 years of marriage, compared with 27% of those with more than a high school education. Among Hispanic women, however, there is a positive relation between education and divorce risk: Only 29% of Hispanic women without a high school degree have divorced after 10 years, compared with  Risk and Resilience after Divorce 105 39% of those with more than a high school education. Thus, an examination of risk for divorce must be tempered by the possibility of complex interactions with other variables (see Vaaler, Ellison, & Powers, 2009, for an example with regard to the impact of religiosity on risk of divorce). With regard to race/ethnicity, by 10 years after marriage, the likelihood of divorce is 20% for Asian American women, 32% for non-­H ispanic white women, 34% for Hispanic women, and 47% for African American women (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002). Hispanic and African American women are more likely than non-­H ispanic white women to remain separated without divorc- ing. Ninety-seven percent of non-­H ispanic white women have completed legal divorce within 5 years after separation, whereas the comparable rate is 77% and 67% for Hispanic and African American women, respectively. Rates of cohabitation and remarriage also differ across race/ethnicity. By 5 years after separation, 58% of non-­H ispanic white women, 50% of Hispanic women, and 31% of African American women have cohabited with a new partner. Rates of remarriage 5 years after divorce are 58%, 44%, and 32% for non-­H ispanic white, Hispanic, and African American women, respectively. Risk for divorce also is associated with a wide array of factors reflecting socioeconomic disad- vantage (e.g., community male unemployment rate, percent receiving public assistance, median family income, percent below poverty line; Bramlett & Mosher, 2001). It is unclear to what extent racial and ethnic differences in risk for divorce are proxy indicators for long-­standing economic and educational disparities (Amato, 2010; Bratter & King, 2008). The likelihood of divorce also is associated with patterns of interaction and personal characteristics of married adults. Couples are at higher risk for divorce if their interaction involves escalation or reciprocation of negative affect, disengagement, stonewalling, contempt, denial, and blaming (Gott- man & Notarius, 2001; Hetherington, 1999b; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Relatedly, risk increases if couples differ on their views of family life, if they share few interests or friends (Hetherington, 1999b; Notarius & Vanzetti, 1983), and if there is little spousal interdependence (Rogers, 2004). There is some evidence that participation in premarital education can be beneficial in reducing conflict and divorce (Stanley, Amato, Johnson, & Markman, 2006). Sexual dissatisfaction contributes more to risk of instability for men than for women (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002), although the finding is stronger for white than for black men (Orbuch, Veroff, & Hunter, 1999). Addition- ally, risk is associated with preexisting levels of personal maladjustment, such as antisocial behavior, depression, alcohol/substance abuse, and impulsiv- ity. Individuals with a history of these kinds of problems are more likely to encounter stressful life events, to experience relationship distress that ends in divorce, and to be deficient in parenting skills (Capaldi & Patterson, 1991; Hetherington, 1999b; Kitson & Holmes, 1992; Kurdek, 1990). Antisocial individuals also are more likely to select an antisocial partner (Amato, 2000; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002), thereby compounding any relationship prob- lems. 106 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Effects of Divorce on Adjustment Adult Adjustment Divorce is one of the most stressful experiences adults may face; not surpris- ingly, many individuals exhibit a variety of problematic outcomes. Although not all postdivorce changes are negative (see Hetherington & Kelly, 2002, for a review), a substantial body of work documents the increased risk of psychopathology, higher incidence of motor vehicle accidents, elevated drink- ing and drug use, alcoholism, suicide, and even death for those who separate or divorce, as compared to the continuously married (see Amato, 2000, for a review of this earlier work). More recent research supports and extends these earlier findings toward providing a more nuanced understanding of potential factors that moderate the effects of divorce on physical health outcomes. For example, increases in depression, dysthymia, alcohol abuse, and lowered global happiness depend upon particular factors such as gender, economic resources, the quality of the marriage, and the presence of young children (Overbeek et al., 2006; Wil- liams & Dunne-­Bryant, 2006). Alcohol abuse and dysthymia increased after divorce, but not for those who left lower quality marriages (Overbeek et al., 2006). The presence of preschool-age children increases risk of depression for men and women after divorce (Williams & Dunne-­Bryant, 2006). Divorce also is associated with increased alcohol abuse for men regardless of the pres- ence of children; for women, increased alcohol abuse is only seen when pre- school-age children are present, in part because of concomitant increases in parenting strain and frequency of contact with the former spouse. Strain also comes from inadequate levels of income. Divorce typically leads to a dramatic reduction in the residential parent’s household income, with per capita declines averaging 13–35% in national populations (Cherlin, 1998; Peterson, 1996). Women with children under the age of 6 may be at special risk for strain, with over half of this group below the poverty line (Teachman & Paasch, 1994). Reduced income contributes to other poten- tially stressful circumstances, such as changes in employment, education, and residence (DeGarmo & Forgatch, 1999; Forgatch, Patterson, & Ray, 1996; Lorenz et al., 1997; McLanahan, 1999; Patterson & Forgatch, 1990). Stress usually dissipates with time (DeGarmo & Forgatch, 1997; Forgatch et al., 1996; Hetherington, 1993; Lorenz et al., 1997), although those with lower incomes generally experience a greater number of disruptive events. If income remains low, stress often persists. Correlations between income and happi- ness/life satisfaction are generally small; however, it is notable that social rela- tionships and emotional support largely moderate adverse effects of economic distress on family relations and adjustment following divorce (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Simons & Associates, 1996). An emerging literature also addresses the underlying processes and dis- eases by which long-term health may be affected after divorce, such as changes  Risk and Resilience after Divorce 107 in blood pressure (Sbarra, Law, Lee, & Mason, 2009), immune functioning (Kiecolt-­Glaser, McGuire, Robles, & Glaser, 2002), cardiovascular disease markers (Zhang & Hayward, 2006), and chronic illnesses and mobility limi- tations (Hughes & Waite, 2009). Moreover, there is evidence that family dis- ruption is related to the community homicide rate (Schwartz, 2006). Child Adjustment The relation between divorce and child adjustment is well established, although controversy arises over how best to integrate the findings. Readers may encoun- ter, for example, the following seemingly incongruent statements: 1. Children of divorce are at serious risk for maladaptation. 2. Most children display no serious difficulties after their parents’ divorce. 3. Substantial numbers of children of divorce are better adjusted than those from nondivorced households. 4. Some children’s lives are enhanced by their parents’ divorce. 5. Negative effects of divorce on children generally resolve soon after- ward. 6. Children may be adversely affected even into adulthood by parental divorce. 7. Many of the negative effects associated with divorce exist well before the marriage ends. Interestingly, each statement correctly summarizes a part of the literature relating to children of divorce. These statements further comprise two broad domains: (1) descriptions of the overall risk associated with divorce (State- ments 1–4); and (2) changes in adjustment over time (Statements 5–7). Overall Risk Studies of divorce generally find that approximately 25% of children in divorced families experience high levels of problem behaviors versus 10% of children from nondivorced households (e.g., Forgatch et al., 1996; Hether- ington et al., 1992; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Simons & Associates, 1996; Zill, Morrison, & Coiro, 1993). Although select studies have found larger differences, meta-­analyses approach these figures (Amato, 2000). We can correctly conclude that the experience of parental divorce doubles the risk of serious problems for children (support for Statement 1). However, we also can correctly conclude that the overwhelming majority of children (i.e., the 80% without behavioral problems) show no serious difficulties in relation to their parent’s divorce (support for Statement 2). Both statements are supported by the data, although the former emphasizes the risk for some individuals, whereas the latter emphasizes the resilience demonstrated by 108 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES most. Furthermore, with substantial overlap in the distribution of adjustment between the children from divorced versus nondivorced families, we also can correctly conclude that a substantial number of children of divorce (i.e., about 40%), are better adjusted than their nondivorced counterparts (support for Statement 3). Some researchers have argued that the divorce itself is but a marker for other factors that create problematic adjustment in children, such as paren- tal conflict. Children appear to be better off in cases in which the divorce substantially reduces levels of parental conflict or when there was ongoing violence in the marriage (support for Statement 4; Amato, Loomis, & Booth, 1995; Booth & Amato, 2001; Emery, 2009; Jekielek, 1998; Strohschein, 2005). Children from the most conflicted homes also are more likely to report feeling relieved that their parents divorced, although those from less conflicted homes are more likely to report distress after their parents’ divorce (Amato & Booth, 1997). Many children, in fact, initially respond to divorce with confu- sion, anxiety, and anger, but over time are able to adjust, with the support and involvement of a caring, competent adult. Adjustment Over Time Evidence suggests that for children of divorce, some adjustment problems may be transitory, others may persist, and still others may be present long before the actual dissolution occurs. Longitudinal studies (e.g., Guidubaldi, Perry, & Nastasi, 1987; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1982) find, for example, that many problems dissipate within the 1–2 years following a divorce, as families adjust to their new life situation (support for Statement 5). In other cases, effects of divorce persist over time. Across reporter (boys, mothers, teachers, peers, trained observers), Hetherington (1993) found that boys who experi- ence parental divorce while in preschool continue to show more significant elevations in externalizing behavior than their nondivorce counterparts, with differences maintained into adolescence. With respect to early adolescence, Hetherington et al. (1992) reported that regardless of gender, children dem- onstrated difficulties in school and home settings even 4–6 years after the divorce. In a meta-­analysis of 37 studies linking parental divorce in child- hood with eventual adjustment in adulthood, Amato and Keith (1991) found moderate-size negative effects for depression, diminished life satisfaction, and lower marital quality, educational attainment, income, occupational prestige, and physical health (support for Statement 6). There is evidence that parental divorce impacts womens’ expectations for their own marriages, so that women who experienced their parents’ divorce have lower relationship commitment and relationship confidence, controlling for prior parental conflict and current relationship adjustment (Whitton, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2008). Selection of a stable, supportive spouse from a nondivorced family, however, can essentially eliminate the risk of marital instability associated with having divorced parents (Hetherington, 1999b; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).  Risk and Resilience after Divorce 109 In part, long-term effects may persist because of disruptions in normal developmental trajectories during the period of adolescence (e.g., Chase- ­Lansdale, Cherlin, & Kiernan, 1995). In addition, a confluence of risk fac- tors may occur in adolescent girls from divorced families. Girls from divorced and remarried families achieve physical signs of puberty earlier, which, when combined with association with older male peers, poor parental monitoring and control, and an overtly sexually active divorced mother, lead to early initiation of sexual activities, more sexual partners, and higher rates of sexu- ally transmitted diseases and pregnancy (Hetherington, 1993; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Despite evidence for long-term difficulties, some problems stem not from the divorce itself but from earlier deteriorating conditions in the family (sup- port for Statement 7). Strohschein (2005) found, for example, that children whose parents later divorce exhibited higher levels of antisocial behavior and anxiety/depression even before the divorce. Sun and Li (2002) found that chil- dren whose parents divorced had lower test scores 3 years prior to divorce, with additional declines after the divorce. These studies echo earlier work by Block, Block, and Gjerde (1986), Chase-­Lansdale et al. (1995), and others. In an effort to synthesize the existing literature on divorce, researchers increasingly are adopting a perspective that emphasizes diversity in children’s responses (Amato, 2000; Hetherington, Bridges, & Insabella, 1998; Hether- ington & Kelly, 2002; Strohschein, 2005). Relatedly, there is growing inter- est in identifying the conditions that influence risk versus resilience, such as the child’s own temperament (e.g., Hetherington, 1991), although resilience does not mean that children are invulnerable to effects of divorce (Emery, 1999). Although divorce generally exerts only a moderately negative—and in many cases temporary—­effect on children, the differences are far from trivial for the families involved. Most families avoid the more calamitous outcomes, such as school dropout and unwed pregnancy. But avoiding calamity is not the equivalent of having achieved success. Emery describes the concerns of many parents who worry that their children, while not necessarily demonstrating clinically significant levels of problems, still show some level of behavioral problems or emotional distress from having experienced the divorce. The children themselves as young adults report more distress over recalling their childhood experiences around divorce (Laumann-­Billings & Emery, 2000). Many families seek help in addressing these concerns. Some of what they may seek is help for psychological pain of a more subtle nature (Amato, 2010; Laumann-­Billings & Emery, 2000), or to repair or bolster key family relation- ships. Thus, the diversity of postdivorce outcomes for children reflects various unique qualities of the family. Finally, it is important to determine how results of the substantial body of existing literature on divorce will track with emerging demographic shifts in marriage that are now taking place, such as delays in age at marriage, and more educated individuals selecting marriage (see Schoen & Cheng, 2006, for discussion), combined with increased rates of child support compliance and 110 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES noncustodial contact that are occurring (see a later section for discussion). These and other shifts ultimately may moderate risk for problems associated with divorce for future cohorts of children produced from these marriages. Effects of Divorce on Family Relationships Relationships between Divorced Spouses After a divorce, overall levels of physical contact, conflict, and emotional attachment between spouses typically diminish rapidly. Men are more likely, however, to have lingering emotional attachment to the ex-­spouse and to entertain thoughts of reconciliation, although, ironically, men also are quicker to remarry. In cases where the ex-­spouse remarries, women commonly report sustained anger, resentment, and competitiveness toward the new wife (Het- herington & Kelly, 2002). If violence arises, it is most likely to occur toward wives in the time during the decision to divorce and immediately after the separation, with highest risk when wives have initiated the divorce. By 6 years postdivorce, most adults have moved on to build reasonably satisfying lives, and intense emotions associated with the breakup have faded. Some studies find evidence that conflicts linger on, especially when for- mer spouses are tied to one another through mutual children or other factors (Fischer, De Graaf, & Kalmijn, 2005; Kalmijn & Monden, 2006). About 25% of divorced parents exhibit sustained or even increased conflict that usually concerns finances and relations with the children (Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1996; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992; Tschann, Johnson, Kline, & Wallerstein, 1990). Some children report feeling “caught” between parental loyalties or think that they are to blame for these arguments; in such situ- ations, boys are more likely to engage in noncompliant, angry, acting-out behaviors, whereas girls are more likely to respond with guilt and anxiety (Hetherington, 1999a). Ideally, postdivorce family life would involve minimal conflict between parents, who are able to engage in a cooperative, supportive role with regard to each other’s involvement with the child. Such a situation characterizes only about one-­fourth of divorced households. Instead, most ex-­spouses become disengaged or resort to parallel parenting, characterized by little collaboration or communication but, fortunately, with few instances of actively undermin- ing the other parent (Ahrons, 2011; Buchanan et al., 1996; Hetherington, 1999a; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Relationships between Residential Parents and Children In the early years after divorce, residential mothers and fathers often struggle with task overload and question their adequacy as parents; they also experi- ence health problems associated with a lowered immune system and report psy- chological distress, such as anxiety, depression, and loneliness (Hetherington,  Risk and Resilience after Divorce 111 1993; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Kiecolt-­Glaser et al., 1988; Simons & Associates, 1996). Residential parents often are preoccupied with their own adjustment problems, and demonstrate irritability and a lack of emotional support toward the children. Discipline may be erratic and punitive, while monitoring of children’s whereabouts and behaviors typically diminishes (For- gatch et al., 1996; Hetherington, 1993). As a consequence, children generally display increased noncompliance, anger, and dependence during this time. Relationships involving residential mothers and their sons may be especially disturbed, as demonstrated by the presence of escalating, mutually coercive interactions (DeGarmo & Forgatch, 1999; Hetherington, 1993; Hetherington et al., 1992). By 2 years postdivorce, many of these problems have diminished, although the residential mother–son relationship continues to be more dis- tressed than those in nondivorced families. In contrast, after an initial period of perturbation, relationships involving residential mothers and their daugh- ters often are characterized as warm, close, and companionate. Additional problems may surface during adolescence. As daughters reach puberty, their relationships with mothers may become strained, particularly in cases where early-­maturing daughters demonstrate precocious sexual or act- ing-out behaviors (Hetherington, 1993; Hetherington et al., 1992). Maternal attempts to correct for these problems by increasing parental monitoring and control of the adolescent daughter generally are unsuccessful. About one-third of children of divorce also disengage from their families earlier than counter- parts in nondivorced families. If familial influence is replaced with involve- ment in an antisocial peer group, risk for delinquent behavior may increase; alternatively, development of a supportive relationship with a competent adult (e.g., a grandparent, teacher, or neighbor) may buffer negative effects of this early familial disengagement (Hetherington, 1993). Although residential mothers and fathers demonstrate similarities in the pattern of deterioration and recovery of competent parenting, some differ- ences remain. Residential mothers communicate and self-­disclose more openly with their children and are more active in monitoring children’s activities and knowing their friends. Residential fathers report less childrearing stress than do mothers and tend to have fewer problems with discipline or control. Addi- tionally, divorce appears to undermine opposite-­gender relationships more than same-­gender relationships, such that mothers and daughters are con- siderably more affectionate and close than daughters and fathers, or mothers and sons. Sons in divorced families have less contact with fathers and feel less affectionate toward them than sons in nondivorced families, although the dif- ferences are relatively small (Amato & Booth, 1997). Consistent with findings for nondivorced households, the parenting style that works well in divorced households is authoritative, characterized by warmth, support, responsiveness, and consistent control and monitoring. In contrast to disengaged, authoritarian, or permissive parenting styles, chil- dren raised with an authoritative parenting style have higher levels of social and academic competence, and lower levels of psychopathology (Anderson, 112 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Lindner, & Bennion, 1992; Avenoli, Sessa, & Steinberg, 1999; Hetherington, 1993; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Martinez & Forgatch, 2002). Divorced parents are less likely than those in nondivorced households to use an authori- tative parenting style, however (Hetherington, 1993; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Martinez & Forgatch, 2002; Simons & Associates, 1996; Thomson, McLanahan, & Curtin, 1992), and mean levels of problem behaviors are still higher in divorced versus nondivorced families, even when authoritative par- enting is used (Anderson et al., 1992). Relationships between Nonresidential Parents and Children Nonresidential divorced fathers report a strong desire to stay involved with their children (Braver, Ellman, & Fabricius, 2003), and children themselves report similar desires to be involved with their nonresidential fathers (Fabr- icius & Hall, 2000; Schwartz & Finley, 2009). Although negative stereotypes of nonresidential fathers still persist (Troilo & Coleman, 2007), more recent cohorts show that, at least in the short term, there is little or no decline in contact between nonresidential fathers and their children (DeGarmo, 2010). With respect to maintaining weekly contact over time, results of nationally representative data pooled from the 1970s to the 2000s show a substantial increase, from 8% in 1976 to 31% in 2002; 37% rates of no contact in 1976 decreased to 29% in 2002 (Amato, Meyers, & Emery, 2009). Contact is more likely to be maintained in situations in which media- tion is used, when there is low parental conflict, when the nonresidential parent believes he or she has some control in decisions affecting the child, and when the child is a boy (Amato, 2000; Amato & Gilbreth, 1999; Braver et al., 1993; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992). The presence of a cooperative coparenting relationship also is associated with increases in contact (Sobo- lewski & King, 2005). Contact is associated with compliance with paying child support in a consistent and timely fashion (Juby, Billette, Laplante, & Le Bourdais, 2007). It is of concern, therefore, that child support payments continue to lag, with 2004 data indicating that less than half pay the full amount (Grall, 2006). Frequent contact with nonresidential fathers during childhood is associ- ated with a number of positive child outcomes, including better feelings toward both parents (Fabricius, 2003; Fabricius & Luecken, 2006) and less blame of fathers as the cause of the divorce (Laumann-­Billings & Emery, 2000). Addi- tionally, quality involvement has direct benefits for children (Amato & Sobo- lewski, 2004; Aquilino, 2006; Fabricius & Luecken, 2007; King, 2006; King & Sobolewski, 2006) and for father–child relationship quality and respon- sive fathering (Sobolewski & King, 2005). For boys, close relationships with fathers reduce feelings that they will themselves divorce as adults (Risch, Jodl, & Eccles, 2004). Most studies have shown that nonresidential mothers have greater con- tact and closeness with their children (e.g., Hawkins, Amato, & King, 2006).  Risk and Resilience after Divorce 113 For example, in a comparison of nonresidential fathers and nonresidential mothers, Gunnoe and Hetherington (2004) found that adolescents reported more contact and social support from nonresidential mothers than from non- residential fathers. In addition, the relation between perceived social support and adolescent adjustment was greater for those with nonresidential mothers. Although they are less authoritative than residential mothers or mothers in nondivorced families, nonresidential mothers are more likely to make efforts at monitoring and controlling their children’s behavior, and to be more sup- portive and sensitive to their needs. Nonresidential mothers, however, are less likely to pay child support than nonresidential fathers (Sousa & Sorenson, 2006), although child support orders do improve rates of compliance (Braver et al., 1993; Grall, 2009). Finally, the greater involvement and closeness of nonresidential mothers may interfere with the formation of close bonds with a stepmother (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Relationships between Siblings In contrast to the postdivorce research on parent–child relationships, studies of siblings are rare. The few studies in this area show that sibling relation- ships following parental divorce are generally distressed, marked by patterns of conflict and negativity, as well as disengagement and avoidance (Conger & Conger, 1996; Hetherington, 1993; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Within 4 to 6 years after divorce, many of these differences have abated, although, con- sistent with the research on parent–child relationships, sibling relationships in divorced families continue to be more negative compared to those in non- divorced families (Anderson & Rice, 1992). Patterns of disengagement and avoidance may explain why child adjustment is less strongly related to sibling relationship quality in divorced versus nondivorced families (Anderson et al., 1992). In contentious divorces, siblings may be drawn into opposite sides of parental disputes, aligning with one parent against the other (McGoldrick & Carter, 2011). Research in this area provides evidence for a spillover effect with other family relationships. More negative sibling relationships are related to higher levels of conflict between divorced spouses, and between parents and children (Conger & Conger, 1996; Hetherington, 1993; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; MacKinnon, 1989). Over time, the presence of a sibling may introduce the potential for differential treatment by parents, and differential involvement in parental disputes (Greene & Anderson, 1999). When sibling relationships are positive, they may buffer the effects of a conflictual relationship with a parent (Hetherington, 1993), although boys appear to receive less sibling support than do girls (Anderson & Rice, 1992; Conger & Conger, 1996; ­Hetherington, 1993). Even in adulthood, it is mothers and female siblings who promote more family cohesion through phone calls, organizing joint activities or celebrations, and coming together at vacations (Hetherington, 1999a). 114 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Relationships with Grandparents Following divorce, a strengthening of ties with blood relatives often occurs (Gongla & Thomson, 1987). Many divorced mothers turn to their own par- ents for economic assistance; about one-­fourth of divorced women live with their parents at some point after the divorce (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Many residential mothers and fathers also rely on their family of origin for child care and emotional support. Reflective of economic disadvantage, help in African American families is more likely to take the form of providing ser- vices, in contrast to the monetary support provided in white families (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994). Divorce also increases the risk of lost contact between grandparents and grandchildren (Drew & Smith, 2002; Drew & Silverstein, 2007; Lussier, Deater-­Deckard, Dunn, & Davies, 2002). Grandparents who had lost con- tact with their grandchildren due to separation, divorce, or other events were found to have adverse emotional health, including greater increases in depres- sion up to 15 years later (Drew & Silverstein, 2007). Related research findings on the role of grandparents in protecting chil- dren from the adverse effects of parental divorce have been mixed. Some have found that children, especially African Americans in mother-­headed homes, may benefit from the presence of a grandmother in the home (Kellam, Adams, Brown, & Ensminger, 1982; Lussier et al., 2002); however, family stress may increase in situations where residential grandmothers and divorced mothers have conflict over views of control and discipline of children, the divorced mother’s social life, and level of independence (Hetherington, 1989). More- over, support from grandparents that comes with unwanted advice, costs, and restrictions is unhelpful to parents or children (Amato, 2000; Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994; Hetherington, 1989; Kitson & Holmes, 1992; Miller, Smerglia, Gaudet, & Kitson, 1998). When the presence of a grandparent has advantageous effects on children, it is because the grandmother’s support leads to improved maternal parenting (Hetherington, 1989). Although there is little research on the impact of grandfathers on children’s postdivorce adjust- ment, some evidence indicates that the presence of an involved, competent, residential grandfather in a divorced family can decrease antisocial behavior and increase achievement in grandsons (Hetherington, 1989). Extrafamilial Relationships and Divorce In addition to family ties, relationships external to the family have the potential to exert influence on adjustment after divorce. In fact, this influence may occur even before the actual breakup: Of note, about 75% of those who initiate a divorce report that either an adult confidant (e.g., a friend, or family member) or new romantic partner played a major role in their decision to leave the marriage (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). In the aftermath of divorce, parents seem likely to continue seeking contact from these adults for support and assistance.  Risk and Resilience after Divorce 115 Relationships with Romantic Partners Along with the divorce comes the legally and socially sanctioned potential to form new romantic attachments with other adults. In fact, the strongest contributor to a divorced adult’s well-being and happiness is the eventual for- mation of a supportive, mutually caring, intimate relationship (Hethering- ton, 1993; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Moreover, situations in which the romantic partner is residential may provide more immediate support than nonresidential partners, or nonresidential friends and relatives (DeGarmo & Forgatch, 1997; Simons & Johnson, 1996). Unlike a live-in partner, who is available to offer encouragement, advice, and actual help with childrearing, nonresidential partners, friends, and relatives, even if supportive, may not be present to assist with everyday duties, and may exert little influence on the quality of parenting. Ironically, the potential for a new partner to offer emotional and social support to the family is not always reflected in improved child outcomes. The adjustment of children in cohabiting families may be worse than that in divorced, single-­parent households (Buchanan et al., 1996; Cherlin & Furst- enberg, 1994; Seltzer, 2000). It may be that the stresses and challenges in forming successful cohabiting relationships (e.g., ambiguity of the new part- ner’s parental role, uncertainty of a long-term commitment) at times outweigh the benefits of possible support, or that the adverse effects of divorce are per- vasive and long-­lasting (Anderson, Greene, Hetherington, & Clingempeel, 1999; Buchanan et al., 1996; Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994). Furthermore, families continue to confront emerging challenges related to postdivorce life and repartnering, with potential reverberations felt across the coparent house- holds (see later sections). Yet many postdivorce families over time are able to establish gratifying relationships and a salutary environment in which compe- tent children can develop (Hetherington et al., 1998; Seltzer, 2000; Thomson et al., 1992). Given that cohabitation is such a common experience for postdi- vorce families, we turn next to a consideration of the available literature. Repartnering and Nonmarital Cohabitating Relationships Nonmarital cohabitation appears to be a difficult transition for many fami- lies. Buchanan et al. (1996) have found, for example, that boys in cohabitat- ing postdivorce households scored higher on almost every problem measured, including substance use, school deviance, antisocial behavior, poor grades, and problem peer relations, compared to boys in remarried families. Girls in cohabitating families were more likely than those whose parents were remar- ried or romantically noninvolved to have strained relations with the residential parent. Additionally, parenting was more problematic in dating and cohabitat- ing families than in remarried families. Nonmarital cohabitation has adverse potential effects for adult adjustment as well; the risk of physical abuse to 116 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES adults in cohabitating relationships is three times greater than that for mar- ried couples, 15% versus 5%, respectively (Waite, 2000). Perhaps because of uncertainty in the cohabitating state, couples are less likely to pool income, although income sharing increases when a child is born into the union. When cohabitation occurs after engagement, such relationships may be more suc- cessful (Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman, 2006; Xu, Hudspeth, & Bartkowski, 2006). Compared to stepfathers or nondivorced fathers with biological children, the cohabiting romantic partner is likely to be less financially and emotionally invested in any residential children (King, 2009). The cohabiting romantic partner’s relationships and parenting style with residential children are more problematic, with the partner typically devoting less time to youth-­oriented activities at school or in community or religious organizations (Ryan, Fran- zetta, Schelar, & Manlove, 2009; Thomson et al., 1992). In cohabitating families, strain between the romantic partner and child can spill over into dis- tressed relations between the residential parent and child, particularly daugh- ters (Buchanan et al., 1996). Given the challenges inherent in adjusting to divorce, along with the likelihood that many of these families eventually will remarry, which fac- tors contribute to successful repartnering? Although literature on the topic of postdivorce repartnering at present is limited, it seems likely that the period prior to actual legal remarriage comprises a time of potentially dramatic lev- els of change as the parent, the new romantic partner, and children meet one another and begin to form the basis for new relationships and attempt to forge a new family system. Specifically, repartnering success may be dependent on how well parents handle three central challenges in the repartnering process: (1) developing effective decision-­making strategies for dating others; (2) serv- ing as gatekeepers or regulators of information to children concerning their own repartnering and their ex-­spouse’s repartnering; and (3) acting as manag- ers of emerging relationships in repartnered families. As part of the first challenge, developing decision-­making strategies in dating, parents must evaluate their personal readiness to begin the dating pro- cess; some already have begun the process of repartnering even as the marriage dissolved, whereas others may not be ready for months or even years after the divorce. Parents also must decide on their selection criteria for the new roman- tic partner, including the strategies used to meet others, such as the dating arena or specific setting that they select as a way to access a potential source of eligible partners (e.g., work, bars and clubs, religious organizations, personal ads, the Internet, contact with friends or relatives). Finally, parents must deter- mine the extent to which considerations about the child affect the process of dating, including the child’s own level of readiness and individual adjustment. The presence of residential children appears to increase the chance of forming a union with a new partner who also has children (Goldscheider & Sassler, 2006), and there is some research to suggest that positive child adjustment may accelerate the repartnering process (Forgatch et al., 1996; Montgomery, Anderson, Hetherington, & Clingempeel, 1992).  Risk and Resilience after Divorce 117 With respect to the second challenge, parents must serve in the role as gatekeeper by orchestrating whether, when, and how to disclose information relating to the romantic relationship itself (e.g., the extent of this disclosure, its timing and level of developmental appropriateness). For example, they must decide how to handle the child’s exposure to any implied sexual involvement between the parent and partner, such as the frequency and timing of over- night stays (Anderson et al., 2009). The success with which the parent is able to manage such situations has important potential implications for children. Inappropriate levels of exposure and knowledge may lead to precocious sexual knowledge (Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1978; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980), and increase distress and acting-out behaviors in adolescents (Koerner, Wal- lace, Lehman, Lee, & Escalante, 2004). With the third challenge, managing emerging relationships, parents must incorporate the new romantic partner into the existing system with the chil- dren, such as deciding on the level of the partner’s involvement in discipline. There also must be opportunities for joint activities between children and the new romantic partner. Shared activities may influence how well families adapt over the long term to the new romantic partner (Montgomery et al., 1992). Relatedly, the adjustment of families to postdivorce events such as parental repartnering takes place against a backdrop of mutual and recursive influence among family members. The ways in which the parent responds to the interac- tion between the new romantic partner and the child provides, for example, a signal to the child as to how to interpret and further react to the partner’s behavior. The child’s response to overtures made by the new romantic partner may provide the parent with a means to gauge the successful integration of the partner into the family and, thus, an indirect assessment of the long-term prospects for the repartnered relationship. Moreover, whereas much of this discussion on postdivorce parental repartnering has concerned the residential parent, the little available research demonstrates that even changes in the non- residential parent’s romantic life exert effects on child development (Anderson et al., 1999). In summary, the negotiation of family transitions around postdi- vorce repartnering has important implications for adult and child adjustment and parental functioning. Further research is needed to identify the mecha- nisms involved in successful repartnering and to inform theory, as well as interventions, with divorced populations. The Legal System and Divorcing Families Divorce has become a major focus for social policy (Amato, 2004). The Federal Government created a major initiative to support marriage, and three states have instituted covenant marriage laws as a way to discourage divorce. In the past two decades, many U.S. jurisdictions have adopted statutes that promote joint legal custody, shared parental responsibility, and continued contact with both parents. Moreover, nearly half of all U.S. counties have some sort of par- enting education program in place for divorcing parents (Arbuthnot, 2002). 118 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES About 10% of divorcing families are not able to reach even a minimal level of agreement to allow for coparenting their children (Grych & Fincham, 1999; Maccoby, Depner, &Mnookin, 1990). Such high-­conflict domestic rela- tions cases are recognized as recidivists, since these families repeatedly resort to court processes because of ongoing disagreements. High-­conflict family cases consume a disproportionate amount of court resources and contribute to burnout among family court practitioners. High conflict has long been associated with poor child outcomes; thus, these families pose special risks and challenges for social scientists, policymakers, and the courts. Consequently, there is an evolving concern that adversarial procedures may entrench families in litigation, giving rise to alternative efforts to foster nonadversarial means of deciding issues of legal and physical custody, visita- tion schedules, and parenting plans (e.g., Atwood, 2007; Warshak, 2007a, 2007b). Alternative efforts include mediation and collaborative divorce (Emery, 2007). Results from interventions that employ collaborative law approaches show promise (Ebling, Pruett, & Kline Pruett, 2009). Use of collaborative law attorneys, for example, was associated with better psychological functioning for mothers, which yielded indirect positive effects for child outcomes (Pru- ett, Williams, Insabella, & Little, 2003). Moreover, use of divorce mediation has been demonstrated to lower trial rates and enhance coparenting (Emery, Laumann-­Billings, Waldron, Sbarra, & Dillon, 2001; Emery, Sbarra, & Gro- ver, 2005). High-­conflict families that become entrenched in the legal system are essentially allowing for judicial determination of custody. Judge Judith Kreeger (2003) raises a concern that most family court judges, while experienced in family law, have little formal training in family systems, mental health, and child development issues. In such cases, judges may rely on custody evaluators to assist in decision making, a practice that has been criticized (Emery, 2007; O’Connell, 2007; Tippins & Wittmann, 2005). In response to a demand from practitioners for clearer custody guidelines (Emery, 2007), the American Law Institute has recommended inclusion of an approximation rule to guide contested custody cases. This approach involves determining physical custody on the basis of the proportion of time the child has spent with each parent in the past. The goal of approximation is to anchor custody decisions in “lived” experience (Atwood, 2007), extrapolating from past parenting behavior to anticipate what may likely be future parenting behavior (Emery, 2007). In contrast, disputed custody arrangements have historically been determined using the best-­interest-of-the-child standard, an approach that has been criticized because of a lack of consensus on what actu- ally constitutes the best interest of the child (e.g., Emery, Otto, & O’Donohue, 2005; O’Connell, 2007). A debate over the relative merits of the two approaches appeared recently in Child Development Perspectives (Atwood, 2007; Emery, 2007; Lamb, 2007; O’Connell, 2007; Warshak, 2007a, 2007b). Even among authors with differing views on this debate, however, there is strong consensus that parenting with minimal conflict is optimal for children, with an agreed- upon parenting plan determined by the parents themselves (Atwood, 2007;  Risk and Resilience after Divorce 119 Emery, 2007; Lamb, 2007; O’Connell, 2007; Warshak, 2007a, 2007b). Emery (2007) states that “parental self-­determination should be parents’ first prior- ity and our legal system’s overriding goal” (p. 133). Thus, practitioners should be concerned with identifying alternatives to relitigation and promoting chil- dren’s meaningful contact with both parents (Emery et al., 2005). Psychologi- cal interventions for high-­conflict divorcing families exist but have yet to be empirically tested in the field. Promising approaches include Lebow’s (2003) integrative multilevel family therapy, and Benjamin and Gollan’s (2005) con- trolled communication model. Summary The breakdown of a marriage initiates a series of notable changes in the lives of parents and children. As emerging challenges are met, with new relation- ships formed, and family roles and processes altered, most adults and children experience considerable stress. Whereas about one-­fourth experience lasting problems in adjustment, it should be underscored that most are resilient, able to move on and lead satisfying new lives. Postdivorce resilience largely depends on the ability of parents and children to build close, constructive, mutually supportive relationships that play a profound role in buffering families from effects of related adversity. Note 1. It should be noted that prior to January 1996, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) compiled its annual marriage and divorce statistics from actual counts provided by all of the individual states. Since that time, six states no longer collect actual counts of divorce (California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, and Minnesota). Thus, the annual divorce rate is now derived from actual counts from the states that continue to participate, supplemented with estimates of the rates for the missing states from nationally representative surveys, such as the National Survey of Family Growth. References Ahrons, C. R. (2011). Divorce: An unscheduled family transition. In M. McGoldrick, B. Carter, & N. Garcia-Preto (Eds.), The expanded family life cycle: Individual, family, and social perspectives (4th ed., pp. 292–306). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1269–1287. Amato, P. R. (2004). Tension between individual and institutional views of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 959–965. Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650–666. Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (1997). A generation at risk: Growing up in an era of fam- ily upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 120 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and children’s wellbeing: A meta-­analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 557–575. Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and adult well-being: A metaanaly- sis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 43–58. Amato, P. R., Loomis, L. S., & Booth, A. (1995). Parental divorce, marital conflict, and offspring well-being in early adulthood. Social Forces, 73, 895–916. Amato, P., Meyers, C., & Emery, R. (2009). Changes in nonresident father–child con- tact from 1976 to 2002. Family Relations, 58(1), 41–53. Amato, P.R., & Sobolewski, J.M. (2001). The effects of divorce and marital discord on adult chidren’s psychological well-being. American Sociological Review, 66, 900–921. Anderson, E. R., & Greene, S. M. (2005). Transitions in parental repartnering after divorce. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 43, 47–62. Anderson, E. R., Greene, S. M., Walker, L., Malerba, C. A., Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2004). Ready to take a chance again: Transitions into dating among divorced parents. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 40, 61–75. Anderson, E. R., Greene, S. M., Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1999). The dynamics of parental remarriage: Adolescent, parent, and sibling influences. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remar- riage: A risk and resiliency perspective (pp. 295–319). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Anderson, E. R., Hurley, K., Greene, S. M., Sullivan, K., & Webb, A. P. (2009, April). When Mom’s boyfriend spends the night: Children’s reactions to post-­divorce overnight stays with parents’ new romantic partners. Presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Denver, CO. Anderson, E. R., Lindner, M. S., & Bennion, L. D. (1992). The effect of family rela- tionships on adolescent development during family reorganization. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(2–3, Serial No. 227), 178–200. Anderson, E. R., & Rice, A. M. (1992). Sibling relationships during remarriage. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(2–3, Serial No. 227), 149–177. Aquilino, W. S. (2006). The noncustodial father–child relationship from adolescence into young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 929–946. Arbuthnot, J. (2002). A call unheeded: Courts’ perceived obstacles to establishing divorce education programs. Family Court Review, 40, 371–382. Atwood, B. A. (2007). Comment on Warshak: The approximation rule as a work in progress. Child Development Perspectives, 1, 126–128. Avenoli, S., Sessa, F. M., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Family structure, parenting prac- tices, and adolescent adjustment: An ecological examination. In E. M. Hether- ington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting and remarriage: A risk and resiliency perspective (pp. 65–90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Benjamin, G. A. H., & Gollan, J. K. (2005). Family evaluation in custody litigation: Reducing risks of ethical infractions and malpractice. Washington, DC: Ameri- can Psychological Association. Block, J. H., Block, J., & Gjerde, P. F. (1986). The personality of children prior to divorce: A prospective study. Child Development, 57, 827–840. Booth, A., & Amato, P. R. (2001). Parental divorce relations and offspring postdi- vorce well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 197–212. Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2001). First marriage dissolution, divorce, and  Risk and Resilience after Divorce 121 remarriage in the United States: Advance data from vital and health statistics. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Bramlett, M.D., & Mosher, W. D. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 23. Washing- ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Bratter, J., & King, R. B. (2008). But will it last?: Marital instability among interracial and same-race couples. Family Relations, 57, 160–171. Braver, S. L., Ellman, I. M., & Fabricius, W. V. (2003). Relocation of children after divorce and children’s best interests: New evidence and legal considerations. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 206–219. Braver, S. L., Wolchick, S. A., Sandler, I. N., Sheets, V. L., Fogas, B., & Bay, R. C. (1993). A longitudinal study of nonresidential parents: Parents without children. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(1), 9–23. Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1996). Adolescents after divorce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Capaldi, D. M., & Patterson, G. R. (1991). Relation of parental transitions to boys’ adjustment problems: I. A linear hypothesis. II. Mothers at risk for transitions and unskilled parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 489–504. Cavanagh, S. E., & Huston, A. C. (2008). The timing of family instability and chil- dren’s social development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1258–1269. Chase-­Lansdale, P. L., Cherlin, A. J., & Kiernan, K. E. (1995). The long-term effects of parental divorce on the mental health of young adults: A developmental per- spective. Child Development, 66, 1614–1634. Cherlin, A. J. (1998). Marriage and marital dissolution among black Americans. Jour- nal of Comparative Family Studies, 29, 147–158. Cherlin, A. J. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 403–419. Cherlin, A. J., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1994). Stepfamilies in the United States. Review of Sociology, 20, 359–381. Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (1996). Sibling relationships. In R. L. Simons & Asso- ciates (Eds.), Understanding differences between divorced and intact families (pp. 104–121). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeGarmo, D. S. (2010). Coercive and prosocial fathering, antisocial personality, and growth in children’s postdivorce noncompliance. Child Development, 81, 503– 516. DeGarmo, D. S., & Forgatch, M. S. (1997). Determinants of observed confidant sup- port. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 336–345. DeGarmo, D. S., & Forgatch, M. S. (1999). Contexts as predictors of changing mater- nal parenting practices in diverse family structures: A social interactional per- spective of risk and resilience. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting and remarriage: A risk and resiliency perspective (pp. 227–252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Drew, L. M., & Silverstein, M. (2007). Grandparents’ psychological well-being after loss of contact with their grandchildren. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 372–379. Drew, L. M., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Implications for grandparents when they lose contact with their grandchildren: Divorce, family feud, and geographical separa- tion. Journal of Mental Health and Aging, 8, 95–119. Ebling, R., Pruett, K. D., & Kline Pruett, M. (2009). “Get over it”: Perspectives on divorce for young children. Family Court Review, 47, 665–681. 122 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Emery, C. R. (2009). Stay for the children?: Husband violence, marital stability, and children’s behavior problems. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 905–916. Emery, R. E. (1999). Postdivorce family life for children: An overview of research and some implications for policy. In R. A. Thompson & P. R. Amato (Eds.), The postdivorce family: Children, parenting, and society (pp. 3–27). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Emery, R. E. (2007). Rule of Rorschach?: Approximating children’s best interests. Child Development Perspectives, 1, 132–134. Emery, R. E., Laumann-­Billings, L., Waldron, M., Sbarra, D. A., & Dillon, P. (2001). Child custody mediation and litigation: Custody, contact, and coparenting 12 years after initial dispute resolution. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol- ogy, 69, 323–332. Emery, R., Otto, R., & O’Donohue, W. (2005). A critical assessment of child custody evaluations: Limited science and a flawed system. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(1), 1–29. Emery, R. E., Sbarra, D. A., & Grover, T. (2005). Divorce mediation: Research and reflections. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 43, 22–37. Fabricius, W. V. (2003). Listening to children of divorce: New findings that diverge from Wallerstein, Lewis, and Blakeleee. Family Relations, 52, 385–396. Fabricius, W. V., & Hall, J. (2000). Young adults’ perspectives on divorce: Living arrangements. Family and Concilliation Courts Review, 38, 446–461. Fabricius, W. V., & Luecken, L. J. (2007). Postdivorce living arrangements, parent conflict, and long-term physical health correlates for children of divorce. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 195–205. Fischer, T., De Graaf, P. M., & Kalmijn, M. (2005). Friendly and antagonistic con- tact between former spouses after divorce: Patterns and determinants. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 1131–1163. Fomby, P., & Cherlin, A. J. (2007). Family instability and child well-being. American Sociological Review, 72, 181–204. Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. R., & Ray, J. A. (1996). Divorce and boys’ adjustment problems: Two paths with a single model. In E. M. Hetherington & E. A. Blech- man (Eds.), Stress, coping, and resiliency in children and the family (pp. 67–105). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Goldscheider, F., & Sassler, S. (2006). Creating stepfamilies: Integrating children into the study of union formation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 275–291. Gongla, P. A., & Thomson, E. H. (1987). Single-­parent families. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 297–418). New York: Plenum. Gottman, J. M., & Notarius, C. T. (2001). Decade review: Observing marital interac- tion. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 146–166. Grall, T. (2009). Custodial mothers and fathers and their child support: 2007 (Cur- rent population reports, 60-237). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Greene, S. M., & Anderson, E. R. (1999). Observed negativity in large family systems: Incidents and reactions. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 372–392. Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1999). The adjustment of children from divorced families: Implications of empirical research for clinical intervention. In R. M. Galatzer-Levy & L. Kraus (Eds.), The scientific basis of child custody decisions (pp. 96–119). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Guidubaldi, J., Perry, J. D., & Nastasi, B. K. (1987). Assessment and intervention  Risk and Resilience after Divorce 123 for children of divorce: Implications of the NASP-KSU nationwide survey. In J. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in family intervention, assessment, and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 109–151). New York: Plenum. Gunnoe, M., & Heatherington, E. (2004). Stepchildren’s perceptions and noncusto- dial mothers and noncustodial fathers: Differences in sociemotional involvement and associations with adolescent adjustment problems. Journal of Family Psy- chology, 18(4), 555–563. Hawkins, D., Amato, P., & King, V. (2006). Parent–­adolescent involvement: The rela- tive influence of parent gender and residence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(1), 125–136. Hetherington, E. M. (1989). Coping with family transitions: Winners, losers, and survivors. Child Development, 60, 1–14. Hetherington, E. M. (1991). The role of individual differences and family relation- ships in children coping with divorce and remarriage. In P. Cowan & E. M. ­Hetherington (Eds.), Family transitions (pp. 165–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hetherington, E. M. (1993). An overview of the Virginia longitudinal study of divorce and remarriage with a focus on early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(1), 39–56. Hetherington, E. M. (1999a). Should we stay together for the sake of our children? In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting and remarriage: A risk and resiliency perspective (pp. 93–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hetherington, E. M. (1999b). Social capital and the development of youth from non- divorced, divorced, and remarried families. In A. Collins (Ed.), Relationships as developmental contexts: The 29th Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (pp. 177–209). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hetherington, E. M. (2006). The influence of conflict, marital problem solving and parenting on children’s adjustment in nondivorced, divorced, and remarried families. In A. Clarke-­Stewart & J. Dunn (Eds.), Families count: Effect on child and adolescent development (pp. 203–237). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hetherington, E. M., Bridges, M., & Insabella, B. M. (1998). What matters? What does not?: Five perspectives on the association between marital transitions and children’s adjustment. American Psychologist, 53, 167–184. Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G., in collaboration with Anderson, E. R., Deal, J. E., Stanley Hagan, M., Hollier, E. A., & Lindner, M. S. (1992). Coping with marital transitions: A family systems perspective. Monographs of the Soci- ety for Research in Child Development, 57(2–3, Serial No. 227). Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1978). The aftermath of divorce. In J. H. Stevens, Jr., & M. Mathews (Eds.), Mother–child, father–child relations (pp. 148–176). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1982). Effects of divorce on parents and children. In M. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families (pp. 233–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hetherington, E. M., & Jodl, K. (1994). Stepfamilies as settings for development. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies (pp. 55–80). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hetherington, E. M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce reconsid- ered. New York: Norton. 124 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Hughes, M., & Waite, L. (2009). Marital biography and health at mid-life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50(3), 344–358. Jekielek, S. (1998). Parental conflict, marital disruption and children’s emotional well- being. Social Forces, 76, 905–936. Juby, H., Billette, J., Laplante, B., & Le Bourdais, C.L. (2007). Nonresident fathers and chidren: Parents’ new unions and frequency of contact. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 1220–1245. Kalmijn, M., & Monden, W. S. (2006). Are the negative effects of divorce on well- being dependent on marital quality? Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1197– 1213. Kellam, S. G., Adams, R. G., Brown, C. H., & Ensminger, M. A. (1982). The long- term evolution of the family structure of teenage and older mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 4, 539–554. Kiecolt-­Glaser, J. K., Kennedy, S., Malkoff, S., Fisher, L. D., Speicher, C. E., & Glaser, R. (1988). Marital discord and immunity in males. Psychosomatic Medicine, 50, 213–229. Kiecolt-­Glaser, J. K., McGuire, L., Robles, T. F., & Glaser, R. (2002). Psychoneu- roimmunology and psychosomatic medicine: Back to the future. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64(1), 15–28. King, V. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of adolescents’ relationships with stepfathers and nonresident fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 910– 928. King, V. (2009). Stepfamily formation: Implications for adolescent ties to mothers, nonresident fathers, and stepfathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 954– 968. King, V., & Soboloewski, J. M. (2006). Nonresident fathers’ contributions to adoles- cent well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 537–557. Kitson, G. C., & Holmes, W. M. (1992). Portrait of divorce: Adjustment to marital breakdown. New York: Guilford Press. Koerner, S. S., Wallace, S., Lehman, S. J., Lee, S.-A., & Escalante, K. A. (2004). Sen- sitive mother-to-­adolescent disclosures after divorce: Is the experience of sons different from that of daughters? Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 46–57. Kreeger, J. L. (2003). Family psychology and family law—a family court judge’s perspective: Comment on the Special Issue. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 260–262. Krieder, R. M. (2005). Number, timing, and duration of marriages and divorces: 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Kurdek, L. A. (1990). Divorce history and self-­reported psychological distress in hus- bands and wives. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 701–708. Lamb, M. E. (2007). The “approximation rule”: Another proposed reform that misses the target. Child Development Perspectives, 1, 135–136. Laumann-­Billings, L., & Emery, R. E. (2000). Distress among young adults from divorced families. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 671–687. Lebow, J. (2003). Integrative family therapy for disputes involving child custody and visitation: When, whether, and how? Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 193– 205. Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H. J., Johnson, C., & Chao, W. (1997). Married and recently divorced mothers’ stressful events and distress: Tracing change across time. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59, 219–232.  Risk and Resilience after Divorce 125 Lussier, G., Deater-­Deckard, K., Dunn, J., & Davies, L. (2002). Support across two generations: Children’s closeness to grandparents following parental divorce and remarriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 363–376. Maccoby, E. E., Depner, C. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1990). Coparenting in the second year after divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52, 141–155. Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and legal dilem- mas of custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. MacKinnon, C. E. (1989). An observational investigation of sibling interactions in married and divorced families. Developmental Psychology, 25, 36–44. Martinez, C. R., Jr., & Forgatch, M. S. (2002). Adjusting to change: Linking family structure transitions with parenting and boys’ adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 107–117. McGoldrick, M., & Carter, B. (2011). Families transformed by the divorce cycle. In M. McGoldrick, B. Carter, & N. Garcia-Preto (Eds.), The expanded family life cycle (4th ed., pp. 317–345). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. McLanahan, S. (1999). Father absence and the welfare of children. In E. M. Hether- ington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting and remarriage: A risk and resiliency perspective (pp. 117–146). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Miller, N. B., Smerglia, V. L., Gaudet, D. S., & Kitson, G. C. (1998). Stressful life events, social support, and the distress of widowed and divorced women. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 181–203. Montgomery, M. J., Anderson, E. R., Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (1992). Patterns of courtship for remarriage: Implications for child adjustment and parent–child relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 686–698. Notarius, C. I., & Vanzetti, N. A. (1983). The marital agenda as protocol. In E. E. Filsinger (Ed.), Marriage and family assessment (pp. 209–227). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. O’Connell, M. E. (2007). When noble aspirations fail: Why we need the approxima- tion rule. Child Development Perspectives, 1, 129–131. Orbuch, T. L., Veroff, J., & Hunter, A. G. (1999). Black couples, white couples: The early years of marriage. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting and remarriage: A risk and resiliency perspective (pp. 23–46). Mah- wah, NJ: Erlbaum. Osborne, C., & McLanahan, S. (2007). Partnership instability and child well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1065–1083. Overbeek, G., Vollebergh, W., de Graaf, R., Scholte, R., de Kemp, R., & Engels, R. (2006). Longitudinal associations of marital quality and marital dissolution with the incidence of DSM-III-R disorders. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 284–291. Patterson, G. R., & Forgatch, M. S. (1990). Initiation and maintenance of process dis- rupting single-­mother families. In G. R. Patterson (Ed.), Depression and aggres- sion in family interaction (pp. 209–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Peterson, R. R. (1996). A re-­evaluation of the economic consequences of divorce. American Sociological Review, 61, 528–536. Pruett, M. K., Williams, T. Y., Insabella, G., & Little, T. D. (2003). Family and legal indicators of child adjustment to divorce among families with young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 169–180. 126 VARYING FAMILY FORMS AND CHALLENGES Raley, R. K., & Bumpass, L. L. (2003). The topography of the divorce plateau: Levels and trends in union stability after 1980. Demographic Research, 8, 246–258. Raley, R. K., & Wildsmith, E. (2004). Cohabitation and children’s family instability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 210–219. Risch, S. C., Jodl, K. M., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Role of the father–­adolescent relation- ship in shaping adolescents’ attitudes toward divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 46–58. Rogers, S. J. (2004). Dollars, dependency, and divorce: Four perspectives on the role of wives’ income. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 59–74. Ryan, S., Franzetta, K., Schelar, E., & Manlove, J. (2009). Family structure history: Links to relationship formation behaviors in young adulthood. Journal of Mar- riage and Family, 71, 935–953. Sbarra, D. A., & Emery, R. E. (2008). Deeper into divorce: Using actor–­partner analy- ses to explore systemic differences in coparenting conflict following custody dis- pute resolution. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 144–152. Sbarra, D. A., Law, R. W., Lee, L. A., & Mason, A. E. (2009). Marital dissolution and blood pressure reactivity: Evidence for the specificity of emotional intrusion- ­hyperarousal and task-­related emotional difficulty. Psychosomatic Medicine, 71(5), 532–540. Schoen, R., & Canudas-Romo, V. (2006). Timing effect on divorce: 20th century experience in the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 749–758. Schoen, R., & Cheng, Y. A. (2006). Partner choice and the differential retreat from marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1–10. Schwartz, J. (2006). Effects of diverse forms of family structure on female and male homicide. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1291–1312. Schwartz, S. J., & Finley, G. E. (2009). Mothering, fathering, and divorce: The influ- ence of divorce and reports of and desires for maternal and parental involvement. Family Court Review, 47, 506–522. Seltzer, J. A. (2000). Families formed outside of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1247–1268. Simons, R. L., & Associates. (1996). Understanding differences between divorced and intact families: Stress, interaction, and child outcome. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Simons, R. L., & Johnson, C. (1996). The impact of marital and social network sup- port on quality of parenting. In G. R. Pierce, B. R. Sarason, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family (pp. 269–288). New York: Plenum. Sobolewski, J. M., & King, V. (2005). The importance of the coparental relationship for nonresident fathers’ ties to children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1196–1212. Sousa, L., & Sorensen, E. (2006). The economic reality of nonresident mothers and their children: Assessing the New Federalism, Series B, No. B-69. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Stanley, S. M., Amato, P. R., Johnson, C. A., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Premarital education, marital quality, and marital stability: Findings from a large, random household survey. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 117–126. Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499–509.  Risk and Resilience after Divorce 127 Strohschein, L. (2005). Parental divorce and child mental health trajectories. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1286–1300. Sun, Y., & Li, Y. (2002). Children’s well-being during parents’ marital disruption process: A pooled time-­series analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 472–488. Teachman, J. D., & Paasch, K. M. (1994). Financial impact of divorce on children and their families. The Future of Children, 4, 63–83. Tejada-Vera, B., & Sutton, P. D. (2010). Births, marriages, divorces, and deaths: Pro- visional data for October 2009. (National Vital Statistics Reports, 58, No. 22). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Thomson, E., McLanahan, S. S., & Curtin, R. B. (1992). Family structure, gender, and parental socialization. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 368–378. Tippins, T., & Wittmann, J. (2005). Empirical and Ethical Problems With Custody Recommendations: A Call for Clinical Humility and Judicial Vigilance. Family Court Review, 43(2), 193–222. Troilo, J., & Coleman, M. (2007). College student perceptions of the content of father stereotypes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 218–227. Tschann, J. M., Johnston, J. R., Kline, M., & Wallerstein, J. (1990). Conflict, loss, change, and parent–child relationships: Predicting children’s adjustment during divorce. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 13, 1–22. Vaaler, M. L., Ellison, C. G., & Powers, D. A. (2009). Religious influences on the risk of marital dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 917–934. Waite, L. J. (2000). Trends in men’s and women’s well-being in marriage. In L. J. Waite (Ed.), The ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 268– 392). New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the breakup: How children and parents cope with divorce. New York: Basic Books. Warshak, R. A. (2007a). The approximation rule, child development research, and children’s best interest after divorce. Child Development Perspectives, 1, 119– 125. Warshak, R. A. (2007b). Best interests and the fulfillment of noble aspirations: A call for humbition. Child Development Perspectives, 1, 137–139. Whitton, S. W., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2008). Effects of parental divorce on marital commitment and confidence. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 789–793. Williams, K., & Dunne-­Bryant, A. (2006). Divorce and adult psychological well- being: Clarifying the role of gender and child age. Journal of Marriage and Fam- ily, 68, 1178–1196. Xu, X., Hudspeth, C. D., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2006). The role of cohabitation in remarriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 261–274. Zhang, Z., & Hayward, M. D. (2006). Gender, the marital life course, and cardiovas- cular disease in late midlife. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 639–657. Zill, N., Morrison, D. R., & Coiro, M. J. (1993). Long-term effects of parental divorce on parent–child relationships, adjustment, and achievement in young adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 91–103.