Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: A scoping study

Smyth, Emer; Darmody, Merike; Russell, Helen Research Report Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: A scoping study Research Series, No. 211 Provided in Cooperation with: The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin Suggested Citation: Smyth, Emer; Darmody, Merike; Russell, Helen (2025) : Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: A scoping study, Research Series, No. 211, The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin, https://doi.org/10.26504/rs211 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/322440 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: A scoping study EMER SMYTH, MERIKE DARMODY AND HELEN RUSSELL ESRI RESEARCH SERIES Number 211, June 2025 INCLUDING NON-RESIDENT FATHERS IN COHORT RESEARCH: A SCOPING STUDY Emer Smyth Merike Darmody Helen Russell June 2025 RESEARCH SERIES NUMBER 211 Available to download from www.esri.ie https://doi.org/10.26504/rs211  2025 The Economic and Social Research Institute Whitaker Square, Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 2 This Open Access work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. ABOUT THE ESRI The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) advances evidence-based policymaking that supports economic sustainability and social progress in Ireland. ESRI researchers apply the highest standards of academic excellence to challenges facing policymakers, focusing on ten areas of critical importance to 21st Century Ireland. The Institute was founded in 1960 by a group of senior civil servants led by Dr T.K. Whitaker, who identified the need for independent and in-depth research analysis. Since then, the Institute has remained committed to independent research and its work is free of any expressed ideology or political position. The Institute publishes all research reaching the appropriate academic standard, irrespective of its findings or who funds the research. The ESRI is a company limited by guarantee, answerable to its members and governed by a Council, comprising up to 14 representatives drawn from a crosssection of ESRI members from academia, civil services, state agencies, businesses and civil society. Funding for the ESRI comes from research programmes supported by government departments and agencies, public bodies, competitive research programmes, membership fees, and an annual grant-in-aid from the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform. Further information is available at www.esri.ie. THE AUTHORS Emer Smyth and Helen Russell are Research Professors at the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) and Adjunct Professors at Trinity College Dublin (TCD). Merike Darmody is a Research Officer at the ESRI and an Adjunct Associate Professor at TCD. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This publication was funded by the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (DCEDIY) through a joint Research Partnership with the ESRI. The views, opinions, findings, conclusions and/or recommendations expressed here are strictly those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the DCEDIY, which takes no responsibility for any errors or omissions in, or for the accuracy of, the information contained in this publication. It is presented to inform and stimulate wider debate among the policy community and among academics and practitioners in the field. We are grateful to Ciara Pidgeon, Eoin McNamara, Aisling Murray and Nuala Connolly for their advice and support for the project. We are extremely grateful to the research teams that took part in in-depth interviews and gave written responses on their studies as well as to the NGOs and parents we interviewed. We are indebted to the CSO for archiving data from non-resident fathers and for information on birth registration statistics. Useful comments on the report were provided by the external reviewer, two ESRI reviewers and the editor, Anne Nolan. As always, we are grateful to the Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) Study Team and the families involved in GUI for making this research possible. GUI is the national longitudinal study of children, funded by Government. The project is managed and delivered through a collaboration between the DCEDIY and the Central Statistics Office (CSO). Results in this report are based on analyses of strictly controlled Research Microdata Files provided by the Central Statistics Office (CSO). The CSO does not take any responsibility for the views expressed or the outputs generated from this research. This report has been accepted for publication by the Institute, which does not itself take institutional policy positions. All ESRI Research Series reports are peer reviewed prior to publication. The authors are solely responsible for the content and the views expressed. Table of contents | iii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... VI CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background to the study ............................................................................................. 1 1.2 The profile of families with non-resident parents in Ireland ...................................... 1 1.3 International research evidence on the role of non-resident fathers ........................ 4 1.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 8 1.5 Outline of the report ................................................................................................. 10 CHAPTER 2 FATHERS IN INTERNATIONAL COHORT STUDIES ....................................................... 11 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 11 2.2 The inclusion of resident fathers in international cohort studies ............................. 11 2.3 The inclusion of non-resident fathers in international cohort studies ..................... 17 2.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 32 CHAPTER 3 NON-RESIDENT FATHERS IN THE GROWING UP IN IRELAND STUDY ........................ 34 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 34 3.2 Access and response rates ........................................................................................ 34 3.3 Father-child contact .................................................................................................. 42 3.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 44 CHAPTER 4 PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF, AND CHALLENGES IN, INCLUDING NON-RESIDENT FATHERS: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ...................................................................... 47 4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 47 4.2 Interviews with non-governmental organisations .................................................... 47 4.3 Interviews with parents ............................................................................................ 53 4.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 61 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE .............................................. 63 5.1 Background to the study ........................................................................................... 63 5.2 Non-resident fathers in Ireland ................................................................................. 64 5.3 Non-resident fathers in international longitudinal studies ....................................... 65 5.4 Non-resident fathers in Growing Up in Ireland ......................................................... 66 5.5 The perspectives of NGOs and parents ..................................................................... 67 5.6 Implications for the future ........................................................................................ 67 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 70 iv | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Profiles of families with resident and non-resident parents when the child was 9 months, 3 years, 5 years and 9 years............................................................................. 3 Table 2.1 Inclusion of fathers (resident and/or non-resident) in international cohort studies .. 15 Table 3.1 Multinomial logit model of the factors associated with mothers giving permission to contact non-resident fathers when the child was 9 months old, relative risk ratios (Base category: refusal) ..................................................................................... 36 Table 3.2 Multinomial logit model of the factors associated with mothers giving permission to contact non-resident fathers when the child was 3 years old, relative risk ratios (Base category: refusal) ..................................................................................... 38 Table 3.3 Multinomial logit model of the factors associated with mothers giving permission to contact non-resident fathers when the child was 9 years old, relative risk ratios (Base category: refusal) ..................................................................................... 39 Table 3.4 Logit model of the factors associated with survey completion among the total group of non-resident fathers when the child was 3 years old, average marginal effects .... 41 Table 3.5 Logit model of the factors associated with survey response among the total group of non-resident fathers when the child was 9 years old, average marginal effects .... 42 Table A3.1 Logit models of the factors associated with survey response among non-resident fathers where mothers had given permission for contact when the child was 3 and 9 years old, average marginal effects .......................................................................... 46 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Willingness of resident mothers to provide contact details for the non-resident father, when the child was 9 months to 9 years of age .............................................. 35 Figure 3.2 Relationship between level of father-child contact and willingness of resident mothers to provide contact details for the non-resident father, when the child was 9 months old (Predictive margins) ....................................................................... 37 Figure 3.3 Frequency of in-person contact between non-resident fathers and their children from 9 months to 9 years, as reported by mothers .................................................... 43 Abbreviations | v ABBREVIATIONS ALSPAC Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children BCS70 British Cohort Study 1970 CSO Central Statistics Office ELCFS Early Life Cohort Feasibility Study (UK) ECLS-B Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Birth Cohort of 2001 (US) ELFE Étude Longitudinale Française depuis l’Enfance FFCW Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing (US) GUI Growing Up in Ireland GUNZ Growing Up in New Zealand GUS Growing Up in Scotland LSAC Growing Up in Australia – the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children MCS Millennium Cohort Study (UK) NCDS National Child Development Study NEPS National Education Panel Study (Germany) NLSCY National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth MoBa Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study OHP Own Household Parents PCG Primary caregiver PLE Parents Living Elsewhere SEEC Study of Early Education and Development vi | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The aim of this report is to scope out the potential for including non-resident fathers1 in future waves of data collection for the new Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) birth cohort. The study draws on the experiences of other cohort studies2 internationally, through interviews with the Principal Investigators and other team members and published materials on the studies. Interviews were carried out with separated parents and NGOs working with parents in Ireland. The study also draws on new analysis of GUI data on households with non-resident fathers. We use the term non-resident to describe fathers who do not live with the child and child’s mother, though the child may reside with the father for some part of the week. INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE Over time, cohort studies have evolved to involve resident fathers, reflecting greater recognition of their role in child development, though not all studies do so. Twenty of the 25 cohort studies examined included fathers in at least some of the survey waves. The inclusion of non-resident fathers is less common. Just over half of the studies investigated (13) included non-resident fathers in at least one wave. While the coverage of non-resident fathers is sporadic, there was widespread agreement among researchers that excluding these fathers results in a significant gap in knowledge about children’s lives. As the experience of living apart from a parent is socially structured, this lack of information is particularly relevant for children from more disadvantaged backgrounds, leading to gaps in our understanding of childhood poverty, among other issues. Both researchers and NGO stakeholders emphasised that shared parenting across households and blended families are an increasing feature of children’s lives, a pattern that further strengthens the case for collecting information from parents not living full-time with their children. While the importance of including non-resident parents was acknowledged, researchers in other countries also noted the funding constraints and practical difficulties encountered. Almost all of the studies accessed the non-resident father’s contact details via the mother. The limitation of this approach was noted by multiple interviewees. Details were much less forthcoming where the relationship between parents was acrimonious. Only one of the studies approached fathers independently, the new Early Life Cohort Feasibility Study in the UK, which used fathers’ contact details from the birth registry. The housing difficulties and consequent increased mobility of non-resident fathers added to 1 The terminology used to describe this group of fathers varies across studies, an issue that is discussed in Chapter 1. 2 Cohort studies follow a particular age cohort over time. 4 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study 1.3 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE OF NONRESIDENT FATHERS 1.3.1 Giving voice to non-resident fathers While most children live with both birth parents, a notable number have more complex family arrangements, usually after a separation or divorce. Much of the research to date has focussed on lone mothers. Yet, Bryson and McKay (2012) in the UK argue that non-resident fathers are an increasing demographic, and as such, too big a group to exclude from surveys. However, in many cases these fathers are largely absent from government databases (Poole et al., 2016; Violi et al., 2023) and information tends to be collected from just mothers (Bryson and McKay, 2012). ‘Mother-centric’ data collection may provide a skewed picture of the role of the non-resident father and his relationship with their child/children, with the parent who lives with the child likely to under-report and non-resident parent overreport the non-resident parent’s involvement (Goldman et al., 2021; Bryson and McKay, 2012; Bryson and McKay, 2018). Collecting information directly from fathers enables a better understanding of parenting patterns and their influence on child development and outcomes (Poole et al., 2016; Bryson and McKay, 2012), but also allows for an exploration of the different relationship types that the nonresident father has and how this affects his relationship with his child or children (Violi et al., 2022), giving voice to these fathers. Failure to collect data directly from non-resident fathers is likely to skew research findings on child outcomes and the subsequent implications for policy and practice that arise from analysis of data only collected from mothers (Goldman et al., 2019; Baxter et al., 2012). Research to date that draws information from non-resident fathers has remained limited, partially due to lack of good quality data where information is collected directly from non-resident fathers (Poole et al., 2016). The likelihood of participation is higher where non-resident fathers acknowledge the importance of the study and see direct benefits of participating in the study (e.g. incentives), as well as contact being made via trusted intermediaries (Raybould et al., 2023). On the other hand, their participation is less likely if participants are subject to time constraints, have a fractured relationship with the child’s mother and are concerned about data privacy and confidentiality (ibid.). 1.3.2 How to address the gap in research about non-resident fathers? In order to address the gap in research, international research has increasingly focussed on non-resident fathers – i.e. fathers who do not live with some, or all, of their biological children following separation/divorce or who have never lived with their children (Poole et al., 2016; Violi et al., 2023). The terminology used for this group of fathers is highly contested, with critics arguing that some terms can reinforce the stigma that is attached to this group. A number of child cohort studies Introduction | 5 have aimed to sample and directly or indirectly recruit fathers who do not live fulltime with their child. In general, population surveys are considered the best way to ensure a representative sample; while longitudinal studies can identify nonresident parents if families separate over time, such numbers tend to be small (Bryson and McKay, 2012). Some cohort studies such as Fragile Families in the US and the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (the LSAC – ‘Growing Up in Australia’) have been more successful in recruiting and retaining non-resident fathers, who are often perceived as a ‘hard to reach group’, compared to similar studies in other countries (Goldman et al., 2021). Furthermore, data on nonresident fathers are still collected just from mothers in some cases (e.g. the Growing Up in Scotland study (GUS)). In fact, it has been argued that to involve non-resident fathers in the study would necessitate a different research design (Scottish Government, 2009). More details on these longitudinal studies and their inclusion of non-resident fathers are provided in Chapter 2. In order to improve data on non-resident fathers in cohort and longitudinal studies in the UK, Goldman et al. (2019) have explored the issues involved in recruitment and retention of this group, particularly focussing on identifying, contacting, recruiting and retaining these fathers of cohort members. In line with the Scottish Government (2009) recommendations, Goldman et al. (2019) suggest adopting a tailored approach to recruitment and retention of non-resident fathers (e.g. telephone or face-to-face data collection; keeping in touch/tracing activities; flexibility in participation and tailored communications), while taking into account the heterogeneity of this group based on the level of contact with, and care of, the study child. The authors acknowledge that it is easier to have buy-in to participate in a study from fathers who have regular and close contact with their child and who also have a good relationship with their ex-partner. The authors also argue that for research on children’s outcomes, priority in data collection should be given to more ‘involved’ fathers and that such studies should recruit such fathers ‘in their own right’ (Goldman et al., 2019). It may be beneficial to undertake a qualitative study before any survey, the results of which could inform the approach to data collection (Goldman et al., 2019) and could provide insights into the topics that the respondents may find difficult to discuss (e.g. fertility history) (Stykes et al., 2013; Bryson and McCay, 2018; Rendall, et al., 1999). Participation of non-resident fathers could be further enhanced by using monetary incentives (Altenburger, 2022; Raybould et al., 2023) or setting up a fathers’ advisory council (Altenburger, 2022). Overall, in order to encourage participation, non-resident fathers need to be provided with clear information on the benefits and value of the study for other fathers in a similar situation and be ensured of confidentiality of the data, particularly regarding sharing this with the child’s mother. Other factors included the societal value of the study, financial incentives, and a clear message about the importance of hearing from a diverse range of families/parents. 6 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study 1.3.3 What do we know about non-resident fathers? The profile of non-resident fathers While sharing some common denominators, existing international studies indicate that non-resident fathers are heterogeneous in terms of their involvement with their children, particularly regarding overnight care arrangements (Goldman et al., 2021; Poole et al., 2024).8 Previous research enables a better understanding of the profile of non-resident fathers. Drawing on the large-scale UK household longitudinal study, Understanding Society, Poole et al. (2024) find that such fathers are more likely to be from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Due to separation or divorce, non-resident fathers often experience distress, lack of agency in decision-making, have fewer social and financial resources at their disposal and experience issues with mental health (Violi et al., 2023), which can have an impact on their relationship with their child/children and/or the mother. Being a nonresident father is also associated with ethnic background, with Black Caribbean and Black African fathers in the UK more likely to belong to this category, compared to Asian/Bangladeshi and Pakistani fathers who are more likely to be living in a married couple (Poole et al., 2024; Raybould et al., 2023). Religious background also seems to play a role, with 19 per cent of UK fathers with no religion having non-resident children compared with 14 per cent of Christian fathers, 7 per cent of Muslim fathers and 7 per cent of Sikh fathers (Poole et al., 2024). Furthermore, fathers who do not routinely reside with their children are more likely to have married or cohabited several times, not living with both parents themselves as a child (ibid.). In fact, research in the Australian context shows that compared to any other socio-demographic group, non-resident fathers are more likely to experience a variety of family types, after separating or divorcing (Violi et al., 2022). Separation or divorce can have a detrimental impact on fathers as many develop issues with their mental health after the event (ibid.; Rusten et al., 2019). Non-resident fathers and child outcomes Fathers play an important role in their child’s development, including their socioemotional wellbeing and cognitive development (see, for example, McMunn et al., 2017; Emmott and Mace, 2021). However, much less is known about the relationship between a non-resident father and his child/children. Furthermore, in a lot of cases information about such fathers and their interaction with the child is obtained from the ex-partner, and may not always be accurate (Violi et al., 2022) as the resident parent may under-estimate, and the non-resident parent may overestimate, the level of contact with the child/children (Poole et al., 2024; Lader, 2008). Furthermore, the father-child relationship is often influenced by external factors, such as the role of police, legal and welfare services (Violi et al., 2022; Vestergaard et al., 2023). The relationship can vary considerably, in terms of the 8 A distinction is made between ‘minority overnight care’, ‘equal overnight care’ or ‘part-time resident’ father. Introduction | 7 quantity and quality of contact and care as well as the relationship dynamics with the ex-partner, and practical arrangements around finances and custody (Poole et al., 2016). Existing research has found that positive coparenting predicts greater involvement of non-resident fathers with their children (Schoppe-Sullivan and Fagan, 2020). The relationship dynamics can be influenced by a lack of access to mediation services, poor enforcement of access and maintenance arrangements, and a lack of emotional and mental health support for every family member (Vestergaard et al., 2023). Research from the US shows that non-resident fathers tend to be close to their children, with eight-in-ten of such fathers (81 per cent) claiming to have a very or quite close relationship, with just 11 per cent reporting having no close relationship (Sariscsany et al., 2019). These authors also note that the relationship tends to be closer the more frequent contact there is (ibid.). In the UK, recent research shows that non-resident fathers spend a considerable amount of time with their child/children, with nearly half of the fathers in the study noting that their children often stay with them at weekends or school holidays (Poole et al., 2024). However, some research shows that non-resident fathers’ contact with children decreases over time (Poole et al., 2016). When children in Ireland were asked about contact with their non-resident father in a qualitative study, the majority of them did not report close contact with him, but, rather, felt distant from their father (Nixon et al., 2012). At the same time, non-resident fathers tend to be dissatisfied with the level of contact with their children (Vestergaard et al., 2023) and many children would like to spend more time with their fathers (Qu and Weston, 2014). Elsewhere, Fahey et al. (2012), drawing on GUI data for 9-year-olds, suggest that children in Ireland who do not live with their father full-time tend to experience less authoritative parenting styles from him. The relationship between the father and the child may often be complex, characterised by a fractured relationship between ex-partners on the one hand, and shared affection for the child on the other (Vestergaard et al., 2023). Father-child contact can be problematic for some fathers who are renting accommodation, especially if the accommodation is not suitable for an overnight stay for the child (Clarke and Muir, 2017). Contact with the child is also more likely if they are engaged in financial provision for their child, do not live far from the child, have no new partner/other children living with him, are in stable employment, are from a higher socio-economic group and have higher qualifications (Poole et al., 2024). Children who see their fathers more frequently in infancy and early childhood report more positive relationships with them at the age of 9 (Fagan, 2024). The existing research shows that while both parents want to be involved in the upbringing of their child/children, much of this responsibility still falls on the mother, whereas many non-resident fathers feel that they are discriminated against by the current legal system that tends to prioritise mothers (Vestergaard et al., 2023). The perspectives of non-resident fathers and their experiences in the face of structural challenges are often overlooked (Violi et al., 2024). 8 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study In addition to exploring the relationship of non-resident fathers with their children, some studies have focussed on the outcomes of children whose father is living elsewhere. Unpacking this influence can be difficult, however, as families with a non-resident father often share other characteristics – such as ethnicity group, low socio-economic status, or low levels of educational attainment – that impact on child development (Baxter, 2015). In Ireland, differences in self-concept and health outcomes between children in lone-parent and two-parent households were found to be due to selection (i.e. greater levels of disadvantage), but differences in educational outcomes remained (Hannan and Halpin, 2014). However, some authors argue that the outcomes of the children who live in a one-parent family tend to be more negative compared to those who consistently live in two-parent households (Culpin et al., 2022). There is some research to date that has considered the association between non-resident father’s involvement and child outcomes (Adamsons and Johnson, 2013). Looking at adolescent wellbeing, existing research has indicated that the quality of the mother-child relationship has a strong effect on adolescent wellbeing, whereas non-resident father-child relationship quality and responsive fathering are modestly associated with fewer externalising (antisocial or aggressive behaviour) and internalising (depression and other symptoms of distress) problems among adolescents (King and Sobolewski, 2006). Greater contact with a non-resident father has been found to be associated with children’s improved adjustment measured by items such as their willingness to try new things, feelings of happiness, cheerfulness, sadness or depression, and whether or not they get along with other children, but only if mothers are satisfied with the non-resident fathers’ level of involvement (King and Heard, 1999). Greater father-child involvement has also been associated with lesser likelihood of dropping out of school early (Menning, 2006). However, non-resident father-child involvement is also influenced by maternal parenting practices, maternal depressive symptoms and maternal parenting stress (Coates and Phares, 2019). The authors note that as the child spends most of his/her time with the resident parent, this environment is likely to have the strongest impact on child development. Furthermore, the non-resident father can assist the mother of the child to cope with parenting and provide (direct and indirect) financial support (Choi and Jackson, 2012; Dermott, 2016; Nepomnyaschy et al., 2022). 1.4 METHODOLOGY This report is designed to scope out the potential for including non-resident fathers in future waves of data collection for the new GUI birth cohort, exploring the rationale for doing so and potential challenges in securing participation. The study has involved a number of strands. Firstly, a review of the international literature was conducted to glean insights into the involvement of non-resident fathers in the lives of their children (see Section 1.3). Secondly, a review of international Introduction | 9 cohort studies was undertaken. The criteria for including studies in the review were that: • The study was longitudinal or had the potential to be (that is, where one wave of data had been collected and further waves were planned); • The study included younger children (age 5 or younger) so to be of relevance to the new GUI birth cohort study; thus, this excluded several prominent studies which focused on older young people, such as Next Steps (formerly the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England) and the US National Longitudinal Study of Youth; • The study was representative of the population of a country or large area; • The study involved collecting data from children and their families rather than using register data, for example. The initial steps involved reviewing technical reports and other published material from the selected studies. Where some details were unclear (for example, whether the term ‘fathers’ referred to both resident and non-resident fathers), emails were sent to the study Principal Investigators (PIs) or other contact point given on the study website; this process involved ten studies. Ten studies, similar in nature to GUI, were selected for more detailed scrutiny. The study PIs or other contact points were emailed and asked to take part in an online interview. All agreed to take part; in some cases, researchers other than the PI were identified as the best informant as personnel had sometimes changed since the original design of the study. The interviews (and written responses) provided richer insights into the rationale for including, or not including, non-resident parents, and the challenges and opportunities in involving this group. All of those interviewed were given the opportunity to review the quotes used but only two teams availed of this opportunity. Thirdly, analyses were undertaken of GUI data to look at the likelihood of the resident mother agreeing to provide contact details for the non-resident father and the pattern of response rates for those fathers. GUI data were also used to look at the level of involvement of the non-resident father in their child’s life from the perspective of the mother and, where possible, the father himself. Finally, interviews were conducted with separated parents and NGOs working with parents to look at the value of, and potential for, involving non-resident fathers in research on children. NGOs working with separated parents were identified and approached to take part in interviews. Six representative individuals agreed to take part. The interviews with NGOs were conducted online during November 2024. They were recorded and the transcript used for analyses of the key themes. The interviews lasted 10 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study approximately one hour and covered the issues of how best to collect information on non-resident parents, the benefits and limitations of different approaches, and the type of information that should be collected. The interviewees were asked if they would be willing to contact non-resident parents to participate in further interviews or focus groups on the same topics covered with the NGOs. All four organisations said they would be willing to send on an invitation to participate in the research to some of their clients, although we only drew on the networks of two organisations with the largest and more diverse client groups. There were some challenges in obtaining interviewees, despite the support of the NGOs, and interviews were conducted with five fathers who were not living full-time with their children and one mother who was separated from the father of her children. Taken together, the strands of the study provide insights which can inform the future development of the GUI birth cohort and other cohort studies internationally as well as being of relevance to cross-sectional studies of children and young people that seek to understand the context within which they live. It is not intended to provide a cost-benefit analysis of the inclusion of non-resident fathers in research but many of those interviewed did point to the benefits and challenges, including resources, of aiming to include this group of fathers. 1.5 OUTLINE OF THE REPORT Chapter 2 presents information on international cohort studies, looking at the extent to which they include fathers, resident and non-resident, and their experiences in seeking to maximise response rates from these groups. Chapter 3 draws on GUI data to look the extent to which permission is given by resident mothers to contact non-resident fathers and how likely those fathers are to take part in the survey. Information is also presented on the degree of contact between these fathers and their children. Chapter 4 draws on interviews with lone parents and NGOs to look at the potential for including non-resident parents in research and the rationale for so doing. Chapter 5 summarises the study findings and highlights issues to be considered for future waves of the new GUI birth cohort. Fathers in international cohort studies | 11 CHAPTER 2 Fathers in international cohort studies 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents an overview of the inclusion of fathers, resident and/or nonresident, in international cohort studies, drawing on published research and technical reports along with interviews with Principal Investigators or other key staff from these studies. Because of the large number of studies of children and young people internationally, the review is limited to birth or child cohort studies which are longitudinal in nature or intended to be longitudinal (see Chapter 1). The review does not cover large-scale cross-sectional studies (such as PISA or HBSC) or follow-up studies that cover a span of age groups.9 2.2 THE INCLUSION OF RESIDENT FATHERS IN INTERNATIONAL COHORT STUDIES A variety of terms have been used in international cohort studies regarding parents, with most collecting the bulk of the information from the ‘main parent’, ‘person most knowledgeable about the child’ or ‘primary caregiver’. In the vast majority of cases, these informants have been the child’s mother (or mother figure) so the remainder of this chapter uses the term mothers as a shorthand for main informants. Early longitudinal studies, such as the National Child Development Study (NCDS) and the British Cohort Study 1970 (BCS70), collected information only from mothers and children, an approach that reflected the then actual and/or assumed gendered division of labour in families. Hard though it is to believe, this [the Millennium Cohort Study] would be the first national cohort to survey fathers, as well as mothers, from the start. (Pearson, 2016, p. 255) Later studies have tended to include resident fathers, father figures and/or the partners of the mothers in the sample (Table 2.1). However, this is by no means universal. For the Kids in Taiwan Study (KIT), ‘the parent questionnaire is administered and answered by one parent, most often the mother’ (written communication). In addition, the Southampton Women’s Study did not include fathers, given the focus of the study on ‘fetal growth’ and ‘how maternal and intrauterine factors interact with the offspring’s genes and postnatal environment’ (Inskip et al., 2006).10 The Study of Early Education and Development (SEED) in 9 For example, the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS) covered children and young people aged 0 to 17 years in 2003-2006 and followed them for a further wave. 10 A number of other studies that focus on the effects of intrauterine and environmental factors on child health outcomes are not discussed here, including the Danish National Birth Cohort and the Japan Environment and Children’s Study. 12 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study England has focused on ‘the impact of childcare on children throughout their childhood’11 and respondents have comprised the primary caregiver, early years staff and school teachers. The inclusion of (resident) fathers in cohort studies reflects a shift in recognition of the influence of fathers on child outcomes as well as changes over time in the level of active paternal engagement, with some studies not including fathers at all waves indicating that they may be obtaining a partial picture of children’s lives. The role of fathers in the family … and the responsibilities for children and changes in the workplace and a greater balance of employee rights between women and men, that has allowed more men to spend more time at home potentially and develop different types of relationships with their kids. … I think having some data about that from fathers themselves and allowing them to reflect on things would probably improve our understanding of that. … There are certainly some things about maybe the father’s relationship with the child or the father’s relationship with the mother, the father’s perceptions of their role in the family, that we can’t get very accurately from asking the mother or asking the young person. We’re kind of getting stuff by proxy which might misrepresent some of the relationships and situations that we’ve got. (Growing Up in Scotland, interview) It gave another perspective in the household on the child … on the relationship between that other parent and the child, which of course is very, very important to have that kind of whole family perspective. (Millennium Cohort Study, interview) Several studies have surveyed both parents12 at each wave of data collection (for example, Growing Up in Québec, the Millennium Cohort Study and the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth in Canada), though typically fathers are seen as the ‘secondary’ or ‘additional’ informant, an approach that has been critiqued by some commentators (see, for example, Goldman and Burgess, 2018). However, a number of studies have not surveyed resident fathers at all waves of the study. This decision is attributed by researchers to two sets of factors. Firstly, studies often see the primary focus as the child and their mother: 11 https://natcen.ac.uk/publications/study-early-education-and-development-seed. 12 In practice, studies vary in how they define the second informant, with some focusing on ‘fathers’ while others target the spouse or partner of the mother. Fathers in international cohort studies | 13 The data collection for our research is mainly based on mothers’ responses, as the interviews start from the antenatal period and the sample is drawn from the antenatal care system. (Growing Up in Hungary, written communication) Secondly, the decision not to include both parents in all waves is often based on funding constraints, particularly if the survey mode involves face-to-face interviews: We have always consider[ed] to include/interview also the partners of our respondent. Unfortunately, we couldn’t fund this interview (as the six cohort[s] of the NEPS were run in parallel). In Wave 11, we had the unique opportunity to include an interview with the partners. This was a pilot for our planned new birth cohort to test the response rate of the partners. We therefore contacted only the partner who lived with the respondent. (NEPS, written communication) I’m sure fathers as informants were considered, but I think probably for budget reasons, more so than anything else, they were ruled out at that point [Wave 1]. And they did get included in the second sweep of data collection. But there was no additional informant after Sweep 2 until Sweep 9 and that again was … because there wasn’t sufficient budget to do much beyond the main carer. (Growing Up in Scotland, interview) Similarly, ALSPAC initially focused on the pregnant mother and her child because of funding constraints: The decision was made that there was only funding available to recruit pregnant women and focus on the pregnant women and follow them through initially. (ALSPAC, interview) However, short questionnaires were sent to the partners of the mothers in the course of the study. Later funding was secured to hold an in-person clinic for fathers in 2012 at which biological data were collected. This was open to fathers, regardless of residence, but information is not available on the breakdown in numbers. Researchers reported challenges in involving fathers in general in the study: ALSPAC has always felt like a very female study, it always felt like that the focus is very much on the mothers and I think we’ve suffered as a result of that. I think lots of longitudinal cohort studies struggle with that, because over time they often become very female. (ALSPAC, interview) 20 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study studies. So yeah, we just wanted to have a go at it. (From Five to Twelve, interview) It’s just a huge piece of what’s going on in children’s lives from the perspective of economic security and … what’s happening in the homes with regards to material hardship and poverty and what the mother has access to in terms of resources. … But equally important is what the relationship is with the father and child and how the father’s contributing in various other ways to the child’s development. (FFCW, interview) The complexity of care arrangements can also make it difficult to determine the ‘main’ caregiver: Some PLEs [Parents Living Elsewhere] actually considered themselves to be a primary carer. So it was 50-50 shared responsibility, but they don’t happen to be the main person living with the young person. … So in those instances, I think that would be a rich source of information that you’d be missing if you didn’t include that PLE. (LSAC, interview) Parents’ reports, mothers and fathers of where the child lives, … there’s just so much disagreement there, right? Because the whole question of where does the child live is not so easy. If the father has the child three days a week or whatever, he might think the child lives with him. (FFCW, interview) Some studies included all fathers or partners of the mother regardless of residence in at least some waves of data collection but have not provided separate information on the response rates from, or profile of, these fathers. These include Born in Bradford and the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (MoBa). Growing Up in New Zealand had not initially included non-resident fathers because of budgetary constraints. However, funding was obtained for a one-off adjunct study which collected information from fathers, resident and non-resident, when the child was aged around 5 or 6. Contact details were obtained from the resident mothers and text messaging was used to contact fathers. The response rate overall was 72 per cent. The study reported challenges in reaching some groups of fathers: The ones who were non-resident are the hardest to reach. Ultimately you know, it’s … the ones who’ve had least contact with the child over that period of time, … maybe see the child once a month or even less … Although the general feedback was kind of that the dads were really Fathers in international cohort studies | 21 pleased that we were reaching out to them. They wanted to be involved. (Growing Up in New Zealand, interview) Like other studies, the Wirral Child Development Study relied on resident mothers for contact details for fathers or for earlier consent to follow up where fathers had subsequently moved out of the household. We gathered consent to follow-up in future at most phases from both fathers and mothers but were reliant on mothers to pass on questionnaires to some fathers or give us their changed contact details where parents separated. We did attempt to keep biological fathers in the study if they were still in contact with the child. Where there was domestic violence and mothers asked us not to send further questionnaires to the father, we honoured her wishes as it was most important to us to keep the mother in the study. (Wirral Child Development Study, written communication) Some studies have used filtering criteria to ensure that they only seek to contact fathers who are in ongoing contact with the child and do not get in touch with respondents who may not be aware that they are fathers. If the study child hadn’t had contact with the PLE [parent living elsewhere] in the last year, we wouldn’t pursue the PLE details. There was also a reasonable number of parents who just refused to answer questions about the PLE at all. (LSAC, interview) There has been a good deal of variation in the response rates achieved with nonresident fathers. Relatively good levels of response, at least in early waves, have been achieved by the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-B) in the US, Growing Up in Australia – the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) and the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing (FFCW) Study in the US (now called The Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study). For this reason, a more detailed account of these studies is presented here to identify the potential factors associated with better response rates. Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort of 2001 (ECLS-B) ECLS-B in the US started in 2001 with 9-month-old infants, sampled on the basis of birth certificate data; there were follow-up interviews with families at 2 years, preschool (approximately 4 years) and at kindergarten entry. Non-resident fathers were included in the study through self-administered questionnaires at 9 months and 2 years. The total group included all non-resident fathers identified through the surveys of mothers. Only fathers who met at least one of the following criteria were included in the survey: having seen the child at least once in the past month; 22 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study having seen the child on at least seven days in the past three months; being in touch with the resident mother at least once a month in the last three months. The research team indicated that this excluded about a fifth of the total group (ECLS-B, written communication). In all of these cases contact was defined as either an in-person visit or a telephone call. … These were basically criteria set up to make sure that we were going to be … talking to a population of fathers that would provide us reliable information on the constructs we were including. So we were going to be asking them questions about caregiving, questions about involvement activities, and we just wanted to make sure they had a frequency of contact with that child. (ECLS-B, interview) Mothers were required to give permission for the non-resident father to be contacted, which excluded a further fifth of the total group. Fathers were contacted by telephone in the first instance and then sent a questionnaire for postal return; where the mother was going to see the non-resident father in the next week, a packet with the questionnaire was left with them. Those who did not respond within two weeks were followed up by telephone ‘either to try to do the survey on the phone or offer to send them another questionnaire in the mail’ (ECLS-B, interview). A US$20 incentive was provided for questionnaire completion. Of those fathers who were contacted, half completed the non-resident father questionnaire. This compares to a response rate of 76 per cent for resident fathers. No information is available on the difference in profile between participating fathers and all others. The residence status of fathers was identified again in the next wave of data collection when the child was 2 years, so fathers who had been living in the household when the child was 9 months but subsequently left were included. For this wave, response rates were 60 per cent for non-resident fathers and approximately 80 per cent for resident fathers. The relative success in involving a relatively large proportion of the group was attributed to proactive contact and follow-up of the fathers. However, non-resident fathers were not included in subsequent waves of the study: We had to stop the component because we were seeing these declining response rates and because of budgetary constraints. We had to make some tough decisions about what pieces of the study to keep. (ECLS-B interview) ECLS-B data, including that on non-resident fathers, have been archived for use by other researchers, with some frequencies openly available on the Department of Education DataLab. Fathers in international cohort studies | 23 Growing Up in Australia – the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) LSAC participating families were sampled on the basis of the child being age zero to 1 year in 2003/2004. The approach to involving non-resident fathers, termed ‘parents living elsewhere’, changed over the course of the LSAC study. In the pilot for Wave 1, contact details and written consent to contact PLEs were sought from Parent 1 (P1, the main caregiver). They were sent postal questionnaires, with low response rates obtained. As a result, PLEs were not included in the main wave. This decision was revisited for Wave 2 and a different approach was taken: Step one which was new for P1s, the interview explained the importance of involving both parents in the study. So I guess that step is to make sure that you’re getting kind of the P1 on board and trying to understand why it’s important that we contact the PLE. So that was a new step. Step two, the contact number for the PLE was requested but not explicit consent for the PLE to be contacted about the study. … Rather than just sending the PLE a questionnaire in the mail and hoping for the best, the interviewer actually called the PLE and had a chat to them about the study, gave a bit of a rationale for why we’re including them, and then sent the questionnaire. The other thing that we did was with the questionnaire that we mailed out to the PLE, we redesigned it to be more friendly and positive, as we stated in the ethics application, with more information relating to what the parent and child do when they’re together. (LSAC, interview) Contact details were given by 69 per cent of parents and 35 per cent of those sent a questionnaire responded so ‘it was somewhat successful, but probably not as successful as we wanted’ (LSAC, interview). As a result, a telephone interview for PLEs was introduced in Wave 3 which ‘was much more successful in getting the PLEs on board’ (LSAC, interview). For Wave 3, 18 per cent of parents refused to provide or did not have contact details for the PLE. For those for whom details were provided, there was a response rate of 77 per cent in Wave 3, with rates for Waves 4 to 6 between 71 and 86 per cent, dropping somewhat for Waves 7 and 8, and more markedly for Wave 9 (Mohal et al., 2023). The research team attributed these high response rates to the use of a telephone interview and to a focus on the importance of PLEs in engagement materials, including information brochures, newsletters and calendars. Unlike some other studies, LSAC did not provide financial incentives to study participants. The LSAC data, including the data on PLEs, have been archived through the Australian Data Archive with a general release, and a more restricted release for more sensitive information. 24 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing (FFCW) Study The US FFCW study differs from many of the other cohort studies in sampling respondents from 20 cities, with a particular focus on oversampling non-marital births. To understand how families where there’s non-marital births are faring, how the parents are doing together and how the children then do as they develop. (FFCW, interview) Recruitment at birth took place between 1998 and 2000, with follow-up at 1, 3, 5, 9 and 15 years of age. Non-resident fathers were included from the start of the study, with the team trying to interview the father at the hospital or within a week of the child’s birth by phone, with in-person interviewer follow-up for those did not respond. One of the most surprising things that happened … when they came to the hospitals to survey the mothers, the fathers were all there, not all obviously, but a very large proportion of them, much more so than had been anticipated. And so that was a great way to get them immediately into the study and then that’s why they were able to have them and then continue in the study as we went further. (FFCW, interview) Mothers and fathers were each offered US$20 for participation in the study. In the initial birth sweep, 61 per cent of non-resident fathers completed the survey, a pattern attributed to the emphasis on early involvement of this group. Response rates at Waves 2 to 4 were 50-60 per cent for fathers who had not been living with the mother at the initial wave. At Wave 5, when the child was 9 years of age, response rates for fathers, resident and non-resident, dropped to 55 per cent. As a result, a decision was made not to continue with father interviews at the 15-year sweep. Response rates were lower among: the fathers that were less connected to the mothers and … as the relationship became more conflictual, those fathers are more and more likely to drop out of being interviewed (FFCW, interview). Data from the FFCW study, including information on non-resident fathers, can be downloaded from two national data archives; frequencies for the variables are available online and in codebooks for the study. In contrast, other studies have experienced some challenges in involving nonresident fathers in the study. Two English cohort studies, Children of the 2020s and From Five to Twelve, included non-resident parents on the same basis as the Fathers in international cohort studies | 25 second resident parent. For Children of the 2020s, primary caregivers were asked for consent to contact the other parent and were asked for contact details for them; consent was given in 70 per cent of resident parent households and 50 per cent for non-resident parent households (IPSOS, 2023). The survey was online as opposed to face-to-face interviews with the primary caregiver. Response rates were 36 per cent for resident parents and 18 per cent for non-resident parents (for those for whom permission and contact details were given). From Five to Twelve sampled children aged 5 or 6 in 2023. Eligibility for non-resident fathers to be included related to being in contact with the child. They were contacted through the resident parent and sent a web survey, on the same basis as resident fathers. As mentioned by other studies, there were some challenges in obtaining contact details. What we were doing was asking if they [the resident parent] had contact information they were willing to pass over during that [faceto-face] interview. … Often they didn’t want to do that … it’s increasingly common, I think, for people to find it odd to be asked for someone else’s contact information they feel they should ask permission. (From Five to Twelve, interview) In these cases, interviewers sent the resident parent an email to pass on to the own household father. Response rates were 16 per cent for own household fathers (as a proportion of all eligible fathers, not just those for whom details were provided) and 57 per cent for resident second parents. Telephone follow-up is planned for the next wave of the study. It is planned to archive these data for use by researchers. An important challenge has been the reliance on the willingness, and ability, of the resident parent to provide contact details for the non-resident parent, with almost all studies using the mother as a ‘gatekeeper’ for access. One exception is a recent UK study which contacted non-resident parents in their own right. The Early Life Cohort Feasibility Study (ELCFS) The Early Life Cohort Feasibility Study (ELCFS) was a scoping study for a new birth cohort study in the UK. A central concern was the desire to represent less often heard or hard-to-reach groups, including parents not living (full-time) with their children, termed ‘own household parents’ (OHPs), and responding to concerns raised by the Fatherhood Institute about the lack of inclusion of all fathers in cohort studies13 (Goldman and Burgess, 2018): 13 Non-resident fathers had been included in the pilot study for the (later abandoned) Life Study in the UK, although very few were identified because of the selective nature of the group of resident mothers who opted into the pilot (Kiernan, 2016). 26 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study There was sort of a focus on like less often heard kind of groups or like hard-to-reach groups and I guess so we’re defining … own household fathers as a sort of less often heard group in cohort studies. (ELCFS, interview) As part of the study, qualitative interviews were conducted with own household parents and separately with low income and minority ethnic groups to explore how best to include these groups in the research (Raybould et al., 2023). A particularly innovative aspect of ELCFS was the use of birth registration data as a sampling frame, which recorded all but 5 per cent of fathers and enabled the research team to contact non-resident parents independently.14 The incentives provided for participation were the same for OHPs and resident parents. They were varied across the sample in order to test the effects of incentives on response rates: beforehand, parents received an unconditional incentive of either Stg£5 or nothing; those who took part in the survey received either Stg£10 or Stg£20. The resident parent was informed that the team was contacting the OHP but they were not asked for permission to do so: Our approach for all families was to send letters to both parents on the sample frame, regardless of whether they were at the same address or not. And then if they didn’t opt out, an interviewer visited them at the address listed on the birth registration. And they would establish at that first doorstep visit using a screener interview whether this was the child’s main household or second household, where they either spent some time or no time, and that was how we evaluated whether the second address was the OHP household or not. (ELCFS, interview) Circumstances for some households had changed between the time of birth registration and the survey fieldwork (when the babies were around 9 months old). In these cases, ‘new’ OHPs were identified and the resident parent was asked for contact details for the OHP. In addition, where interviewers found that the OHP had moved, the resident parent was asked for contact details or to pass on an information pack. Unlike some other studies, the inclusion of OHPs was not filtered on criteria such as contact with the child: If we had their details either through the birth registration or through the other parent’s interview, they were eligible to take part. … We asked them [the primary informant, PI] at the start about the level of involvement the other parent has and if there was no involvement, but they did know about the child, we continued to ask about them. But if there was no involvement and either the PI didn’t know who the parent 14 It was not possible to access birth registration data in Northern Ireland so resident parents there were asked to share contact details for or information with the non-resident parent. Fathers in international cohort studies | 27 was or that parent didn’t know about the baby, then we didn’t pursue it at all. (ELCFS, interview) The response rate was ‘lower than we’d hoped’ at 16 per cent compared to a response rate of 76 per cent for additional resident informants, usually fathers. It was noted that the response rate may also be affected by the fact that the sample had boosted numbers of ethnic minority and low-income families. Preliminary analysis suggests that OHPs who were in a relationship with the child’s mother were more likely to respond but there were no differences by age group. Northern Ireland, where the team was reliant on the resident parent to contact the OHP, had a much lower response rate, at 7 per cent, than the rest of the UK, suggesting that independent contact did help response rates. It seems like having their details and being able to approach them directly did help massively. (ECLFS, interview) Non-response was predominantly driven by difficulties in tracing up-to-date addresses for, and securing contact with, the OHPs rather than by them refusing to take part when contacted. 2.3.3 Challenges and opportunities in including non-resident fathers Research teams from studies that included non-resident fathers were quick to recommend this approach to other international cohort studies. Not including them was seen as creating a gap in an understanding of children’s lives, especially in the context of the increasing complexity of family arrangements. Families are really complex and where … you’ve got those families that have kind of separated early, particularly where you’ve got parents that are, you know, equal or close to equally engaged with the child, you miss out on a whole piece of information. … If you’re not [including them], you’re missing really important data from those different kind of family environments. … 20 years on, families are going to be different. … It might be that the PLE is more important potentially now. (LSAC, interview) Although emphasising the value of their involvement, researchers have highlighted a number of challenges around involving non-resident fathers. In particular, access is generally secured through the mother by asking her to pass on information about the study and/or provide contact details for the father. In many cases, mothers are unable or unwilling to provide such contact details so the group of fathers who are potentially contactable are selective in nature, being more likely to have a fairly good relationship with the child’s mother and more actively involved in the life of the child. 28 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study This is not an unbiased sample. This is not a random group of people who are not giving us contact information. … It’s the group who are invested and wanting to be involved still. (From Five to Twelve, interview) A further challenge relates to housing mobility among this group of fathers, with research teams and interviewers experiencing difficulties in finding their correct address. This involved interviewers spending more time trying to contact the fathers. It was quite hard to find the OHPs. They were often not at the address listed on the birth registration. (ELCFS, interview) An additional issue related to the diversity of the non-resident father group and, in some cases, the blurred boundaries around paternal residence and, even more so, around identifying the child’s ‘main’ residence in circumstances of shared parenting. Anecdotally, interviewers were telling us often they were in the mother’s house but [the respondents] were being a bit cagey about how much they lived there or not. (ELCFS, interview) Actually, the OHP sometimes is just not really the OHP, it’s actually just the other home that that child lives there. (From Five to Twelve, interview) It was really challenging because this group is so diverse, some are really involved with their child and really want that recognised and you know your role as dad is really important … Whereas there are some that don’t see themselves as part of the family at all, where using language like families off-putting and they don’t see themselves in that language. (ELCFS, interview) In two studies, Fragile Families and ELCFS, a significant group of non-resident fathers were still in a relationship with the child’s mother, challenging the assumption that non-resident parenthood is solely driven by relationship dissolution. The need for the number of responses to be sufficient for analysis was also mentioned, with a trade-off between the time invested by respondents and the use of those data. Fathers in international cohort studies | 29 I’m slightly worried, I suppose, that what we’ll end up with is people who’ve invested their time and we only end up with, you know, 3 or 400 cases which you know, what will we do with that data. So there is a slight ethical question about can we use it, what’s the value of it? And you know how reliable is it? (From Five to Twelve, interview) In addition, the issue of which parent(s) should give consent was not unproblematic in all cases. What if Mum says yes and Dad says no, or vice versa? And what if you’re actually creating more tension in a home that’s already fraught? (Growing Up in New Zealand, interview) Challenges in involving this group of fathers in cohort studies were also evident in household surveys in general, especially where non-resident fathers were more socio-economically disadvantaged. Many of those non-resident fathers are not in household surveys. They’re very difficult to find because they’re loosely connected to households. … They’re either living with a partner, … they’re living with their mother or sister. … And in the US we have this incarceration problem. … So of our sample of non-resident fathers, … something like 62 per cent of them have had incarceration histories. (FFCW, interview) The specific situation of ‘parents living apart’ has been given increasing attention in the UK household longitudinal study, Understanding Society, ‘including separated parents, non co-resident parents, parents who were never in a union, and parents with children from another relationship living elsewhere’ (Reeve and Benezal, 2024, p.5). To better capture this group, changes have been made to the last two waves of the study and the team are assessing whether some measures, such as those on parenting styles and perceptions of child development, currently asked of resident parents, could also be asked of parents living elsewhere. The researchers interviewed emphasised the value of including or continuing to include non-resident fathers in cohort studies, as a way of capturing their influence on child development: Partly because from a sort of principled inclusivity position … if you want to genuinely be a study that is inclusive and is generally trying to treat … two parents equally … and be inclusive of all different family types. And then there’s a sort of principled reason for including all parents, all fathers, regardless of whether they’re with living with the baby or not. (ELCFS, interview) 36 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study Consent levels were also much lower where the parental relationship was poorer in quality. Perhaps not surprisingly, mothers were less likely to have contact details for fathers who were not in contact with their children. TABLE 3.1 MULTINOMIAL LOGIT MODEL OF THE FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH MOTHERS GIVING PERMISSION TO CONTACT NON-RESIDENT FATHERS WHEN THE CHILD WAS 9 MONTHS OLD, RELATIVE RISK RATIOS (BASE CATEGORY: REFUSAL) Consented No contact details Mother’s age: 22-25 years 26-30 years 31 + years (Ref.: 21 or less) 0.712 0.516* 0.492** 1.086 0.994 0.842 Mother’s education: Upper secondary Post-secondary/tertiary (Ref.: Lower secondary or less) 1.305 0.812 1.103 0.911 Migrant background of mother 1.132 1.043 Urban area 1.002 1.576* Timing of separation: Never lived together Child <6 months Child 6-9 months (Ref.: Pre-birth) 0.858 1.266 0.196 1.391 1.137 0.514 Custody arrangement: Formal Informal (Ref.: None) 1.608 1.412 1.641 0.871 Payment arrangement: Regular Ad hoc (Ref.: None) 1.262 1.254 0.534 0.317* Father-child contact: Daily 1-2 times a week Weekly or less (Ref.: Never) 3.964** 1.848 1.350 0.116*** 0.088*** 0.174*** Poorer quality of parental relationship 0.726*** 0.977 Pseudo R2 0.218 N 1,262 Source: GUI Cohort ’08, Wave 1. Note: *** significant at p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05; ± p<.10. Non-resident fathers in the Growing Up in Ireland study | 37 FIGURE 3.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEVEL OF FATHER-CHILD CONTACT AND WILLINGNESS OF RESIDENT MOTHERS TO PROVIDE CONTACT DETAILS FOR THE NON-RESIDENT FATHER, WHEN THE CHILD WAS 9 MONTHS OLD (PREDICTIVE MARGINS) Source: GUI Cohort ’08; derived from coefficients in Table 3.1. In contrast to the position at 9 months, willingness to consent to contact did not vary significantly by maternal age when the child was 3 years old (Table 3.2). Among the socio-demographic factors examined, only migrant status made a difference, with migrant-origin mothers less likely to give permission to contact the father, largely because of differences in levels of father-child contact. Consent levels differed markedly by aspects of the relationship with the father and degree of contact with the child (Table 3.2). Rates of consent were much lower if the parents had never lived together or had separated before the birth of the child and where no custody arrangement was in place. 17 As at 9 months old, consent was more likely where the father was in frequent contact with the child (at least once or twice a week) and where there was a better-quality relationship between the parents. Mothers were less likely to have contact details for the father in migrantorigin families, where the father had no contact with the child and where the parental relationship was poor. 17 Information on living arrangements were collected from the primary caregiver at Wave 1. The PCG was also asked if they had a formal or informal custody arrangement with the other biological parent regarding where the child lives. The question did not specify what constituted a formal arrangement, and it may or may not have had a legal status. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Daily 1-2 a week Weekly or less None Proportion Frequency of father-child contact 38 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study TABLE 3.2 MULTINOMIAL LOGIT MODEL OF THE FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH MOTHERS GIVING PERMISSION TO CONTACT NON-RESIDENT FATHERS WHEN THE CHILD WAS 3 YEARS OLD, RELATIVE RISK RATIOS (BASE CATEGORY: REFUSAL) Consented No contact details Mother’s age: 26-30 years 31 + years (Ref.: 25 or less) 0.706 0.756 1.366 1.848 Mother’s education: Upper secondary Post-secondary/tertiary 1.000 0.938 1.013 1.231 Migrant background 0.565* 1.253 Urban area 1.025 1.278 Timing of separation: Pre-birth Child <1 year Child 1-2 years Within last year (Ref.: Never lived together) 1.715 1.854± 3.277*** 1.712± 0.550 0.719 0.486 1.336 Custody arrangement: Formal Informal (Ref.: None) 2.325** 1.840* 0.943 0.493± Payment arrangement: Regular Ad hoc (Ref.: None) 1.254 1.706± 0.735 1.089 Father-child contact: Daily 1-2 times a week Weekly or less (Ref.: Never) 2.804± 3.691* 1.474 0.056*** 0.146*** 0.148*** Poorer quality of parental relationship 0.587*** 1.311* Pseudo R2 0.298 N 1,118 Source: GUI Cohort ’08, Wave 1. Note: *** significant at p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05; ± p<.10. As indicated in Figure 3.1, consent rates were somewhat lower when the child was 9 years old. Rates are higher among mothers with a post-secondary or tertiary qualification (Table 3.3), a pattern not evident at earlier waves. Rates are lowest if parents never lived together and highest among the recently separated. Consent is also less likely if there is no payment arrangement in place. As in previous waves, consent is markedly related to frequency of contact between the father and child but the quality of the parental relationship makes no additional difference. Contact details are less likely to be available for older mothers, fathers who have no contact with their child and where the parental relationship is poor. Non-resident fathers in the Growing Up in Ireland study | 39 TABLE 3.3 MULTINOMIAL LOGIT MODEL OF THE FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH MOTHERS GIVING PERMISSION TO CONTACT NON-RESIDENT FATHERS WHEN THE CHILD WAS 9 YEARS OLD, RELATIVE RISK RATIOS (BASE CATEGORY: REFUSAL) Consented No contact details Mother’s age: 36-40 years 41 + years (Ref.: 35 or less) 0.820 0.790 0.905 0.507* Mother’s education: Upper secondary Post-secondary/tertiary (Ref.: Lower secondary or less) 1.392 1.987± 0.713 1.016 Migrant background 0.945 1.192 Urban area 0.970 1.324 Timing of separation: <4 years 5-7 years 8-9 years (Ref.: Never lived together) 2.571*** 2.633*** 5.669*** 0.922 0.786 2.881± Custody arrangement: Formal Informal (Ref.: None) 1.076 1.284 0.672 0.669 Payment arrangement: Regular Ad hoc (Ref.: None) 2.146** 2.572* 0.601 1.573 Father-child contact: Daily 1-2 times a week Weekly or less (Ref.: Never) 5.662* 4.044* 2.076 0.231* 0.191*** 0.225*** Poorer quality of parental relationship 0.966 1.312* Pseudo R2 0.211 N 907 Source: GUI Cohort ’08, Wave 1. Note: *** significant at p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05; ± p<.10. Survey completion by non-resident fathers Analyses so far have indicated that fathers with more contact with their children and who have a better relationship with the child’s mother are more likely to be invited to take part in the GUI study. Non-resident fathers were sent a paper copy of the questionnaire by post, which is likely to result in a lower response rate than a direct interviewer approach. Fathers living outside Ireland were included but would have had to pay the postage charges to return the questionnaire. At 3 years of age, questionnaires were returned by 35 per cent of the non-resident fathers in cases where the mother had given permission for them to be contacted. This made up 12 per cent of the total group of non-resident fathers. Table 3.4 looks at the factors associated with responding to the survey. Because of small numbers, fathers who completed the survey are compared with all those who did not, 40 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study whether by reason of refusal by the father, refusal by the mother or no contact details being available. The coefficients are presented in terms of average marginal effects, which indicates the percentage point difference in completion between having a particular characteristic or not, holding other variables constant.18 By necessity, the analyses rely on information provided by the mother so may differ from paternal accounts of contact with child, for example, an issue that is explored further below. The findings indicate that survey responses are less likely in migrant-origin families (with a difference of 7 percentage points) and more likely in households where the mother has post-secondary or tertiary qualifications (a difference of 5 percentage points). These demographic differences are no longer apparent when father contact and the nature of parenting arrangements are taken into account (Model 2, Table 3.4). Survey responses are found to be less likely to cover families with no custody or maintenance/payment arrangements. They are somewhat less likely to cover families where fathers have less frequent contact and where parental relationships are poor. Because of small numbers, a simplified model is presented in Table A3.1 which compares fathers who responded with those who did not only among the group for whom mothers had given permission to contact. Response rates are found to be higher, by 13 percentage points, in more highly educated households and where fathers have frequent contact with their children. 18 Average marginal effects cannot be calculated for the multinomial logit models presented above. Non-resident fathers in the Growing Up in Ireland study | 41 TABLE 3.4 LOGIT MODEL OF THE FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SURVEY COMPLETION AMONG THE TOTAL GROUP OF NON-RESIDENT FATHERS WHEN THE CHILD WAS 3 YEARS OLD, AVERAGE MARGINAL EFFECTS Model 1 Model 2 Mother’s age: 26-30 years 31 + years (Ref.: 25 or less) -0.009 0.014 -0.012 0.007 Mother’s education: Upper secondary Post-secondary/tertiary (Ref.: Lower secondary or less) 0.039 0.052± 0.032 0.048 Migrant background -0.068** -0.024 Urban area -0.008 -0.030 Timing of separation: Pre-birth Child <1 year Child 1-2 years Within last year (Ref.: Never lived together) -0.032 -0.015 0.060 0.025 Custody arrangement: Formal Informal (Ref.: None) 0.078* 0.077** Payment arrangement: Regular Ad hoc (Ref.: None) 0.060* 0.125** Father-child contact: Daily 1-2 times a week Weekly or less (Ref.: Never) 0.070 0.115* 0.024 Poorer quality of parental relationship -0.040** Pseudo R2 0.016 0.196 N 1,098 Source: GUI Cohort ’08, Wave 1. Note: *** significant at p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05; ± p<.10. At the 9-year wave, questionnaires were returned by 14.3 per cent of the nonresident fathers in cases where the mother had given permission for them to be contacted. This made up 3.8 per cent of the total group of non-resident fathers. This comparison was repeated for responses at this wave (Table 3.5). There is better response coverage of families with more highly educated and older mothers, differences that are explained by variation in parenting arrangements and contact levels (compare Models 1 and 2, Table 3.5). Responses are less likely to relate to parents that never lived together or separated just recently (i.e. when the child was aged 8/9 years) and are more likely to relate to households where the father has frequent contact with the child (Model 2, Table 3.5). Comparing only those fathers who received the survey, response rates are higher for fathers in 42 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study frequent contact and where mothers have higher levels of education19 (Table A3.1). TABLE 3.5 LOGIT MODEL OF THE FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SURVEY RESPONSE AMONG THE TOTAL GROUP OF NON-RESIDENT FATHERS WHEN THE CHILD WAS 9 YEARS OLD, AVERAGE MARGINAL EFFECTS Model 1 Model 2 Mother’s age: 36-40 years 41 + years (Ref.: 35 or less) 0.014 0.033* 0.010 0.023 Mother’s education: Upper secondary Post-secondary/tertiary -0.001 0.052** -0.002 0.027 Migrant background -0.016 -0.009 Urban area 0.012 0.015 Timing of separation in relation to child’s age: <4 years 5-7 years 8-9 years (Ref.: Never lived together) 0.058*** 0.046** 0.053 Custody arrangement: Formal (Ref.: None or informal) 0.030± Payment arrangement: Regular Ad hoc (Ref.: None) 0.011 0.001 Father-child contact: Daily/1-2 times a week (Ref.: Less often/Never) 0.057** Quality of parental relationship (higher=poorer) -0.003 Pseudo R2 0.078 0.262 N 932 909 Source: GUI Cohort ’08, Wave 1. Note: *** significant at p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05; ± p<.10. 3.3 FATHER-CHILD CONTACT At all waves of the survey, mothers were asked about the frequency of in-person contact the child had with their non-resident father. Figure 3.3 shows that over a quarter of mothers report no contact between the father and child, a pattern that is fairly stable over time. Frequency of contact is greatest in the early years, with 19 Couples tend to have similar levels of educational attainment, a pattern known as educational homogamy. The patterns found are therefore likely to relate to higher response rates among more highly educated fathers. This is consistent with higher response rates among more highly educated households found in GUI more generally (see, for example, McNamara et al., 2020). Non-resident fathers in the Growing Up in Ireland study | 43 around half of the babies and toddlers seeing their fathers every day or once or twice a week. Contact is somewhat less frequent as children make the transition to school, though around a third of 5and 9-year-olds see their fathers at least a few times a week. At ages 5 and 9 years of age, mothers were asked about other contact (not face-to-face), presumably phone and/or video calls, with such contact happening at least a few times a week for 39 per cent and 35 per cent respectively. As well as father-child contact, the frequency with which mothers talk to fathers about the child also declines (not shown). However, reported relationship quality between parents remains stable. From the child perspective, over half (53 per cent) characterise their relationship with their non-resident fathers as ‘very good’. The father-child relationship is better where there is more frequent contact and where the parents have a better-quality relationship (see Smyth and Russell, 2021). FIGURE 3.3 FREQUENCY OF IN-PERSON CONTACT BETWEEN NON-RESIDENT FATHERS AND THEIR CHILDREN FROM 9 MONTHS TO 9 YEARS, AS REPORTED BY MOTHERS Source: GUI Cohort ’08. The information collected from mothers also provides interesting insights into the complexity of family structures and parenting arrangements. When the study child was 9, mothers reported that 23 per cent of their former partners were now living with other children. This comprises 9 per cent who were living with the child’s full siblings and 14 per cent who were living with another child or children (either the child’s half-sibling or an unrelated child). 27 23 11 11 26 25 26 20 21 24 35 41 26 28 28 27 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 9 months 3 years 5 years 9 years Daily 1-2 a week Weekly or less None 44 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study As discussed in Chapter 1, data on non-resident fathers at ages 3 and 9 were recently archived. The amount of detail that can be included here is limited by small cell sizes, especially at the 9-year wave. When the child was 3 years old, around half of these fathers described the amount of time they spent with the child as ‘about right’ with the remainder describing it as ‘nowhere near enough’ or ‘not quite enough’. Just over half indicate that the child spends at least seven nights a month with them. Four-in-ten fathers described themselves as having ‘a lot of influence’ in major decisions concerning the child. A number of studies internationally have pointed to differences in the accounts of separated parents (see Chapter 1). The questions on frequency of contact were not the same for mothers and fathers so cannot be directly compared. However, similar measures were collected for the frequency with which the parents discussed the child, and for the quality of the parental relationship. Measures of parental discussion had a moderate correlation20 (0.385), indicating some consensus but quite a bit of variation in parental accounts of the frequency of communication about the child. Mothers reported significantly less communication than fathers did. Measures of parental relationship quality are more strongly correlated (0.523) but indicate some divergence in views between parents. Unlike parental discussion, this did not vary markedly by gender. Smaller participant numbers at the age 9 wave mean that most information cannot be reported. However, a similar level of agreement between parents about relationship quality (0.592) is evident at the 9-year wave. 3.4 CONCLUSIONS Both resident and non-resident fathers have been included in almost all waves of the GUI study and information on non-resident fathers’ involvement with their children has been collected from mothers. Non-resident fathers are found to have frequent contact with their children, with half seeing babies and toddlers several times a week. Contact is somewhat less frequent as children make the transition to school, though around a third of 5and 9-year-olds see their fathers at least a few times a week. Just over a quarter have little to no contact with their children. From the child’s perspective, just over half (53 per cent)21 report getting on ‘very well’ with their father at age 9, indicating the importance of their father in their lives. Previous analyses found that children who had more contact with their father and stayed over at least once a fortnight were more likely to report ‘getting on very well’ (Smyth and Russell, 2021). As in several other cohort studies (see Chapter 2), resident mothers act as a gatekeeper to accessing non-resident fathers. Around a third of mothers were willing to give permission for the father to be contacted when the child was 20 Pearson’s correlation ranges from 0 to +1 (and 0 to -1) with higher values indicating a stronger relationship. 21 This figure rises to 65 per cent if those who did not respond to the question (presumably those who have no contact with their father) are excluded. Non-resident fathers in the Growing Up in Ireland study | 45 9 months and 3 years old, dropping to just over a quarter when the child was age 9. Such willingness does not vary markedly by socio-demographic factors but does reflect father-child contact and mother-father relationship quality. As a result, fathers in more frequent contact with their children and who have better relationships with the resident mothers are more likely to be invited to take part in the study. Among those who were contacted when the child was 3, 35 per cent completed the survey; this is on a par with the response rate for non-resident fathers in many comparable studies internationally (see Chapter 2). The response rate falls to 14 per cent by the age of 9. Again, international studies seem to indicate some decline in response rates as children grow older (as well as a decline over time in survey response rates in general). Fathers in more frequent contact with their child and formerly partnered with more highly educated mothers are more likely to complete the survey. The survey responses from non-resident fathers relate to a more selective group. Nonetheless, they yield useful insights, highlighting the dissatisfaction of many fathers (even those who have more contact) with the frequency with which they see their child. In keeping with international research (see, for example, Coley and Morris, 2002; Kitterød and Lyngstad, 2013), there are some differences between parental accounts, with mothers appearing to report lower levels of father-child contact than do fathers. 52 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study filters. … Definitely at 9 children are much more cagey around what they’re going to say. (Organisation 1, interviewee 1) However, another stakeholder suggested that there were issues around consent and sensitivity in asking the child about their relationship with the non-resident parent. There could be Information about how often they [the child] sees the other parent or whether they feel they see them enough…... You’d have to make consideration for consent and stuff like that. And what the primary caregiver parent may feel about the child being asked that. Because it could be something that they’re quite sensitive about or it could be something that upsets the child if they asked about it. (Organisation 2) 4.2.4 What kinds of information should be collected from non-resident fathers? Stakeholders identified significant gaps in the knowledge about parenting in families that have separated, and about the experiences of the non-resident parents in navigating their parenting role. I think it’d be really interesting to hear their perspective on their relationship with their children. You know, what is your time with your child like? ……. And what do you notice about your child? What do you think your child is really good at? What is it like living away from your child? (Organisation 1, interviewee 2) Finding out more about dads and their sort of view of themselves as a parent… just finding out more about the relationship and how they view themselves as parents and dad’s role in children’s lives. (Organisation 1, interviewee 1) Another stakeholder felt that it would be enlightening to compare the answers of the two parents: I think there’d be a very interesting comparison to see how much variance there is between the primary caregiver and the non-resident parents. If you ask them things like how many hours a week do you spend with your child. Maybe if there’s questions around ‘I feel I have sufficient input into how my child is raised’ and then the other parent is asked. ‘I feel the other parent has sufficient input’ because the comparison between the two I think could be very interesting. (Organisation 2) Perceived benefits of, and challenges in, including non-resident fathers | 53 Major gaps in the supports for non-resident/separated fathers were also identified There was also a perception among fathers that the supports were not designed for or available to them, even if they were not officially excluded. The family support social care work, it tends to be a lot of mothers presenting, whereas a lot of dads come to [voluntary service] because there’s very little. There’s a huge gap in service provision out there and it’s very challenging and a lot of fathers that we would meet are really struggling with the court service and with the other parents, struggling with the emotional impact that not seeing their children has on them and having to fight for time with their children. (Organisation 1, interviewee 2) Because a lot of dads don’t link in with services, a lot of dads have found the process not really for them, it’s for mam and baby. (Organisation 4) For a number of the organisations interviewed, providing information and support to separated parents was one of the aims, and they noted that were still gaps in information and support for fathers. Dads need huge mental health supports … We need to get it right and we’re miles away in relation to services and resources for dads. (Organisation 4) This suggests the need for additional data collection on access to formal and informal supports for fathers, their use of services and unmet needs. This could usefully inform policy development in the area. 4.3 INTERVIEWS WITH PARENTS In order to explore issues around collecting data on non-resident fathers in Ireland, one-to-one interviews were conducted with five fathers not living full-time with their children and one lone mother who was no longer living with the father of her children. As outlined in Chapter 1, these interviewees were contacted via the NGOs working with parents interviewed for Section 4.2. The interviews with parents focussed on a number of issues, including how to identify and contact fathers who are not living full-time with their children, implications regarding collecting contact details of fathers from mothers, implications regarding obtaining information from birth register data, and collecting information on fathers from mothers. The fathers were also asked to identify information that should be collected from them. 54 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study 4.3.1 Establishing contact with non-resident fathers The interviewees acknowledged the difficulty of identifying and contacting nonresident fathers: ‘I probably understand that. If they’re not living with children, that that could be difficult’ (Dad4). The interviewees felt that, in general, contact information on such fathers could be collected from the mother of the child/children. However, the success of this approach largely depends on the quality of relationship between the father and the mother. I think in my case, if you were to contact my ex, she would give you my details, you know. … But my understanding is, as you probably know, in other situations, there are conflicts you know. And … a lot of times they [mothers] are sometimes not talking to the dads. (Dad1) In order to identify and engage non-resident fathers in a research study, some interviewees suggested using social media, radio or newspaper advertisements. I suppose if it was on the radio, you know and if I saw something in the newspaper, or… I suppose if I saw, you know, an advertisement or something – I would respond. (Dad1) Probably try the social media … will be one way. (Dad3) So maybe a social media campaign or stuff like that, that that might help. (Dad4) One interviewee noted that data protection can be an issue when trying to identify non-resident fathers, particularly if the mother is not comfortable sharing the information: ‘GDPR and stuff like that. It probably might be an issue’ (Dad4). Several fathers suggested going through support organisations or groups for lone parents: ‘I can understand it could be difficult, but I think even linking in with [organisation] or helplines for fathers.’ (Dad4). This approach could be used to: …maybe contact some kind of groups like separated fathers’ support groups. And then there’s like maybe IrishDads.ie, contact them maybe. And then obviously Lads to Dads, which is the group that I was involved in at one stage, you could contact them and they would have a list of separated parents, fathers and they could probably give you the information … So, I think the thing to do would be to try and go in with support groups and there’s some support groups for separated fathers and … or let’s say, there’s websites … You could probably get information from fathers through that. (Dad2) Perceived benefits of, and challenges in, including non-resident fathers | 55 Dad2 felt that going through dedicated support groups or organisations is likely to provide more positive results than contacting non-resident fathers directly: I would say an organisation would definitely… probably get more results quicker than cold contacting or unless the parties were part of some kind of group whatever … the separated parents’ group, or whether it was something online … So, you know, … a direct contact might not always be advisable. Well, you can always try direct contact, but I think it depends on circumstances, I guess. I think contacting an organisation is probably the best way, or through word of mouth even. (Dad2) However, some of these suggestions were more relevant for targeting nonresident fathers in general rather than for the fathers of the study child. Incentives could be used to encourage fathers to participate in a study: Maybe some sort of incentive or project or interview maybe. Not necessarily a monetary reward, but along them lines – that would encourage fathers to contact you…. maybe they could offer to people you know, maybe the free, the free legal advice … maybe GP recommended to people, or something like this, or psychologist maybe … something like that. (Dad3) A snowballing approach was considered another option for contacting nonresident fathers:22 There’s another way you could go about … so, for example, let’s say I know maybe three or four separated parents, fathers … I could probably reach out to them and ask did they want to be involved in the survey to get information from them. (Dad2) Dad2 felt that when it is evident that the father does not have much contact with the mother or the child, there may be little point in trying to contact these fathers: I think again it depends on the circumstances; separated or just some cases out there, father just goes walkabout and doesn’t have any contact with the mother or the children as I’m sure you’re aware of. So then … there’s no point in trying to reach out to those kinds of people. (Dad2) 22 As with working through organisations, this is unlikely to assist with including fathers in a child cohort study. 56 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study An interview with a separated mother indicated that in order to understand the reluctance of some mothers in not providing information about the father of the child, the survey questionnaire should probe for the reasons behind it. I suppose the first thing I would think would be the questionnaire of the survey. You know in terms of the questions that are being put there, to maybe expand on them more to try and gather more insight as to the reasons behind the information not being disclosed. Is there more questions that can be asked in the survey just to get that sense? … And then that would maybe give you a better picture to the reasons why, you know, I suppose in a sensitive way … that’s not going to concern them. (Mother) 4.3.2 Collecting contact information from mothers The interviewees felt that collecting contact details for fathers from mothers can be difficult, particularly if the relationship between the child’s mother and father is not amicable. It was also noted that in order to pass on the father’s contact details, the mother needs to first secure his agreement for them to do so. And certainly, there are circumstances – like trying to get access time with their children … so … it’s quite difficult. And then there’s probably other parents … probably would shy away from giving that information…. I would say it depends on the circumstances between the fathers and mothers – like… is the relationship amicable at this stage. It depends on the circumstances of their relationship. And maybe some mothers probably wouldn’t want to give out information about fathers, because they’d have to get the father’s permission first, and then, depending on how well they’re now in that relationship – is there, you know a problem. It will probably be quite difficult getting that information from mothers. (Dad2) A mother’s reluctance to pass on contact details for the father may also be related to the financial implications for the mother who may be concerned about the information collected being passed on to relevant authorities. However, if the mothers are assured that the information is collected for research purposes only, they may be more likely to share the father’s contact details. Whether they’re willing to share. There might be certain lack of understanding around of why [the contact details are needed]. Will the mother get into trouble? (Dad4) Single parents, basically – they may lose certain elements of benefits or child benefit or the social welfare aspect, if you are not working. Because like you know, just sharing your information, or your story, because it can be presented to people you know … passing information Perceived benefits of, and challenges in, including non-resident fathers | 57 to be shared …. I think if it’s an anonymous, kind of a targeted survey, probably yeah. (Dad3) Furthermore, depending on the quality of relationship, the fathers may not appreciate the mother passing on their contact details. I do know not all dads want to be involved in the child’s life – it’s very sad. (Dad5) I don’t think it’s always going to be successful, you know. … And in terms of …breakups you know what I mean. … …I think you’ll get some mams refusing to give you a number and I think … you might also get some dads responding negatively to the fact that you’ve got the number from the mothers you know what I mean. … I think in these scenarios I think you need to try and maximise your reach, don’t you. So, … it’s like you have to have a multi-pronged approach to getting the numbers, you know. (Dad1) 4.3.3 Collecting information from birth registration data In principle, birth registration records could be used for directly recruiting nonresident fathers for the study (see Chapter 2 on the Early Life Cohort Feasibility Study in the UK). In Ireland, the HSE birth registration application form contains contact information for both parents of the child. In order to explore the acceptability of this approach, the interviewees were asked how they would feel about researchers collecting information from birth registration data. Some fathers did not see a problem collecting information from birth registration, particularly if the purpose of the study is explained to them: I think that would be a good idea. And then I guess …you can get their contact details and maybe contact them straight either via phone call or an e-mail to let them know that you’re doing this survey, and you’re just interested in asking them some key questions. (Dad2) I don’t have a problem with it personally, you know. I think it’s OK. (Dad5) However, collecting information from birth registration data also has a potential downside, particularly if the fathers are uncertain about the purpose of collecting their information or if the father is not present in his child’s life: Positive is that you’re getting to the fathers. Negative is they might probably lack understanding of how you got it or why you’re contacting them. It will come down to maybe a personal opinion. I 58 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study know from my thought process; my mindset would be – you have to make fathers heard, give them a voice. So that’s ultimately why I’m here. Possibly some of the fathers mightn’t have that opinion, you know, so. But yeah, at least you’re contacting them. (Dad4) I suppose I think there are some dads that don’t take responsibility for their kids and I think it’s not the way to contact those dads. I would approve [of collecting info from birth registration], so I suppose that’s the short answer you know. (Dad1) However, Dad1 argued that it would be better to opt to in the study than having their details accessed without their knowledge, an approach which could be considered intrusive. If I got a call out of the blue you mean? You just want it to do a study about parents of kids growing up in Ireland. I suppose I would be feeling a slight intrusion, you know what I mean. Your personal details you know … I would prefer to go willingly into something like this. I might be the first one to participate in this, but I’d prefer to opt in. (Dad1) Furthermore, not all fathers may be recorded on birth registration data, as was the case of Dad3 who became a father at a very young age. Confidentiality was the major concern among the interviewees regarding collecting information directly from birth registration. I suppose depending on what the objective is, if there’s going to be any negative consequences for the mother, you know. If it’s just a survey and yeah, you know, I can’t see why not. Obviously, you have the whole GDPR situation. … We’re all contacted randomly for things you know. So I don’t [know], I mean, if it’s important that these fathers are contacted. (Mother) You’d have to be making sure … their confidentiality … that it’s definitely going to be released to the right people obviously, that no person that would just ring up and say I’m his dad. And next thing there’s information leaked everywhere about the kid... you know what I mean? That’s the only downfall I can think of. Now I wouldn’t think there’s any problem with that in any information off of a birth registration you know. At the end of the day, you’re not going to get Perceived benefits of, and challenges in, including non-resident fathers | 59 much out of it really. You’re going to get, you know, was the children’s father present at birth, yes or no. (Dad5) Well, I suppose there could be pros and cons to that depending on the father status within the unit, the family unit. You know, if they are involved. Like that could be a contentious issue, potentially. You know you could be contacting a father that is trying to get in contact or trying to be present and have access within their children’s lives. They will be very happy with that, you know, and then you could find somebody else that is intimidated by it, you know, and feels as an agenda. And that could come back on the mother. So it’s difficult. (Mother) Well, it’s just if the father is getting a random phone call from somebody asking questions, you know, there might be, depending on what’s going on in that family situation, it could, you know, potentially cause issues. I don’t know. So I suppose it could be positive and negative, you know outcomes depending on each individual situation. (Mother) 4.3.4 Information on fathers collected from mothers Internationally, information has been collected from mothers and older cohorts of children on non-resident fathers (Goldman et al., 2021). The interviewees in this study were asked about what kind of information could be collected from mothers on fathers. Overall, it was felt that compared to non-resident fathers, it is easier to contact mothers who might also be more willing to respond to the questions. I think … it’s probably easier to contact mothers than it is fathers, I would say. Maybe more mothers are more open or more willing to give information freely for whatever reason. … I would say, it’s quite difficult to get in contact with fathers in general who are separated. (Dad2) When asked what information could be collected on fathers from mothers, a number of topics emerged, including time spent with the father, means of contact between the father and the child, father’s access to the child, and supports available to separated/divorced fathers. So what type of information can be collected …. I’d say it’d be down to how often their children get to spend time with their father … I guess how often are their children allowed to spend time with their father, let’s say are they eligible for video or phone calls once twice a week now, how much contact they have, are they able to spend a weekend 60 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study with their father – every second or third weekend … whether it’s in the father’s house or are they able to get access to phone calls, video calls at least, at least once a week I would say … is it possible that the children are allowed to stay over in the father’s house and possible … depending on circumstances and obviously during holidays, whether that’s Christmas holidays, maybe Easter holidays, bank holidays, school holidays. (Dad2) I’d like you know …what level of time …. do you feel is available to you as a parent …. I know a few situations where dads are restricted from seeing the kids. … It would be interesting, I think, to hear from dads [where] … there is no restriction you know … or else I’m not allowed to see my kids, you know. So I think that’s valuable information … and national supports. Are there supports for young men? (Dad1) This being said, there was some uncertainty about the accuracy of this information, when collected only from the mother: I would wonder … I think it would be biased in an answer you’d get, and I would wonder about the validity of that information you know. And because … and like you could get a situation where he’s had moments when he stayed with the dad but she says no… I would wonder about the validity of the information. I would be concerned about that actually. (Dad1) And I suppose from my experiencelike I’m very involved in the lives of my child, so … you know, I could probably do a lot of things that maybe a lot of women do – extracurriculars planning, school work planning, exam prep – all that kind of stuff. But I think if you ask my ex what I do … you wouldn’t get all that information, you know. And it’s not necessarily malice or anything, but … just from knowing her, I don’t think she would. So, in my case – I don’t know if it will be accurate. And then … you could ask, but … you’d have to verify that from the dad, you know … I think. You’re really talking about perception I think, … and you’re not getting information …. I wonder, how scientific that information is, you know what I mean. (Dad1) 4.3.5 Information that should be collected from non-resident fathers In terms of information that should be collected from fathers, the interviewees noted that it depends on the focus of the study as well as the questions asked of the mothers. It was suggested that information be collected about different Perceived benefits of, and challenges in, including non-resident fathers | 61 aspects, including father’s time with his child/children, father’s involvement in helping with homework, and general interaction with the child. Access to their children emerged as a major topic for several fathers that were interviewed for this study. I guess whatever questions you’re asking, it makes sense to ask the fathers the same kind of questions. Whether they’re in school years or whether they’re in teenage years or work years and all that kind of thing. Why would age make a difference? Because, I guess, … if parents had children in school years – you could try and find out how much time dads spend with their children, does he get to be able to do homework to benefit this child, talk about school or be around to be able to help with schoolwork. (Dad2) Possibly their access arrangements. How much involvement they have in their children’s lives. How did it come to this kind of access arrangement? (Dad4) To be able to access child’s health you know …. you have every right to access that. (Dad5) As many dads referred to ‘circumstances’ when talking about the dynamics between themselves and their ex-partners, they were also asked whether both parents should be asked individually about the quality of their relationship with each other. The interviewees felt that in order to understand the quality of the relationship, it is important to establish the dynamics between the two birth parents: I think it would be OK to ask that question and get an understanding of if there’s a good relationship, a healthy relationship that’s focused on their children. Ultimately, I think that will benefit your research of children growing up in Ireland. (Dad4) 4.4 CONCLUSIONS This chapter has drawn on interviews with NGOs working with parents and with six parents themselves to explore the potential for involving parents not living (fulltime) with their children in research about those children. There was a consensus among both groups of the value of including non-resident parents in research, with interviewees highlighting the active involvement of fathers in their children’s lives and the consequent impact on child development. Interviewees indicated some potential for information on the father-child relationship to be collected from resident mothers but cautioned that this might provide a partial or potentially 68 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study comprehensive picture of the range of influences on children’s lives, including the role of fathers not currently living with them. This perspective has been reflected in the inclusion of non-resident fathers in almost all waves of GUI to date. The study findings point to a number of grounds for their inclusion in future waves of data collection. First, a significant proportion of children – around one-in-six – do not live with their father full-time so not including their father gives only a partial picture of their lives. Second, around half of these fathers have very frequent contact with their children, especially when the child is younger, and thus can be considered as a key influence on their development. Third, children themselves value this relationship, with over half of 9-year-olds saying they get on very well with their non-resident father. Fourth, parents do not necessarily share the same perception of the father’s involvement in the child’s life so capturing both perspectives is important. Fifth, families with a non-resident father are more socioeconomically disadvantaged in profile than other families. Understanding the resources – financial (direct and in-kind), social and emotional – provided by nonresident fathers is therefore crucial in understanding child poverty and developing policy to tackle it. However, the study findings do point to challenges in involving non-resident fathers in child cohort studies. Response rates for non-resident fathers in GUI have been on a par with several international studies but lower than others. A key challenge is accessing non-resident fathers. GUI, like almost all other studies, relies on contact via the resident mother, resulting in a more selective group of fathers who receive any contact from the research team. Non-contact and non-response mean that those who complete the survey are even more selective in profile, overrepresenting those in frequent contact with the child and with a good relationship with the mother. Direct contact with the non-resident father, through birth registration data, does not necessarily result in high response rates. Nonetheless, this avenue is worth exploring in the Irish context; there is near-universal coverage of all fathers and direct contact may serve as an important signal of the centrality of fathers to their children’s lives. At the same time, the issue of contacting a nonresident father without the mother’s permission must be handled with care, with targeted messaging to both parties about the importance of including fathers. Based on the experience of international studies and qualitative interviews here and elsewhere, the scoping study findings point to ways of potentially enhancing survey participation among this group of fathers. These include: strong messaging to the resident mother as to why fathers are being included in the study; strong and tailored messaging to all fathers – including those not living with their children – as to their centrality in their children’s lives, an approach that could also help participation by resident fathers; limiting the scope to non-resident fathers that Conclusions and implications for the future | 69 have at least some contact with their child (on the basis of mother reports);28 using interviewers as the first point of contact and follow-up, rather than relying on postal or online questionnaires; and demonstration of the value of the information collected through feedback to participants and the wider public. Demonstration of the value of this information depends on archiving these data for use by researchers and stakeholders; potentially guidelines on the use of these data, given lower response rates, would be helpful to data users. While consideration should be given to capturing the specificities of parenting arrangements in separated families, focusing more positively on their role as a father may enhance the experience of participation. Valuable information on the child’s contact with the non-resident father has been, and should continue to be, collected from the resident mother. However, other research has indicated that the quality of the information gathered could be further enhanced, given some ambiguity in the interpretation of some questions, especially around the amount of time the child spent with their father (see Goldman et al., 2019). 28 There are discrepancies between mother and father reports of contact but these generally relate to level of contact among those who have any. Not including fathers with no contact whatsoever helps address ethical and practical challenges about contacting them for survey purposes. 70 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study REFERENCES Adamsons, K. and Johnson, S.K. (2013). ‘An updated and expanded meta-analysis of nonresident fathering and child well-being’, Journal of Family Psychology, 27(4), 589-599. Altenburger, L.E. (2022). ‘Resident and Non-resident Father Involvement, Coparenting, and the Development of Children’s Self-Regulation Among Families Facing Economic Hardship’, Front. Psychol., 21 February 2022Sec. Gender, Sex and Sexualities Vol. 13 – 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.785376. Baxter, J. (2015). Diversity, complexity and change in children’s households. LSAC Annual Statistical Report. Baxter, J., Edwards, B. and Maguire, B. (2012). New father figures and fathers who live elsewhere. Occasional Paper No. 42. Australian Institute of Family Studies. Bergnehr, D. and Wahlström Henriksson, H. (2023). ‘Single parenthood, the nonresidential parent and co-parenting in Swedish daily news’, Feminist Media Studies, 23:4, 1559-1574, DOI: 10.1080/14680777.2022.2033295. Bradshaw, P., Bromley, C., Hill, T., Mabelis, J., Parkes, A., Smith, K., Sweeting, H., Warner, P. and Wight, D. (2013). Growing up in Scotland Birth Cohort 2: results from the first year. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/17356/7/00414641_Redacted.pdf. Bryson, C. and McKay, S. (2012). Non-resident parents: Why are they hard to capture in surveys and what can we do about it? Discussion Paper CASE/210. London School of Economics. Bryson, C. and McKay, S. (2018). Non-resident parents: Why are they hard to capture in surveys and what can we do about it?. London: LSE. Burgess, A. and Goldman, R. (2022). ‘Bringing Baby Home: UK fathers in the first year after the birth’ (full report), Contemporary Fathers in the UK series. London: Fatherhood Institute Choi, J.-K. and Jackson, A.P. (2012). ‘Nonresident fathers’ parenting, maternal mastery and child development in poor African American single-mother families’, Race and Social Problems, 4(2), 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-012-9070-x. Clarke, A. and Muir, K. (2017). Non-resident parents and shared housing. Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research. Coates, E.E. and Phares, V. (2019). ‘Pathways Linking Non-resident Father Involvement and Child Outcomes’, Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:16811694https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01389-6. Coley, R.L. and Morris, J.E. (2002). ‘Comparing father and mother reports of father involvement among low-income minority families’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(4), 982-997. Culpin, I., Heuvelman, H., Rai, D., Pearson, R.M., Joinson, C., Heron, J., Evans, J. and Kwong, A.S.F. (2022). ‘Father absence and trajectories of offspring mental health across adolescence and young adulthood: Findings from a UK-birth cohort’, Journal of Affective Disorders, 314, 150-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.07.01. References | 71 Dermott, E. (2016). ‘Non-resident fathers in the UK: living standards and social support’, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 24(2), 113-125. Emmott, E.H. and Mace, R. (2021). ‘Why the son-bias in caregiving? Testing sexdifferences in the associations between paternal caregiving and child outcomes in England’, Journal of family issues, 42(6), 1354-1383. Fagan, J. (2024). ‘Children’s contact with fathers who never co-resided with them and father–child relationship quality at age 9’, Journal of Family Issues, 45(11), 28022821. Fahey, T., Keilthy, P. and Polek, E. (2012). A study of the families of nine year-olds in Ireland: Family relationships and family well-being. Dublin: University College Dublin and the Family Support Agency. Goldman, R., Bradshaw, P. and Burgess, A. (2021). ‘A disaggregated approach to recruiting Own Household Fathers in cohort studies’, Social Research Practice. Issue 11 Summer 2021. Goldman, R., Bradshaw, P., Burgess, A. and Vosnaki, K. (2019). ‘Recruitment and retention of birth fathers in split-off households. Methodological considerations for cohort and longitudinal studies’. Working paper prepared for ESRC. Goldman, R. and Burgess, A. (2018). Where’s the Daddy?: Fathers and Father-figures in UK Datasets. Fatherhood Institute. Hannan, C. and Halpin, B. (2014). ‘The influence of family structure on child outcomes: Evidence for Ireland’, The Economic and Social Review, 45(1, Spring), 1-24. Haux, T. and Reichl Luthra, R. (2019). What is shared care?. Essex: ISER. Inskip, H.M., Godfrey, K.M., Robinson, S.M., Law, C.M., Barker, D.J. and Cooper, C. (2006). ‘Cohort profile: the Southampton women’s survey’, International journal of epidemiology, 35(1), 42-48. IPSOS (2023). Children of the 2020s Wave 1: Technical Report. London: Department for Education. Kiernan, K. (2016). Fathers and partners in life study: groundwork, outcomes and lessons. Available at: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/spsw/KKFathers%20and%20Partners%20in%20L S%20Report%20to%20NF%2020816%20(1).pdf. King V. and Sobolewski J.M. (2006). ‘Nonresident Fathers’ Contributions to Adolescent Well-Being’, J Marriage Fam. Aug; 68(3):537-557. doi: 10.1111/j.17413737.2006.00274.x. King, V. and Heard, H. (1999). ‘Nonresident father visitation, parental conflict, and mother’s satisfaction: what’s best for child well-being?’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(2), 385-396. Kitterød, R.H. and Lyngstad, J. (2013). Comparing mothers’ and fathers’ reports on the non-resident father’s contact with his children. Oslo: Statistics Norway. Lader, D. (2008). Non-resident parental contact, London: ONS. Manlove, J., Ryan, S., Wildsmith, E. and Franzetta, K. (2010). ‘The relationship context of nonmarital childbearing in the US’, Demographic Research, 23, 615. 72 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study Marryat, L., Reid, S. and Wasoff, F. (2009). Growing Up in Scotland: Year 3-Non-resident Parents. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. McIntosh, J., Smyth, B. and Kelaher, M. (2011). ‘P1-237 Post-separation parenting arrangements: patterns and developmental outcomes’, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 65(Suppl 1), A132-A132. McIntosh, J.E., Smyth, B.M. and Kelaher, M. (2013). ‘Overnight care patterns following parental separation: Associations with emotion regulation in infants and young children’, Journal of Family Studies, 19(3), 224-239. McMunn, A., Martin, P., Kelly, Y. and Sacker, A. (2017). ‘Fathers’ involvement: Correlates and consequences for child socioemotional behavior in the United Kingdom’, Journal of Family Issues, 38(8), 1109-1131. McNamara, E., O’Mahony, D. and Murray, A. (2020). Design, Instrumentation and Procedures for Cohort ’08 of Growing Up in Ireland at 9 Years Old (Wave 5). Dublin: ESRI/ TCD/ DCYA. Menning, C.L. (2006). ‘Non-resident fathering and school failure’, Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1356-1382. Mohal, J., Lansangan, C., Gasser, C., Howell, L., Hockey, P., Duffy, J., Renda, J., Scovelle, A., Jessup, K., Daraganova, G. and Mundy, L. (2023). Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children – Data User Guide, Release 9.1C2, April 2023. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Nepomnyaschy, L. and Garfinkel, I. (2007). ‘Child support, fatherhood, and marriage: Findings from the first 5 years of the fragile families and child wellbeing study’, Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 1(1), 1-20. Nepomnyaschy, L. and Garfinkel, I. (2011). ‘Fathers’ involvement with their nonresident children and material hardship’, Social Service Review, 85(1), 3-38. Nepomnyaschy, L., Thomas, M., Haralampoudis, A. and Jin, H. (2022). ‘Nonresident fathers and the economic precarity of their children’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 702(1), 78-96. Nixon, E., Greene, S. and Hogan, D. (2012). ‘Like an uncle but more, but less than a father: Irish children’s relationships with non-resident fathers’, Journal of Family Psychology, 26(3), 381-390. NRFC (2008). ‘Non-resident fathers and child development’, Research Review. US Department of Health and Human Services. Paulson, J.F., Dauber, S.E. and Leiferman, J.A. (2011). ‘Parental depression, relationship quality, and nonresident father involvement with their infants’, Journal of Family Issues, 32(4), 528-549. Pearson, H. (2016). The Life Project: The Extraordinary Story of our Ordinary Lives. London: Penguin. Poole, E., Speight, S., O’Brien, M., Connolly, S. and Aldrich, M. (2016). ‘Who are nonresident fathers?: A British socio-demographic profile’, Jnl Soc. Pol. (2016), 45, 2, 223-250. Cambridge University Press 2015 doi:10.1017/S0047279415000653. References | 73 Poole, E., Speight, S., O’Brien, M., Connolly, S. and Aldrich, M. (2024). ‘What do we know about non-resident fathers?’. Briefing paper. Available at: https://natcen.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2024-02/Briefing-paper-Non-residentfathers.pdf. Qu, L. and Weston, R. (2015). ‘Children’s views about parental separation’, Annual statistical report 2014, 13. Qu, L. and Weston, R. (2014). ‘Fathers’ involvement in the lives of their children’, Annual statistical report 2013, 151. Raybould, A., Calderwood, L., Hollings, P., Goldman, R. and Burgess, A. (2023). ‘Engaging “less-often-heard” groups in birth cohort studies: qualitative insights from ownhousehold fathers and low-income families’, Social Research Practice, 13. Reeve, K. and Benzeval, M. (2024). ‘Improving questionnaire content for parents and families living apart’, Understanding Society Working Paper 2024-03, Colchester: University of Essex. Rendall, M., Clarke, L., Peters, E., Ranjit, N. and Verropoulou, G. (1999). ‘Incomplete Reporting of Men’s Fertility in the United States and Britain: A Research Note’, Demography, Vol. 36, No. 1 pp. 135-144. Rusten, N.F., Peterson, E.R., Underwood, L., Verbiest, M.E., Waldie, K.E., Berry, S., ... and Morton, S.M. (2019). ‘Psychological distress among resident and nonresident fathers: Findings from New Zealand’s Who Are Today’s Dads? Project’, Journal of Family Issues, 40(3), 293-314. Sariscsany, L., Garfinkel, I. and Nepomnyaschy, L. (2019). ‘Describing and understanding child support trajectories’, Social Service Review, 93(2), 143-182. Schoppe-Sullivan, S.J. and Fagan, J. (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. Scottish Government (2009). Growing up in Scotland. Sweep 3 Non-resident Parent Report. Smyth, E. and Russell, H. (2021). Fathers and children from infancy to middle childhood. Dublin: ESRI. Stykes, J.B., Manning, W.D. and Brown, S.L. (2013). ‘Nonresident Fathers and Formal Child Support: Evidence from the CPS, NSFG, and SIPP’, Demographic Research, 29: 46, 1299-1330. Sulak, T.N., Barnard-Brak, L. and Frederick, K. (2012). ‘The relationship between father residency and a child’s ADHD symptoms’, Early child development and Care, 182(1), 59-69. Vestergaard, A., O’Shea, J., Garcia, J., Gardner, C. and Dermody, A. (2023). ‘Establishing Meaningful Relationships between Children and Fathers who Do Not Live Together: Challenges and Solutions’, Treoir/Quality Matters, Dublin. Violi, D., Kwok, C., Lewis, P. and Wilson, N.J. (2022). ‘Non-resident Fathers’ Voice: Marginalized, Disempowered, and Silenced’, American Journal of Men’s Health July-August 1–6. DOI: 10.1177/15579883221115594. 74 | Including non-resident fathers in cohort research: a scoping study Violi, D., Lewis, P., Kwok, C. and Wilson, N.J. (2023). ‘Becoming a non-resident father: Marginalised through distress, disadvantage and disempowerment’, Health Promotion Journal of Australia, DOI: 10.1002/hpja.810. Violi, D., Lewis, P., Kwok, C. and Wilson, N.J. (2024). ‘Australian Non-Resident Fathers’ Relationship and Ongoing Engagement with Their Children: A Critical Focus on Power’, Social Sciences 13: 478. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13090478. Whyte, D. (2017). ‘Non-resident Fathers: A Literature Review of Factors Influencing their World’, Journal of Social Care. 1(5). doi:10.21427/D7XH95. Available at: https://arrow.tudublin.ie/jsoc/vol1/iss1/5. Wildfeuer, R. and Fagan, J. (2022). ‘Longitudinal associations among low-income fathers’ resilience and nonresidence during early childhood and involvement during adolescence’, Adversity and Resilience Science, 3(1), 99-112. Economic & Social Research Institute Whitaker Square Sir John Rogerson’s Quay Dublin 2 Telephone: +353 1 863 2000 Email: [email protected] Web: www.esri.ie ' & * An Institiúid um Thaighde Eacnamaíochta agus Sóisialta Cearnóg Whitaker Cé Sir John Rogerson Baile Átha Cliath 2 Teileafón: +353 1 863 2000 Ríomhphost: [email protected] Suíomh Gréasáin: www.esri.ie