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

Smy h, Eme ; Da mody, Me ike; Russell, Helen
Resea ch Repo
Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: A
scoping s udy
Resea ch Se ies, No. 211
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
The Economic and Social Resea ch Ins i u e (ESRI), Dublin
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Smy h, Eme ; Da mody, Me ike; Russell, Helen (2025) : Including non- esiden
a he s in coho esea ch: A scoping s udy, Resea ch Se ies, No. 211, The Economic and Social
Resea ch Ins i u e (ESRI), Dublin,
h ps://doi.o g/10.26504/ s211
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/322440
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Including non- esiden
a he s in coho esea ch:
A scoping s udy
EMER SMYTH, MERIKE DARMODY AND HELEN RUSSELL
ESRI
RESEARCH SERIES
Numbe 211, June 2025
INCLUDING NON-RESIDENT FATHERS IN COHORT
RESEARCH: A SCOPING STUDY
Eme Smy h
Me ike Da mody
Helen Russell
June 2025
RESEARCH SERIES
NUMBER 211
A ailable o download om www.es i.ie
h ps://doi.o g/10.26504/ s211
 2025 The Economic and Social Resea ch Ins i u e
Whi ake Squa e, Si John Roge son’s Quay, Dublin 2
This Open Access wo k is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License
(h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/), which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and
ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly c edi ed.
ABOUT THE ESRI
The Economic and Social Resea ch Ins i u e (ESRI) ad ances e idence-based
policymaking ha suppo s economic sus ainabili y and social p og ess in I eland.
ESRI esea che s apply he highes s anda ds o academic excellence o challenges
acing policymake s, ocusing on en a eas o c i ical impo ance o 21s Cen u y
I eland.
The Ins i u e was ounded in 1960 by a g oup o senio ci il se an s led by
D T.K. Whi ake , who iden i ied he need o independen and in-dep h esea ch
analysis. Since hen, he Ins i u e has emained commi ed o independen
esea ch and i s wo k is ee o any exp essed ideology o poli ical posi ion. The
Ins i u e publishes all esea ch eaching he app op ia e academic s anda d,
i espec i e o i s indings o who unds he esea ch.
The ESRI is a company limi ed by gua an ee, answe able o i s membe s and
go e ned by a Council, comp ising up o 14 ep esen a i es d awn om a c oss-
sec ion o ESRI membe s om academia, ci il se ices, s a e agencies, businesses
and ci il socie y. Funding o he ESRI comes om esea ch p og ammes suppo ed
by go e nmen depa men s and agencies, public bodies, compe i i e esea ch
p og ammes, membe ship ees, and an annual g an -in-aid om he Depa men
o Public Expendi u e, NDP Deli e y and Re o m.
Fu he in o ma ion is a ailable a www.es i.ie.
THE AUTHORS
Eme Smy h and Helen Russell a e Resea ch P o esso s a he Economic and Social
Resea ch Ins i u e (ESRI) and Adjunc P o esso s a T ini y College Dublin (TCD).
Me ike Da mody is a Resea ch O ice a he ESRI and an Adjunc Associa e
P o esso a TCD.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This publica ion was unded by he Depa men o Child en, Equali y, Disabili y,
In eg a ion and You h (DCEDIY) h ough a join Resea ch Pa ne ship wi h he ESRI.
The iews, opinions, indings, conclusions and/o ecommenda ions exp essed
he e a e s ic ly hose o he au ho s. They do no necessa ily e lec he iews o
he DCEDIY, which akes no esponsibili y o any e o s o omissions in, o o he
accu acy o , he in o ma ion con ained in his publica ion. I is p esen ed o in o m
and s imula e wide deba e among he policy communi y and among academics
and p ac i ione s in he ield. We a e g a e ul o Cia a Pidgeon, Eoin McNama a,
Aisling Mu ay and Nuala Connolly o hei ad ice and suppo o he p ojec . We
a e ex emely g a e ul o he esea ch eams ha ook pa in in-dep h in e iews
and ga e w i en esponses on hei s udies as well as o he NGOs and pa en s we
in e iewed. We a e indeb ed o he CSO o a chi ing da a om non- esiden
a he s and o in o ma ion on bi h egis a ion s a is ics. Use ul commen s on he
epo we e p o ided by he ex e nal e iewe , wo ESRI e iewe s and he edi o ,
Anne Nolan. As always, we a e g a e ul o he G owing Up in I eland (GUI) S udy
Team and he amilies in ol ed in GUI o making his esea ch possible.
GUI is he na ional longi udinal s udy o child en, unded by Go e nmen . The
p ojec is managed and deli e ed h ough a collabo a ion be ween he DCEDIY and
he Cen al S a is ics O ice (CSO). Resul s in his epo a e based on analyses o
s ic ly con olled Resea ch Mic oda a Files p o ided by he Cen al S a is ics O ice
(CSO). The CSO does no ake any esponsibili y o he iews exp essed o he
ou pu s gene a ed om his esea ch.
This epo has been accep ed o publica ion by he Ins i u e, which does no i sel ake ins i u ional
policy posi ions. All ESRI Resea ch Se ies epo s a e pee e iewed p io o publica ion. The au ho s
a e solely esponsible o he con en and he iews exp essed.

Table o con en s | iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... VI
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Backg ound o he s udy ............................................................................................. 1
1.2 The p o ile o amilies wi h non- esiden pa en s in I eland ...................................... 1
1.3 In e na ional esea ch e idence on he ole o non- esiden a he s ........................ 4
1.4 Me hodology ............................................................................................................... 8
1.5 Ou line o he epo ................................................................................................. 10
CHAPTER 2 FATHERS IN INTERNATIONAL COHORT STUDIES ....................................................... 11
2.1 In oduc ion .............................................................................................................. 11
2.2 The inclusion o esiden a he s in in e na ional coho s udies ............................. 11
2.3 The inclusion o non- esiden a he s in in e na ional coho s udies ..................... 17
2.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER 3 NON-RESIDENT FATHERS IN THE GROWING UP IN IRELAND STUDY ........................ 34
3.1 In oduc ion .............................................................................................................. 34
3.2 Access and esponse a es ........................................................................................ 34
3.3 Fa he -child con ac .................................................................................................. 42
3.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 4 PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF, AND CHALLENGES IN, INCLUDING NON-RESIDENT
FATHERS: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ...................................................................... 47
4.1 In oduc ion .............................................................................................................. 47
4.2 In e iews wi h non-go e nmen al o ganisa ions .................................................... 47
4.3 In e iews wi h pa en s ............................................................................................ 53
4.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 61
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE .............................................. 63
5.1 Backg ound o he s udy ........................................................................................... 63
5.2 Non- esiden a he s in I eland ................................................................................. 64
5.3 Non- esiden a he s in in e na ional longi udinal s udies ....................................... 65
5.4 Non- esiden a he s in G owing Up in I eland ......................................................... 66
5.5 The pe spec i es o NGOs and pa en s ..................................................................... 67
5.6 Implica ions o he u u e ........................................................................................ 67
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 70
i | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 P o iles o amilies wi h esiden and non- esiden pa en s when he child was 9
mon hs, 3 yea s, 5 yea s and 9 yea s............................................................................. 3
Table 2.1 Inclusion o a he s ( esiden and/o non- esiden ) in in e na ional coho s udies .. 15
Table 3.1 Mul inomial logi model o he ac o s associa ed wi h mo he s gi ing pe mission
o con ac non- esiden a he s when he child was 9 mon hs old, ela i e isk
a ios (Base ca ego y: e usal) ..................................................................................... 36
Table 3.2 Mul inomial logi model o he ac o s associa ed wi h mo he s gi ing pe mission
o con ac non- esiden a he s when he child was 3 yea s old, ela i e isk
a ios (Base ca ego y: e usal) ..................................................................................... 38
Table 3.3 Mul inomial logi model o he ac o s associa ed wi h mo he s gi ing pe mission
o con ac non- esiden a he s when he child was 9 yea s old, ela i e isk
a ios (Base ca ego y: e usal) ..................................................................................... 39
Table 3.4 Logi model o he ac o s associa ed wi h su ey comple ion among he o al g oup
o non- esiden a he s when he child was 3 yea s old, a e age ma ginal e ec s .... 41
Table 3.5 Logi model o he ac o s associa ed wi h su ey esponse among he o al g oup
o non- esiden a he s when he child was 9 yea s old, a e age ma ginal e ec s .... 42
Table A3.1 Logi models o he ac o s associa ed wi h su ey esponse among non- esiden
a he s whe e mo he s had gi en pe mission o con ac when he child was 3 and
9 yea s old, a e age ma ginal e ec s .......................................................................... 46
LIST OF FIGURES
Figu e 3.1 Willingness o esiden mo he s o p o ide con ac de ails o he non- esiden
a he , when he child was 9 mon hs o 9 yea s o age .............................................. 35
Figu e 3.2 Rela ionship be ween le el o a he -child con ac and willingness o esiden
mo he s o p o ide con ac de ails o he non- esiden a he , when he child
was 9 mon hs old (P edic i e ma gins) ....................................................................... 37
Figu e 3.3 F equency o in-pe son con ac be ween non- esiden a he s and hei child en
om 9 mon hs o 9 yea s, as epo ed by mo he s .................................................... 43
Abb e ia ions |
ABBREVIATIONS
ALSPAC A on Longi udinal S udy o Pa en s and Child en
BCS70 B i ish Coho S udy 1970
CSO Cen al S a is ics O ice
ELCFS Ea ly Li e Coho Feasibili y S udy (UK)
ECLS-B Ea ly Childhood Longi udinal S udy – Bi h Coho o 2001 (US)
ELFE É ude Longi udinale F ançaise depuis l’En ance
FFCW F agile Families and Child Wellbeing (US)
GUI G owing Up in I eland
GUNZ G owing Up in New Zealand
GUS G owing Up in Sco land
LSAC G owing Up in Aus alia – he Longi udinal S udy o Aus alian
Child en
MCS Millennium Coho S udy (UK)
NCDS Na ional Child De elopmen S udy
NEPS Na ional Educa ion Panel S udy (Ge many)
NLSCY Na ional Longi udinal S udy o Child en and You h
MoBa No wegian Mo he , Fa he and Child Coho S udy
OHP Own Household Pa en s
PCG P ima y ca egi e
PLE Pa en s Li ing Elsewhe e
SEEC S udy o Ea ly Educa ion and De elopmen
i | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The aim o his epo is o scope ou he po en ial o including non- esiden
a he s1 in u u e wa es o da a collec ion o he new G owing Up in I eland (GUI)
bi h coho . The s udy d aws on he expe iences o o he coho s udies2
in e na ionally, h ough in e iews wi h he P incipal In es iga o s and o he eam
membe s and published ma e ials on he s udies. In e iews we e ca ied ou wi h
sepa a ed pa en s and NGOs wo king wi h pa en s in I eland. The s udy also d aws
on new analysis o GUI da a on households wi h non- esiden a he s. We use he
e m non- esiden o desc ibe a he s who do no li e wi h he child and child’s
mo he , hough he child may eside wi h he a he o some pa o he week.
INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE
O e ime, coho s udies ha e e ol ed o in ol e esiden a he s, e lec ing
g ea e ecogni ion o hei ole in child de elopmen , hough no all s udies do so.
Twen y o he 25 coho s udies examined included a he s in a leas some o he
su ey wa es. The inclusion o non- esiden a he s is less common. Jus o e hal
o he s udies in es iga ed (13) included non- esiden a he s in a leas one wa e.
While he co e age o non- esiden a he s is spo adic, he e was widesp ead
ag eemen among esea che s ha excluding hese a he s esul s in a signi ican
gap in knowledge abou child en’s li es. As he expe ience o li ing apa om a
pa en is socially s uc u ed, his lack o in o ma ion is pa icula ly ele an o
child en om mo e disad an aged backg ounds, leading o gaps in ou
unde s anding o childhood po e y, among o he issues. Bo h esea che s and
NGO s akeholde s emphasised ha sha ed pa en ing ac oss households and
blended amilies a e an inc easing ea u e o child en’s li es, a pa e n ha u he
s eng hens he case o collec ing in o ma ion om pa en s no li ing ull- ime
wi h hei child en.
While he impo ance o including non- esiden pa en s was acknowledged,
esea che s in o he coun ies also no ed he unding cons ain s and p ac ical
di icul ies encoun e ed. Almos all o he s udies accessed he non- esiden
a he ’s con ac de ails ia he mo he . The limi a ion o his app oach was no ed
by mul iple in e iewees. De ails we e much less o hcoming whe e he
ela ionship be ween pa en s was ac imonious. Only one o he s udies
app oached a he s independen ly, he new Ea ly Li e Coho Feasibili y S udy in
he UK, which used a he s’ con ac de ails om he bi h egis y. The housing
di icul ies and consequen inc eased mobili y o non- esiden a he s added o
1 The e minology used o desc ibe his g oup o a he s a ies ac oss s udies, an issue ha is discussed in Chap e 1.
2 Coho s udies ollow a pa icula age coho o e ime.
4 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
1.3 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE OF NON-
RESIDENT FATHERS
1.3.1 Gi ing oice o non- esiden a he s
While mos child en li e wi h bo h bi h pa en s, a no able numbe ha e mo e
complex amily a angemen s, usually a e a sepa a ion o di o ce. Much o he
esea ch o da e has ocussed on lone mo he s. Ye , B yson and McKay (2012) in
he UK a gue ha non- esiden a he s a e an inc easing demog aphic, and as such,
oo big a g oup o exclude om su eys. Howe e , in many cases hese a he s a e
la gely absen om go e nmen da abases (Poole e al., 2016; Violi e al., 2023)
and in o ma ion ends o be collec ed om jus mo he s (B yson and McKay,
2012). ‘Mo he -cen ic’ da a collec ion may p o ide a skewed pic u e o he ole o
he non- esiden a he and his ela ionship wi h hei child/child en, wi h he
pa en who li es wi h he child likely o unde - epo and non- esiden pa en o e -
epo he non- esiden pa en ’s in ol emen (Goldman e al., 2021; B yson and
McKay, 2012; B yson and McKay, 2018). Collec ing in o ma ion di ec ly om
a he s enables a be e unde s anding o pa en ing pa e ns and hei in luence
on child de elopmen and ou comes (Poole e al., 2016; B yson and McKay, 2012),
bu also allows o an explo a ion o he di e en ela ionship ypes ha he non-
esiden a he has and how his a ec s his ela ionship wi h his child o child en
(Violi e al., 2022), gi ing oice o hese a he s.
Failu e o collec da a di ec ly om non- esiden a he s is likely o skew esea ch
indings on child ou comes and he subsequen implica ions o policy and p ac ice
ha a ise om analysis o da a only collec ed om mo he s (Goldman e al., 2019;
Bax e e al., 2012). Resea ch o da e ha d aws in o ma ion om non- esiden
a he s has emained limi ed, pa ially due o lack o good quali y da a whe e
in o ma ion is collec ed di ec ly om non- esiden a he s (Poole e al., 2016). The
likelihood o pa icipa ion is highe whe e non- esiden a he s acknowledge he
impo ance o he s udy and see di ec bene i s o pa icipa ing in he s udy (e.g.
incen i es), as well as con ac being made ia us ed in e media ies (Raybould e
al., 2023). On he o he hand, hei pa icipa ion is less likely i pa icipan s a e
subjec o ime cons ain s, ha e a ac u ed ela ionship wi h he child’s mo he
and a e conce ned abou da a p i acy and con iden iali y (ibid.).
1.3.2 How o add ess he gap in esea ch abou non- esiden a he s?
In o de o add ess he gap in esea ch, in e na ional esea ch has inc easingly
ocussed on non- esiden a he s – i.e. a he s who do no li e wi h some, o all, o
hei biological child en ollowing sepa a ion/di o ce o who ha e ne e li ed wi h
hei child en (Poole e al., 2016; Violi e al., 2023). The e minology used o his
g oup o a he s is highly con es ed, wi h c i ics a guing ha some e ms can
ein o ce he s igma ha is a ached o his g oup. A numbe o child coho s udies

In oduc ion | 5
ha e aimed o sample and di ec ly o indi ec ly ec ui a he s who do no li e ull-
ime wi h hei child. In gene al, popula ion su eys a e conside ed he bes way
o ensu e a ep esen a i e sample; while longi udinal s udies can iden i y non-
esiden pa en s i amilies sepa a e o e ime, such numbe s end o be small
(B yson and McKay, 2012). Some coho s udies such as F agile Families in he US
and he Longi udinal S udy o Aus alian Child en ( he LSAC – ‘G owing Up in
Aus alia’) ha e been mo e success ul in ec ui ing and e aining non- esiden
a he s, who a e o en pe cei ed as a ‘ha d o each g oup’, compa ed o simila
s udies in o he coun ies (Goldman e al., 2021). Fu he mo e, da a on non-
esiden a he s a e s ill collec ed jus om mo he s in some cases (e.g. he
G owing Up in Sco land s udy (GUS)). In ac , i has been a gued ha o in ol e
non- esiden a he s in he s udy would necessi a e a di e en esea ch design
(Sco ish Go e nmen , 2009). Mo e de ails on hese longi udinal s udies and hei
inclusion o non- esiden a he s a e p o ided in Chap e 2.
In o de o imp o e da a on non- esiden a he s in coho and longi udinal s udies
in he UK, Goldman e al. (2019) ha e explo ed he issues in ol ed in ec ui men
and e en ion o his g oup, pa icula ly ocussing on iden i ying, con ac ing,
ec ui ing and e aining hese a he s o coho membe s. In line wi h he Sco ish
Go e nmen (2009) ecommenda ions, Goldman e al. (2019) sugges adop ing a
ailo ed app oach o ec ui men and e en ion o non- esiden a he s (e.g.
elephone o ace- o- ace da a collec ion; keeping in ouch/ acing ac i i ies;
lexibili y in pa icipa ion and ailo ed communica ions), while aking in o accoun
he he e ogenei y o his g oup based on he le el o con ac wi h, and ca e o , he
s udy child. The au ho s acknowledge ha i is easie o ha e buy-in o pa icipa e
in a s udy om a he s who ha e egula and close con ac wi h hei child and who
also ha e a good ela ionship wi h hei ex-pa ne . The au ho s also a gue ha o
esea ch on child en’s ou comes, p io i y in da a collec ion should be gi en o mo e
‘in ol ed’ a he s and ha such s udies should ec ui such a he s ‘in hei own
igh ’ (Goldman e al., 2019). I may be bene icial o unde ake a quali a i e s udy
be o e any su ey, he esul s o which could in o m he app oach o da a
collec ion (Goldman e al., 2019) and could p o ide insigh s in o he opics ha he
esponden s may ind di icul o discuss (e.g. e ili y his o y) (S ykes e al., 2013;
B yson and McCay, 2018; Rendall, e al., 1999). Pa icipa ion o non- esiden
a he s could be u he enhanced by using mone a y incen i es (Al enbu ge ,
2022; Raybould e al., 2023) o se ing up a a he s’ ad iso y council (Al enbu ge ,
2022). O e all, in o de o encou age pa icipa ion, non- esiden a he s need o
be p o ided wi h clea in o ma ion on he bene i s and alue o he s udy o o he
a he s in a simila si ua ion and be ensu ed o con iden iali y o he da a,
pa icula ly ega ding sha ing his wi h he child’s mo he . O he ac o s included
he socie al alue o he s udy, inancial incen i es, and a clea message abou he
impo ance o hea ing om a di e se ange o amilies/pa en s.
6 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
1.3.3 Wha do we know abou non- esiden a he s?
The p o ile o non- esiden a he s
While sha ing some common denomina o s, exis ing in e na ional s udies indica e
ha non- esiden a he s a e he e ogeneous in e ms o hei in ol emen wi h
hei child en, pa icula ly ega ding o e nigh ca e a angemen s (Goldman e al.,
2021; Poole e al., 2024).8 P e ious esea ch enables a be e unde s anding o he
p o ile o non- esiden a he s. D awing on he la ge-scale UK household
longi udinal s udy, Unde s anding Socie y, Poole e al. (2024) ind ha such a he s
a e mo e likely o be om lowe socio-economic backg ounds. Due o sepa a ion
o di o ce, non- esiden a he s o en expe ience dis ess, lack o agency in
decision-making, ha e ewe social and inancial esou ces a hei disposal and
expe ience issues wi h men al heal h (Violi e al., 2023), which can ha e an impac
on hei ela ionship wi h hei child/child en and/o he mo he . Being a non-
esiden a he is also associa ed wi h e hnic backg ound, wi h Black Ca ibbean and
Black A ican a he s in he UK mo e likely o belong o his ca ego y, compa ed o
Asian/Bangladeshi and Pakis ani a he s who a e mo e likely o be li ing in a
ma ied couple (Poole e al., 2024; Raybould e al., 2023). Religious backg ound
also seems o play a ole, wi h 19 pe cen o UK a he s wi h no eligion ha ing
non- esiden child en compa ed wi h 14 pe cen o Ch is ian a he s, 7 pe cen o
Muslim a he s and 7 pe cen o Sikh a he s (Poole e al., 2024). Fu he mo e,
a he s who do no ou inely eside wi h hei child en a e mo e likely o ha e
ma ied o cohabi ed se e al imes, no li ing wi h bo h pa en s hemsel es as a
child (ibid.). In ac , esea ch in he Aus alian con ex shows ha compa ed o any
o he socio-demog aphic g oup, non- esiden a he s a e mo e likely o expe ience
a a ie y o amily ypes, a e sepa a ing o di o cing (Violi e al., 2022). Sepa a ion
o di o ce can ha e a de imen al impac on a he s as many de elop issues wi h
hei men al heal h a e he e en (ibid.; Rus en e al., 2019).
Non- esiden a he s and child ou comes
Fa he s play an impo an ole in hei child’s de elopmen , including hei socio-
emo ional wellbeing and cogni i e de elopmen (see, o example, McMunn e al.,
2017; Emmo and Mace, 2021). Howe e , much less is known abou he
ela ionship be ween a non- esiden a he and his child/child en. Fu he mo e, in
a lo o cases in o ma ion abou such a he s and hei in e ac ion wi h he child is
ob ained om he ex-pa ne , and may no always be accu a e (Violi e al., 2022)
as he esiden pa en may unde -es ima e, and he non- esiden pa en may o e -
es ima e, he le el o con ac wi h he child/child en (Poole e al., 2024; Lade ,
2008). Fu he mo e, he a he -child ela ionship is o en in luenced by ex e nal
ac o s, such as he ole o police, legal and wel a e se ices (Violi e al., 2022;
Ves e gaa d e al., 2023). The ela ionship can a y conside ably, in e ms o he
8 A dis inc ion is made be ween ‘mino i y o e nigh ca e’, ‘equal o e nigh ca e’ o ‘pa - ime esiden ’ a he .
In oduc ion | 7
quan i y and quali y o con ac and ca e as well as he ela ionship dynamics wi h
he ex-pa ne , and p ac ical a angemen s a ound inances and cus ody (Poole e
al., 2016). Exis ing esea ch has ound ha posi i e copa en ing p edic s g ea e
in ol emen o non- esiden a he s wi h hei child en (Schoppe-Sulli an and
Fagan, 2020). The ela ionship dynamics can be in luenced by a lack o access o
media ion se ices, poo en o cemen o access and main enance a angemen s,
and a lack o emo ional and men al heal h suppo o e e y amily membe
(Ves e gaa d e al., 2023).
Resea ch om he US shows ha non- esiden a he s end o be close o hei
child en, wi h eigh -in- en o such a he s (81 pe cen ) claiming o ha e a e y o
qui e close ela ionship, wi h jus 11 pe cen epo ing ha ing no close ela ionship
(Sa iscsany e al., 2019). These au ho s also no e ha he ela ionship ends o be
close he mo e equen con ac he e is (ibid.). In he UK, ecen esea ch shows
ha non- esiden a he s spend a conside able amoun o ime wi h hei
child/child en, wi h nea ly hal o he a he s in he s udy no ing ha hei child en
o en s ay wi h hem a weekends o school holidays (Poole e al., 2024). Howe e ,
some esea ch shows ha non- esiden a he s’ con ac wi h child en dec eases
o e ime (Poole e al., 2016). When child en in I eland we e asked abou con ac
wi h hei non- esiden a he in a quali a i e s udy, he majo i y o hem did no
epo close con ac wi h him, bu , a he , el dis an om hei a he (Nixon e
al., 2012). A he same ime, non- esiden a he s end o be dissa is ied wi h he
le el o con ac wi h hei child en (Ves e gaa d e al., 2023) and many child en
would like o spend mo e ime wi h hei a he s (Qu and Wes on, 2014).
Elsewhe e, Fahey e al. (2012), d awing on GUI da a o 9-yea -olds, sugges ha
child en in I eland who do no li e wi h hei a he ull- ime end o expe ience
less au ho i a i e pa en ing s yles om him. The ela ionship be ween he a he
and he child may o en be complex, cha ac e ised by a ac u ed ela ionship
be ween ex-pa ne s on he one hand, and sha ed a ec ion o he child on he
o he (Ves e gaa d e al., 2023). Fa he -child con ac can be p oblema ic o some
a he s who a e en ing accommoda ion, especially i he accommoda ion is no
sui able o an o e nigh s ay o he child (Cla ke and Mui , 2017). Con ac wi h
he child is also mo e likely i hey a e engaged in inancial p o ision o hei child,
do no li e a om he child, ha e no new pa ne /o he child en li ing wi h him,
a e in s able employmen , a e om a highe socio-economic g oup and ha e highe
quali ica ions (Poole e al., 2024). Child en who see hei a he s mo e equen ly
in in ancy and ea ly childhood epo mo e posi i e ela ionships wi h hem a he
age o 9 (Fagan, 2024). The exis ing esea ch shows ha while bo h pa en s wan
o be in ol ed in he upb inging o hei child/child en, much o his esponsibili y
s ill alls on he mo he , whe eas many non- esiden a he s eel ha hey a e
disc imina ed agains by he cu en legal sys em ha ends o p io i ise mo he s
(Ves e gaa d e al., 2023). The pe spec i es o non- esiden a he s and hei
expe iences in he ace o s uc u al challenges a e o en o e looked (Violi e al.,
2024).
8 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
In addi ion o explo ing he ela ionship o non- esiden a he s wi h hei child en,
some s udies ha e ocussed on he ou comes o child en whose a he is li ing
elsewhe e. Unpacking his in luence can be di icul , howe e , as amilies wi h a
non- esiden a he o en sha e o he cha ac e is ics – such as e hnici y g oup, low
socio-economic s a us, o low le els o educa ional a ainmen – ha impac on
child de elopmen (Bax e , 2015). In I eland, di e ences in sel -concep and heal h
ou comes be ween child en in lone-pa en and wo-pa en households we e ound
o be due o selec ion (i.e. g ea e le els o disad an age), bu di e ences in
educa ional ou comes emained (Hannan and Halpin, 2014). Howe e , some
au ho s a gue ha he ou comes o he child en who li e in a one-pa en amily
end o be mo e nega i e compa ed o hose who consis en ly li e in wo-pa en
households (Culpin e al., 2022). The e is some esea ch o da e ha has
conside ed he associa ion be ween non- esiden a he ’s in ol emen and child
ou comes (Adamsons and Johnson, 2013). Looking a adolescen wellbeing,
exis ing esea ch has indica ed ha he quali y o he mo he -child ela ionship has
a s ong e ec on adolescen wellbeing, whe eas non- esiden a he -child
ela ionship quali y and esponsi e a he ing a e modes ly associa ed wi h ewe
ex e nalising (an isocial o agg essi e beha iou ) and in e nalising (dep ession and
o he symp oms o dis ess) p oblems among adolescen s (King and Sobolewski,
2006). G ea e con ac wi h a non- esiden a he has been ound o be associa ed
wi h child en’s imp o ed adjus men measu ed by i ems such as hei willingness
o y new hings, eelings o happiness, chee ulness, sadness o dep ession, and
whe he o no hey ge along wi h o he child en, bu only i mo he s a e sa is ied
wi h he non- esiden a he s’ le el o in ol emen (King and Hea d, 1999). G ea e
a he -child in ol emen has also been associa ed wi h lesse likelihood o
d opping ou o school ea ly (Menning, 2006). Howe e , non- esiden a he -child
in ol emen is also in luenced by ma e nal pa en ing p ac ices, ma e nal
dep essi e symp oms and ma e nal pa en ing s ess (Coa es and Pha es, 2019).
The au ho s no e ha as he child spends mos o his/he ime wi h he esiden
pa en , his en i onmen is likely o ha e he s onges impac on child
de elopmen . Fu he mo e, he non- esiden a he can assis he mo he o he
child o cope wi h pa en ing and p o ide (di ec and indi ec ) inancial suppo
(Choi and Jackson, 2012; De mo , 2016; Nepomnyaschy e al., 2022).
1.4 METHODOLOGY
This epo is designed o scope ou he po en ial o including non- esiden a he s
in u u e wa es o da a collec ion o he new GUI bi h coho , explo ing he
a ionale o doing so and po en ial challenges in secu ing pa icipa ion. The s udy
has in ol ed a numbe o s ands. Fi s ly, a e iew o he in e na ional li e a u e
was conduc ed o glean insigh s in o he in ol emen o non- esiden a he s in
he li es o hei child en (see Sec ion 1.3). Secondly, a e iew o in e na ional
In oduc ion | 9
coho s udies was unde aken. The c i e ia o including s udies in he e iew we e
ha :
• The s udy was longi udinal o had he po en ial o be ( ha is, whe e one wa e
o da a had been collec ed and u he wa es we e planned);
• The s udy included younge child en (age 5 o younge ) so o be o ele ance
o he new GUI bi h coho s udy; hus, his excluded se e al p ominen
s udies which ocused on olde young people, such as Nex S eps ( o me ly he
Longi udinal S udy o Young People in England) and he US Na ional
Longi udinal S udy o You h;
• The s udy was ep esen a i e o he popula ion o a coun y o la ge a ea;
• The s udy in ol ed collec ing da a om child en and hei amilies a he han
using egis e da a, o example.
The ini ial s eps in ol ed e iewing echnical epo s and o he published ma e ial
om he selec ed s udies. Whe e some de ails we e unclea ( o example, whe he
he e m ‘ a he s’ e e ed o bo h esiden and non- esiden a he s), emails we e
sen o he s udy P incipal In es iga o s (PIs) o o he con ac poin gi en on he
s udy websi e; his p ocess in ol ed en s udies. Ten s udies, simila in na u e o
GUI, we e selec ed o mo e de ailed sc u iny. The s udy PIs o o he con ac poin s
we e emailed and asked o ake pa in an online in e iew. All ag eed o ake pa ;
in some cases, esea che s o he han he PI we e iden i ied as he bes in o man
as pe sonnel had some imes changed since he o iginal design o he s udy. The
in e iews (and w i en esponses) p o ided iche insigh s in o he a ionale o
including, o no including, non- esiden pa en s, and he challenges and
oppo uni ies in in ol ing his g oup. All o hose in e iewed we e gi en he
oppo uni y o e iew he quo es used bu only wo eams a ailed o his
oppo uni y.
Thi dly, analyses we e unde aken o GUI da a o look a he likelihood o he
esiden mo he ag eeing o p o ide con ac de ails o he non- esiden a he and
he pa e n o esponse a es o hose a he s. GUI da a we e also used o look a
he le el o in ol emen o he non- esiden a he in hei child’s li e om he
pe spec i e o he mo he and, whe e possible, he a he himsel . Finally,
in e iews we e conduc ed wi h sepa a ed pa en s and NGOs wo king wi h
pa en s o look a he alue o , and po en ial o , in ol ing non- esiden a he s in
esea ch on child en.
NGOs wo king wi h sepa a ed pa en s we e iden i ied and app oached o ake pa
in in e iews. Six ep esen a i e indi iduals ag eed o ake pa . The in e iews
wi h NGOs we e conduc ed online du ing No embe 2024. They we e eco ded
and he ansc ip used o analyses o he key hemes. The in e iews las ed

10 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
app oxima ely one hou and co e ed he issues o how bes o collec in o ma ion
on non- esiden pa en s, he bene i s and limi a ions o di e en app oaches, and
he ype o in o ma ion ha should be collec ed. The in e iewees we e asked i
hey would be willing o con ac non- esiden pa en s o pa icipa e in u he
in e iews o ocus g oups on he same opics co e ed wi h he NGOs. All ou
o ganisa ions said hey would be willing o send on an in i a ion o pa icipa e in
he esea ch o some o hei clien s, al hough we only d ew on he ne wo ks o
wo o ganisa ions wi h he la ges and mo e di e se clien g oups. The e we e
some challenges in ob aining in e iewees, despi e he suppo o he NGOs, and
in e iews we e conduc ed wi h i e a he s who we e no li ing ull- ime wi h
hei child en and one mo he who was sepa a ed om he a he o he child en.
Taken oge he , he s ands o he s udy p o ide insigh s which can in o m he
u u e de elopmen o he GUI bi h coho and o he coho s udies
in e na ionally as well as being o ele ance o c oss-sec ional s udies o child en
and young people ha seek o unde s and he con ex wi hin which hey li e. I is
no in ended o p o ide a cos -bene i analysis o he inclusion o non- esiden
a he s in esea ch bu many o hose in e iewed did poin o he bene i s and
challenges, including esou ces, o aiming o include his g oup o a he s.
1.5 OUTLINE OF THE REPORT
Chap e 2 p esen s in o ma ion on in e na ional coho s udies, looking a he
ex en o which hey include a he s, esiden and non- esiden , and hei
expe iences in seeking o maximise esponse a es om hese g oups. Chap e 3
d aws on GUI da a o look he ex en o which pe mission is gi en by esiden
mo he s o con ac non- esiden a he s and how likely hose a he s a e o ake
pa in he su ey. In o ma ion is also p esen ed on he deg ee o con ac be ween
hese a he s and hei child en. Chap e 4 d aws on in e iews wi h lone pa en s
and NGOs o look a he po en ial o including non- esiden pa en s in esea ch
and he a ionale o so doing. Chap e 5 summa ises he s udy indings and
highligh s issues o be conside ed o u u e wa es o he new GUI bi h coho .
Fa he s in in e na ional coho s udies | 11
CHAPTER 2
Fa he s in in e na ional coho s udies
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chap e p esen s an o e iew o he inclusion o a he s, esiden and/o non-
esiden , in in e na ional coho s udies, d awing on published esea ch and
echnical epo s along wi h in e iews wi h P incipal In es iga o s o o he key
s a om hese s udies. Because o he la ge numbe o s udies o child en and
young people in e na ionally, he e iew is limi ed o bi h o child coho s udies
which a e longi udinal in na u e o in ended o be longi udinal (see Chap e 1). The
e iew does no co e la ge-scale c oss-sec ional s udies (such as PISA o HBSC) o
ollow-up s udies ha co e a span o age g oups.9
2.2 THE INCLUSION OF RESIDENT FATHERS IN INTERNATIONAL
COHORT STUDIES
A a ie y o e ms ha e been used in in e na ional coho s udies ega ding
pa en s, wi h mos collec ing he bulk o he in o ma ion om he ‘main pa en ’,
‘pe son mos knowledgeable abou he child’ o ‘p ima y ca egi e ’. In he as
majo i y o cases, hese in o man s ha e been he child’s mo he (o mo he igu e)
so he emainde o his chap e uses he e m mo he s as a sho hand o main
in o man s. Ea ly longi udinal s udies, such as he Na ional Child De elopmen
S udy (NCDS) and he B i ish Coho S udy 1970 (BCS70), collec ed in o ma ion
only om mo he s and child en, an app oach ha e lec ed he hen ac ual and/o
assumed gende ed di ision o labou in amilies.
Ha d hough i is o belie e, his [ he Millennium Coho S udy] would
be he i s na ional coho o su ey a he s, as well as mo he s, om
he s a . (Pea son, 2016, p. 255)
La e s udies ha e ended o include esiden a he s, a he igu es and/o he
pa ne s o he mo he s in he sample (Table 2.1). Howe e , his is by no means
uni e sal. Fo he Kids in Taiwan S udy (KIT), ‘ he pa en ques ionnai e is
adminis e ed and answe ed by one pa en , mos o en he mo he ’ (w i en
communica ion). In addi ion, he Sou hamp on Women’s S udy did no include
a he s, gi en he ocus o he s udy on ‘ e al g ow h’ and ‘how ma e nal and
in au e ine ac o s in e ac wi h he o sp ing’s genes and pos na al en i onmen ’
(Inskip e al., 2006).10 The S udy o Ea ly Educa ion and De elopmen (SEED) in
9 Fo example, he Ge man Heal h In e iew and Examina ion Su ey o Child en and Adolescen s (KiGGS) co e ed
child en and young people aged 0 o 17 yea s in 2003-2006 and ollowed hem o a u he wa e.
10 A numbe o o he s udies ha ocus on he e ec s o in au e ine and en i onmen al ac o s on child heal h ou comes
a e no discussed he e, including he Danish Na ional Bi h Coho and he Japan En i onmen and Child en’s S udy.
12 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
England has ocused on ‘ he impac o childca e on child en h oughou hei
childhood’11 and esponden s ha e comp ised he p ima y ca egi e , ea ly yea s
s a and school eache s.
The inclusion o ( esiden ) a he s in coho s udies e lec s a shi in ecogni ion o
he in luence o a he s on child ou comes as well as changes o e ime in he le el
o ac i e pa e nal engagemen , wi h some s udies no including a he s a all wa es
indica ing ha hey may be ob aining a pa ial pic u e o child en’s li es.
The ole o a he s in he amily … and he esponsibili ies o child en
and changes in he wo kplace and a g ea e balance o employee
igh s be ween women and men, ha has allowed mo e men o spend
mo e ime a home po en ially and de elop di e en ypes o
ela ionships wi h hei kids. … I hink ha ing some da a abou ha
om a he s hemsel es and allowing hem o e lec on hings would
p obably imp o e ou unde s anding o ha . … The e a e ce ainly
some hings abou maybe he a he ’s ela ionship wi h he child o
he a he ’s ela ionship wi h he mo he , he a he ’s pe cep ions o
hei ole in he amily, ha we can’ ge e y accu a ely om asking
he mo he o asking he young pe son. We’ e kind o ge ing s u by
p oxy which migh mis ep esen some o he ela ionships and
si ua ions ha we’ e go . (G owing Up in Sco land, in e iew)
I ga e ano he pe spec i e in he household on he child … on he
ela ionship be ween ha o he pa en and he child, which o cou se
is e y, e y impo an o ha e ha kind o whole amily pe spec i e.
(Millennium Coho S udy, in e iew)
Se e al s udies ha e su eyed bo h pa en s12 a each wa e o da a collec ion ( o
example, G owing Up in Québec, he Millennium Coho S udy and he Na ional
Longi udinal Su ey o Child en and You h in Canada), hough ypically a he s a e
seen as he ‘seconda y’ o ‘addi ional’ in o man , an app oach ha has been
c i iqued by some commen a o s (see, o example, Goldman and Bu gess, 2018).
Howe e , a numbe o s udies ha e no su eyed esiden a he s a all wa es o
he s udy. This decision is a ibu ed by esea che s o wo se s o ac o s. Fi s ly,
s udies o en see he p ima y ocus as he child and hei mo he :
11 h ps://na cen.ac.uk/publica ions/s udy-ea ly-educa ion-and-de elopmen -seed.
12 In p ac ice, s udies a y in how hey de ine he second in o man , wi h some ocusing on ‘ a he s’ while o he s a ge
he spouse o pa ne o he mo he .
Fa he s in in e na ional coho s udies | 13
The da a collec ion o ou esea ch is mainly based on mo he s’
esponses, as he in e iews s a om he an ena al pe iod and he
sample is d awn om he an ena al ca e sys em. (G owing Up in
Hunga y, w i en communica ion)
Secondly, he decision no o include bo h pa en s in all wa es is o en based on
unding cons ain s, pa icula ly i he su ey mode in ol es ace- o- ace
in e iews:
We ha e always conside [ed] o include/in e iew also he pa ne s o
ou esponden . Un o una ely, we couldn’ und his in e iew (as he
six coho [s] o he NEPS we e un in pa allel). In Wa e 11, we had he
unique oppo uni y o include an in e iew wi h he pa ne s. This was
a pilo o ou planned new bi h coho o es he esponse a e o
he pa ne s. We he e o e con ac ed only he pa ne who li ed wi h
he esponden . (NEPS, w i en communica ion)
I’m su e a he s as in o man s we e conside ed, bu I hink p obably
o budge easons, mo e so han any hing else, hey we e uled ou
a ha poin [Wa e 1]. And hey did ge included in he second sweep
o da a collec ion. Bu he e was no addi ional in o man a e Sweep
2 un il Sweep 9 and ha again was … because he e wasn’ su icien
budge o do much beyond he main ca e . (G owing Up in Sco land,
in e iew)
Simila ly, ALSPAC ini ially ocused on he p egnan mo he and he child because
o unding cons ain s:
The decision was made ha he e was only unding a ailable o ec ui
p egnan women and ocus on he p egnan women and ollow hem
h ough ini ially. (ALSPAC, in e iew)
Howe e , sho ques ionnai es we e sen o he pa ne s o he mo he s in he
cou se o he s udy. La e unding was secu ed o hold an in-pe son clinic o
a he s in 2012 a which biological da a we e collec ed. This was open o a he s,
ega dless o esidence, bu in o ma ion is no a ailable on he b eakdown in
numbe s. Resea che s epo ed challenges in in ol ing a he s in gene al in he
s udy:
ALSPAC has always el like a e y emale s udy, i always el like ha
he ocus is e y much on he mo he s and I hink we’ e su e ed as a
esul o ha . I hink lo s o longi udinal coho s udies s uggle wi h
ha , because o e ime hey o en become e y emale. (ALSPAC,
in e iew)
20 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
s udies. So yeah, we jus wan ed o ha e a go a i . (F om Fi e o
Twel e, in e iew)
I ’s jus a huge piece o wha ’s going on in child en’s li es om he
pe spec i e o economic secu i y and … wha ’s happening in he
homes wi h ega ds o ma e ial ha dship and po e y and wha he
mo he has access o in e ms o esou ces. … Bu equally impo an is
wha he ela ionship is wi h he a he and child and how he a he ’s
con ibu ing in a ious o he ways o he child’s de elopmen . (FFCW,
in e iew)
The complexi y o ca e a angemen s can also make i di icul o de e mine he
‘main’ ca egi e :
Some PLEs [Pa en s Li ing Elsewhe e] ac ually conside ed hemsel es
o be a p ima y ca e . So i was 50-50 sha ed esponsibili y, bu hey
don’ happen o be he main pe son li ing wi h he young pe son. … So
in hose ins ances, I hink ha would be a ich sou ce o in o ma ion
ha you’d be missing i you didn’ include ha PLE. (LSAC, in e iew)
Pa en s’ epo s, mo he s and a he s o whe e he child li es, …
he e’s jus so much disag eemen he e, igh ? Because he whole
ques ion o whe e does he child li e is no so easy. I he a he has
he child h ee days a week o wha e e , he migh hink he child li es
wi h him. (FFCW, in e iew)
Some s udies included all a he s o pa ne s o he mo he ega dless o esidence
in a leas some wa es o da a collec ion bu ha e no p o ided sepa a e
in o ma ion on he esponse a es om, o p o ile o , hese a he s. These include
Bo n in B ad o d and he No wegian Mo he , Fa he and Child Coho S udy
(MoBa).
G owing Up in New Zealand had no ini ially included non- esiden a he s because
o budge a y cons ain s. Howe e , unding was ob ained o a one-o adjunc
s udy which collec ed in o ma ion om a he s, esiden and non- esiden , when
he child was aged a ound 5 o 6. Con ac de ails we e ob ained om he esiden
mo he s and ex messaging was used o con ac a he s. The esponse a e o e all
was 72 pe cen . The s udy epo ed challenges in eaching some g oups o a he s:
The ones who we e non- esiden a e he ha des o each. Ul ima ely
you know, i ’s … he ones who’ e had leas con ac wi h he child o e
ha pe iod o ime, … maybe see he child once a mon h o e en less
… Al hough he gene al eedback was kind o ha he dads we e eally

Fa he s in in e na ional coho s udies | 21
pleased ha we we e eaching ou o hem. They wan ed o be
in ol ed. (G owing Up in New Zealand, in e iew)
Like o he s udies, he Wi al Child De elopmen S udy elied on esiden mo he s
o con ac de ails o a he s o o ea lie consen o ollow up whe e a he s had
subsequen ly mo ed ou o he household.
We ga he ed consen o ollow-up in u u e a mos phases om bo h
a he s and mo he s bu we e elian on mo he s o pass on
ques ionnai es o some a he s o gi e us hei changed con ac de ails
whe e pa en s sepa a ed. We did a emp o keep biological a he s in
he s udy i hey we e s ill in con ac wi h he child. Whe e he e was
domes ic iolence and mo he s asked us no o send u he
ques ionnai es o he a he , we honou ed he wishes as i was mos
impo an o us o keep he mo he in he s udy. (Wi al Child
De elopmen S udy, w i en communica ion)
Some s udies ha e used il e ing c i e ia o ensu e ha hey only seek o con ac
a he s who a e in ongoing con ac wi h he child and do no ge in ouch wi h
esponden s who may no be awa e ha hey a e a he s.
I he s udy child hadn’ had con ac wi h he PLE [pa en li ing
elsewhe e] in he las yea , we wouldn’ pu sue he PLE de ails. The e
was also a easonable numbe o pa en s who jus e used o answe
ques ions abou he PLE a all. (LSAC, in e iew)
The e has been a good deal o a ia ion in he esponse a es achie ed wi h non-
esiden a he s. Rela i ely good le els o esponse, a leas in ea ly wa es, ha e
been achie ed by he Ea ly Childhood Longi udinal S udy (ECLS-B) in he US,
G owing Up in Aus alia – he Longi udinal S udy o Aus alian Child en (LSAC) and
he F agile Families and Child Wellbeing (FFCW) S udy in he US (now called The
Fu u e o Families and Child Wellbeing S udy). Fo his eason, a mo e de ailed
accoun o hese s udies is p esen ed he e o iden i y he po en ial ac o s
associa ed wi h be e esponse a es.
Ea ly Childhood Longi udinal S udy, Bi h Coho o 2001 (ECLS-B)
ECLS-B in he US s a ed in 2001 wi h 9-mon h-old in an s, sampled on he basis o
bi h ce i ica e da a; he e we e ollow-up in e iews wi h amilies a 2 yea s, p e-
school (app oxima ely 4 yea s) and a kinde ga en en y. Non- esiden a he s
we e included in he s udy h ough sel -adminis e ed ques ionnai es a 9 mon hs
and 2 yea s. The o al g oup included all non- esiden a he s iden i ied h ough
he su eys o mo he s. Only a he s who me a leas one o he ollowing c i e ia
we e included in he su ey: ha ing seen he child a leas once in he pas mon h;
22 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
ha ing seen he child on a leas se en days in he pas h ee mon hs; being in
ouch wi h he esiden mo he a leas once a mon h in he las h ee mon hs. The
esea ch eam indica ed ha his excluded abou a i h o he o al g oup (ECLS-B,
w i en communica ion).
In all o hese cases con ac was de ined as ei he an in-pe son isi o
a elephone call. … These we e basically c i e ia se up o make su e
ha we we e going o be … alking o a popula ion o a he s ha
would p o ide us eliable in o ma ion on he cons uc s we we e
including. So we we e going o be asking hem ques ions abou
ca egi ing, ques ions abou in ol emen ac i i ies, and we jus
wan ed o make su e hey had a equency o con ac wi h ha child.
(ECLS-B, in e iew)
Mo he s we e equi ed o gi e pe mission o he non- esiden a he o be
con ac ed, which excluded a u he i h o he o al g oup. Fa he s we e
con ac ed by elephone in he i s ins ance and hen sen a ques ionnai e o
pos al e u n; whe e he mo he was going o see he non- esiden a he in he
nex week, a packe wi h he ques ionnai e was le wi h hem. Those who did no
espond wi hin wo weeks we e ollowed up by elephone ‘ei he o y o do he
su ey on he phone o o e o send hem ano he ques ionnai e in he mail’
(ECLS-B, in e iew). A US$20 incen i e was p o ided o ques ionnai e comple ion.
O hose a he s who we e con ac ed, hal comple ed he non- esiden a he
ques ionnai e. This compa es o a esponse a e o 76 pe cen o esiden a he s.
No in o ma ion is a ailable on he di e ence in p o ile be ween pa icipa ing
a he s and all o he s. The esidence s a us o a he s was iden i ied again in he
nex wa e o da a collec ion when he child was 2 yea s, so a he s who had been
li ing in he household when he child was 9 mon hs bu subsequen ly le we e
included. Fo his wa e, esponse a es we e 60 pe cen o non- esiden a he s
and app oxima ely 80 pe cen o esiden a he s. The ela i e success in in ol ing
a ela i ely la ge p opo ion o he g oup was a ibu ed o p oac i e con ac and
ollow-up o he a he s. Howe e , non- esiden a he s we e no included in
subsequen wa es o he s udy:
We had o s op he componen because we we e seeing hese
declining esponse a es and because o budge a y cons ain s. We
had o make some ough decisions abou wha pieces o he s udy o
keep. (ECLS-B in e iew)
ECLS-B da a, including ha on non- esiden a he s, ha e been a chi ed o use by
o he esea che s, wi h some equencies openly a ailable on he Depa men o
Educa ion Da aLab.
Fa he s in in e na ional coho s udies | 23
G owing Up in Aus alia – he Longi udinal S udy o Aus alian Child en
(LSAC)
LSAC pa icipa ing amilies we e sampled on he basis o he child being age ze o
o 1 yea in 2003/2004. The app oach o in ol ing non- esiden a he s, e med
‘pa en s li ing elsewhe e’, changed o e he cou se o he LSAC s udy. In he pilo
o Wa e 1, con ac de ails and w i en consen o con ac PLEs we e sough om
Pa en 1 (P1, he main ca egi e ). They we e sen pos al ques ionnai es, wi h low
esponse a es ob ained. As a esul , PLEs we e no included in he main wa e. This
decision was e isi ed o Wa e 2 and a di e en app oach was aken:
S ep one which was new o P1s, he in e iew explained he
impo ance o in ol ing bo h pa en s in he s udy. So I guess ha s ep
is o make su e ha you’ e ge ing kind o he P1 on boa d and ying
o unde s and why i ’s impo an ha we con ac he PLE. So ha was
a new s ep. S ep wo, he con ac numbe o he PLE was eques ed
bu no explici consen o he PLE o be con ac ed abou he s udy. …
Ra he han jus sending he PLE a ques ionnai e in he mail and
hoping o he bes , he in e iewe ac ually called he PLE and had a
cha o hem abou he s udy, ga e a bi o a a ionale o why we’ e
including hem, and hen sen he ques ionnai e. The o he hing ha
we did was wi h he ques ionnai e ha we mailed ou o he PLE, we
edesigned i o be mo e iendly and posi i e, as we s a ed in he
e hics applica ion, wi h mo e in o ma ion ela ing o wha he pa en
and child do when hey’ e oge he . (LSAC, in e iew)
Con ac de ails we e gi en by 69 pe cen o pa en s and 35 pe cen o hose sen
a ques ionnai e esponded so ‘i was somewha success ul, bu p obably no as
success ul as we wan ed’ (LSAC, in e iew). As a esul , a elephone in e iew o
PLEs was in oduced in Wa e 3 which ‘was much mo e success ul in ge ing he
PLEs on boa d’ (LSAC, in e iew). Fo Wa e 3, 18 pe cen o pa en s e used o
p o ide o did no ha e con ac de ails o he PLE. Fo hose o whom de ails we e
p o ided, he e was a esponse a e o 77 pe cen in Wa e 3, wi h a es o
Wa es 4 o 6 be ween 71 and 86 pe cen , d opping somewha o Wa es 7 and 8,
and mo e ma kedly o Wa e 9 (Mohal e al., 2023). The esea ch eam a ibu ed
hese high esponse a es o he use o a elephone in e iew and o a ocus on he
impo ance o PLEs in engagemen ma e ials, including in o ma ion b ochu es,
newsle e s and calenda s. Unlike some o he s udies, LSAC did no p o ide
inancial incen i es o s udy pa icipan s. The LSAC da a, including he da a on PLEs,
ha e been a chi ed h ough he Aus alian Da a A chi e wi h a gene al elease,
and a mo e es ic ed elease o mo e sensi i e in o ma ion.
24 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
F agile Families and Child Wellbeing (FFCW) S udy
The US FFCW s udy di e s om many o he o he coho s udies in sampling
esponden s om 20 ci ies, wi h a pa icula ocus on o e sampling non-ma i al
bi hs.
To unde s and how amilies whe e he e’s non-ma i al bi hs a e
a ing, how he pa en s a e doing oge he and how he child en hen
do as hey de elop. (FFCW, in e iew)
Rec ui men a bi h ook place be ween 1998 and 2000, wi h ollow-up a 1, 3, 5,
9 and 15 yea s o age. Non- esiden a he s we e included om he s a o he
s udy, wi h he eam ying o in e iew he a he a he hospi al o wi hin a week
o he child’s bi h by phone, wi h in-pe son in e iewe ollow-up o hose did
no espond.
One o he mos su p ising hings ha happened … when hey came o
he hospi als o su ey he mo he s, he a he s we e all he e, no all
ob iously, bu a e y la ge p opo ion o hem, much mo e so han had
been an icipa ed. And so ha was a g ea way o ge hem
immedia ely in o he s udy and hen ha ’s why hey we e able o ha e
hem and hen con inue in he s udy as we wen u he . (FFCW,
in e iew)
Mo he s and a he s we e each o e ed US$20 o pa icipa ion in he s udy. In he
ini ial bi h sweep, 61 pe cen o non- esiden a he s comple ed he su ey, a
pa e n a ibu ed o he emphasis on ea ly in ol emen o his g oup. Response
a es a Wa es 2 o 4 we e 50-60 pe cen o a he s who had no been li ing wi h
he mo he a he ini ial wa e. A Wa e 5, when he child was 9 yea s o age,
esponse a es o a he s, esiden and non- esiden , d opped o 55 pe cen . As
a esul , a decision was made no o con inue wi h a he in e iews a he 15-yea
sweep. Response a es we e lowe among:
he a he s ha we e less connec ed o he mo he s and … as he
ela ionship became mo e con lic ual, hose a he s a e mo e and
mo e likely o d op ou o being in e iewed (FFCW, in e iew).
Da a om he FFCW s udy, including in o ma ion on non- esiden a he s, can be
downloaded om wo na ional da a a chi es; equencies o he a iables a e
a ailable online and in codebooks o he s udy.
In con as , o he s udies ha e expe ienced some challenges in in ol ing non-
esiden a he s in he s udy. Two English coho s udies, Child en o he 2020s and
F om Fi e o Twel e, included non- esiden pa en s on he same basis as he
Fa he s in in e na ional coho s udies | 25
second esiden pa en . Fo Child en o he 2020s, p ima y ca egi e s we e asked
o consen o con ac he o he pa en and we e asked o con ac de ails o
hem; consen was gi en in 70 pe cen o esiden pa en households and 50 pe
cen o non- esiden pa en households (IPSOS, 2023). The su ey was online as
opposed o ace- o- ace in e iews wi h he p ima y ca egi e . Response a es
we e 36 pe cen o esiden pa en s and 18 pe cen o non- esiden pa en s ( o
hose o whom pe mission and con ac de ails we e gi en). F om Fi e o Twel e
sampled child en aged 5 o 6 in 2023. Eligibili y o non- esiden a he s o be
included ela ed o being in con ac wi h he child. They we e con ac ed h ough
he esiden pa en and sen a web su ey, on he same basis as esiden a he s.
As men ioned by o he s udies, he e we e some challenges in ob aining con ac
de ails.
Wha we we e doing was asking i hey [ he esiden pa en ] had
con ac in o ma ion hey we e willing o pass o e du ing ha [ ace-
o- ace] in e iew. … O en hey didn’ wan o do ha … i ’s
inc easingly common, I hink, o people o ind i odd o be asked o
someone else’s con ac in o ma ion hey eel hey should ask
pe mission. (F om Fi e o Twel e, in e iew)
In hese cases, in e iewe s sen he esiden pa en an email o pass on o he
own household a he . Response a es we e 16 pe cen o own household a he s
(as a p opo ion o all eligible a he s, no jus hose o whom de ails we e
p o ided) and 57 pe cen o esiden second pa en s. Telephone ollow-up is
planned o he nex wa e o he s udy. I is planned o a chi e hese da a o use
by esea che s.
An impo an challenge has been he eliance on he willingness, and abili y, o he
esiden pa en o p o ide con ac de ails o he non- esiden pa en , wi h almos
all s udies using he mo he as a ‘ga ekeepe ’ o access. One excep ion is a ecen
UK s udy which con ac ed non- esiden pa en s in hei own igh .
The Ea ly Li e Coho Feasibili y S udy (ELCFS)
The Ea ly Li e Coho Feasibili y S udy (ELCFS) was a scoping s udy o a new bi h
coho s udy in he UK. A cen al conce n was he desi e o ep esen less o en
hea d o ha d- o- each g oups, including pa en s no li ing ( ull- ime) wi h hei
child en, e med ‘own household pa en s’ (OHPs), and esponding o conce ns
aised by he Fa he hood Ins i u e abou he lack o inclusion o all a he s in coho
s udies13 (Goldman and Bu gess, 2018):
13 Non- esiden a he s had been included in he pilo s udy o he (la e abandoned) Li e S udy in he UK, al hough e y
ew we e iden i ied because o he selec i e na u e o he g oup o esiden mo he s who op ed in o he pilo (Kie nan,
2016).

26 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
The e was so o a ocus on like less o en hea d kind o g oups o like
ha d- o- each g oups and I guess so we’ e de ining … own household
a he s as a so o less o en hea d g oup in coho s udies. (ELCFS,
in e iew)
As pa o he s udy, quali a i e in e iews we e conduc ed wi h own household
pa en s and sepa a ely wi h low income and mino i y e hnic g oups o explo e how
bes o include hese g oups in he esea ch (Raybould e al., 2023). A pa icula ly
inno a i e aspec o ELCFS was he use o bi h egis a ion da a as a sampling
ame, which eco ded all bu 5 pe cen o a he s and enabled he esea ch eam
o con ac non- esiden pa en s independen ly.14 The incen i es p o ided o
pa icipa ion we e he same o OHPs and esiden pa en s. They we e a ied
ac oss he sample in o de o es he e ec s o incen i es on esponse a es:
be o ehand, pa en s ecei ed an uncondi ional incen i e o ei he S g£5 o
no hing; hose who ook pa in he su ey ecei ed ei he S g£10 o S g£20. The
esiden pa en was in o med ha he eam was con ac ing he OHP bu hey we e
no asked o pe mission o do so:
Ou app oach o all amilies was o send le e s o bo h pa en s on
he sample ame, ega dless o whe he hey we e a he same
add ess o no . And hen i hey didn’ op ou , an in e iewe isi ed
hem a he add ess lis ed on he bi h egis a ion. And hey would
es ablish a ha i s doo s ep isi using a sc eene in e iew whe he
his was he child’s main household o second household, whe e hey
ei he spen some ime o no ime, and ha was how we e alua ed
whe he he second add ess was he OHP household o no . (ELCFS,
in e iew)
Ci cums ances o some households had changed be ween he ime o bi h
egis a ion and he su ey ieldwo k (when he babies we e a ound 9 mon hs old).
In hese cases, ‘new’ OHPs we e iden i ied and he esiden pa en was asked o
con ac de ails o he OHP. In addi ion, whe e in e iewe s ound ha he OHP
had mo ed, he esiden pa en was asked o con ac de ails o o pass on an
in o ma ion pack. Unlike some o he s udies, he inclusion o OHPs was no il e ed
on c i e ia such as con ac wi h he child:
I we had hei de ails ei he h ough he bi h egis a ion o h ough
he o he pa en ’s in e iew, hey we e eligible o ake pa . … We
asked hem [ he p ima y in o man , PI] a he s a abou he le el o
in ol emen he o he pa en has and i he e was no in ol emen , bu
hey did know abou he child, we con inued o ask abou hem. Bu i
he e was no in ol emen and ei he he PI didn’ know who he pa en
14 I was no possible o access bi h egis a ion da a in No he n I eland so esiden pa en s he e we e asked o sha e
con ac de ails o o in o ma ion wi h he non- esiden pa en .
Fa he s in in e na ional coho s udies | 27
was o ha pa en didn’ know abou he baby, hen we didn’ pu sue
i a all. (ELCFS, in e iew)
The esponse a e was ‘lowe han we’d hoped’ a 16 pe cen compa ed o a
esponse a e o 76 pe cen o addi ional esiden in o man s, usually a he s. I
was no ed ha he esponse a e may also be a ec ed by he ac ha he sample
had boos ed numbe s o e hnic mino i y and low-income amilies. P elimina y
analysis sugges s ha OHPs who we e in a ela ionship wi h he child’s mo he
we e mo e likely o espond bu he e we e no di e ences by age g oup. No he n
I eland, whe e he eam was elian on he esiden pa en o con ac he OHP, had
a much lowe esponse a e, a 7 pe cen , han he es o he UK, sugges ing ha
independen con ac did help esponse a es.
I seems like ha ing hei de ails and being able o app oach hem
di ec ly did help massi ely. (ECLFS, in e iew)
Non- esponse was p edominan ly d i en by di icul ies in acing up- o-da e
add esses o , and secu ing con ac wi h, he OHPs a he han by hem e using
o ake pa when con ac ed.
2.3.3 Challenges and oppo uni ies in including non- esiden a he s
Resea ch eams om s udies ha included non- esiden a he s we e quick o
ecommend his app oach o o he in e na ional coho s udies. No including
hem was seen as c ea ing a gap in an unde s anding o child en’s li es, especially
in he con ex o he inc easing complexi y o amily a angemen s.
Families a e eally complex and whe e … you’ e go hose amilies ha
ha e kind o sepa a ed ea ly, pa icula ly whe e you’ e go pa en s
ha a e, you know, equal o close o equally engaged wi h he child,
you miss ou on a whole piece o in o ma ion. … I you’ e no [including
hem], you’ e missing eally impo an da a om hose di e en kind
o amily en i onmen s. … 20 yea s on, amilies a e going o be
di e en . … I migh be ha he PLE is mo e impo an po en ially now.
(LSAC, in e iew)
Al hough emphasising he alue o hei in ol emen , esea che s ha e highligh ed
a numbe o challenges a ound in ol ing non- esiden a he s. In pa icula , access
is gene ally secu ed h ough he mo he by asking he o pass on in o ma ion abou
he s udy and/o p o ide con ac de ails o he a he . In many cases, mo he s a e
unable o unwilling o p o ide such con ac de ails so he g oup o a he s who a e
po en ially con ac able a e selec i e in na u e, being mo e likely o ha e a ai ly
good ela ionship wi h he child’s mo he and mo e ac i ely in ol ed in he li e o
he child.
28 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
This is no an unbiased sample. This is no a andom g oup o people
who a e no gi ing us con ac in o ma ion. … I ’s he g oup who a e
in es ed and wan ing o be in ol ed s ill. (F om Fi e o Twel e,
in e iew)
A u he challenge ela es o housing mobili y among his g oup o a he s, wi h
esea ch eams and in e iewe s expe iencing di icul ies in inding hei co ec
add ess. This in ol ed in e iewe s spending mo e ime ying o con ac he
a he s.
I was qui e ha d o ind he OHPs. They we e o en no a he add ess
lis ed on he bi h egis a ion. (ELCFS, in e iew)
An addi ional issue ela ed o he di e si y o he non- esiden a he g oup and, in
some cases, he blu ed bounda ies a ound pa e nal esidence and, e en mo e so,
a ound iden i ying he child’s ‘main’ esidence in ci cums ances o sha ed
pa en ing.
Anecdo ally, in e iewe s we e elling us o en hey we e in he
mo he ’s house bu [ he esponden s] we e being a bi cagey abou
how much hey li ed he e o no . (ELCFS, in e iew)
Ac ually, he OHP some imes is jus no eally he OHP, i ’s ac ually jus
he o he home ha ha child li es he e. (F om Fi e o Twel e,
in e iew)
I was eally challenging because his g oup is so di e se, some a e
eally in ol ed wi h hei child and eally wan ha ecognised and you
know you ole as dad is eally impo an … Whe eas he e a e some
ha don’ see hemsel es as pa o he amily a all, whe e using
language like amilies o -pu ing and hey don’ see hemsel es in
ha language. (ELCFS, in e iew)
In wo s udies, F agile Families and ELCFS, a signi ican g oup o non- esiden
a he s we e s ill in a ela ionship wi h he child’s mo he , challenging he
assump ion ha non- esiden pa en hood is solely d i en by ela ionship
dissolu ion.
The need o he numbe o esponses o be su icien o analysis was also
men ioned, wi h a ade-o be ween he ime in es ed by esponden s and he
use o hose da a.
Fa he s in in e na ional coho s udies | 29
I’m sligh ly wo ied, I suppose, ha wha we’ll end up wi h is people
who’ e in es ed hei ime and we only end up wi h, you know, 3 o
400 cases which you know, wha will we do wi h ha da a. So he e is
a sligh e hical ques ion abou can we use i , wha ’s he alue o i ?
And you know how eliable is i ? (F om Fi e o Twel e, in e iew)
In addi ion, he issue o which pa en (s) should gi e consen was no
unp oblema ic in all cases.
Wha i Mum says yes and Dad says no, o ice e sa? And wha i
you’ e ac ually c ea ing mo e ension in a home ha ’s al eady
augh ? (G owing Up in New Zealand, in e iew)
Challenges in in ol ing his g oup o a he s in coho s udies we e also e iden in
household su eys in gene al, especially whe e non- esiden a he s we e mo e
socio-economically disad an aged.
Many o hose non- esiden a he s a e no in household su eys.
They’ e e y di icul o ind because hey’ e loosely connec ed o
households. … They’ e ei he li ing wi h a pa ne , … hey’ e li ing wi h
hei mo he o sis e . … And in he US we ha e his inca ce a ion
p oblem. … So o ou sample o non- esiden a he s, … some hing like
62 pe cen o hem ha e had inca ce a ion his o ies. (FFCW,
in e iew)
The speci ic si ua ion o ‘pa en s li ing apa ’ has been gi en inc easing a en ion
in he UK household longi udinal s udy, Unde s anding Socie y, ‘including
sepa a ed pa en s, non co- esiden pa en s, pa en s who we e ne e in a union,
and pa en s wi h child en om ano he ela ionship li ing elsewhe e’ (Ree e and
Benezal, 2024, p.5). To be e cap u e his g oup, changes ha e been made o he
las wo wa es o he s udy and he eam a e assessing whe he some measu es,
such as hose on pa en ing s yles and pe cep ions o child de elopmen , cu en ly
asked o esiden pa en s, could also be asked o pa en s li ing elsewhe e.
The esea che s in e iewed emphasised he alue o including o con inuing o
include non- esiden a he s in coho s udies, as a way o cap u ing hei in luence
on child de elopmen :
Pa ly because om a so o p incipled inclusi i y posi ion … i you
wan o genuinely be a s udy ha is inclusi e and is gene ally ying o
ea … wo pa en s equally … and be inclusi e o all di e en amily
ypes. And hen he e’s a so o p incipled eason o including all
pa en s, all a he s, ega dless o whe he hey’ e wi h li ing wi h he
baby o no . (ELCFS, in e iew)
36 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
Consen le els we e also much lowe whe e he pa en al ela ionship was poo e
in quali y. Pe haps no su p isingly, mo he s we e less likely o ha e con ac de ails
o a he s who we e no in con ac wi h hei child en.
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)
Consen ed
No con ac de ails
Mo he ’s age:
22-25 yea s
26-30 yea s
31 + yea s
(Re .: 21 o less)
0.712
0.516*
0.492**
1.086
0.994
0.842
Mo he ’s educa ion:
Uppe seconda y
Pos -seconda y/ e ia y
(Re .: Lowe seconda y o less)
1.305
0.812
1.103
0.911
Mig an backg ound o mo he
1.132
1.043
U ban a ea
1.002
1.576*
Timing o sepa a ion:
Ne e li ed oge he
Child <6 mon hs
Child 6-9 mon hs
(Re .: P e-bi h)
0.858
1.266
0.196
1.391
1.137
0.514
Cus ody a angemen :
Fo mal
In o mal
(Re .: None)
1.608
1.412
1.641
0.871
Paymen a angemen :
Regula
Ad hoc
(Re .: None)
1.262
1.254
0.534
0.317*
Fa he -child con ac :
Daily
1-2 imes a week
Weekly o less
(Re .: Ne e )
3.964**
1.848
1.350
0.116***
0.088***
0.174***
Poo e quali y o pa en al ela ionship
0.726***
0.977
Pseudo R2
0.218
N
1,262
Sou ce: GUI Coho ’08, Wa e 1.
No e: *** signi ican a p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05; ± p<.10.

Non- esiden a he s in he G owing Up in I eland s udy | 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)
Sou ce: GUI Coho ’08; de i ed om coe icien s in Table 3.1.
In con as o he posi ion a 9 mon hs, willingness o consen o con ac did no
a y signi ican ly by ma e nal age when he child was 3 yea s old (Table 3.2).
Among he socio-demog aphic ac o s examined, only mig an s a us made a
di e ence, wi h mig an -o igin mo he s less likely o gi e pe mission o con ac he
a he , la gely because o di e ences in le els o a he -child con ac . Consen
le els di e ed ma kedly by aspec s o he ela ionship wi h he a he and deg ee
o con ac wi h he child (Table 3.2). Ra es o consen we e much lowe i he
pa en s had ne e li ed oge he o had sepa a ed be o e he bi h o he child and
whe e no cus ody a angemen was in place. 17 As a 9 mon hs old, consen was
mo e likely whe e he a he was in equen con ac wi h he child (a leas once
o wice a week) and whe e he e was a be e -quali y ela ionship be ween he
pa en s. Mo he s we e less likely o ha e con ac de ails o he a he in mig an -
o igin amilies, whe e he a he had no con ac wi h he child and whe e he
pa en al ela ionship was poo .
17 In o ma ion on li ing a angemen s we e collec ed om he p ima y ca egi e a Wa e 1. The PCG was also asked i
hey had a o mal o in o mal cus ody a angemen wi h he o he biological pa en ega ding whe e he child li es.
The ques ion did no speci y wha cons i u ed a o mal a angemen , and i may o may no ha e had a legal s a us.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Daily 1-2 a week Weekly o less None
P opo ion
F equency o a he -child con ac
38 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
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)
Consen ed
No con ac de ails
Mo he ’s age:
26-30 yea s
31 + yea s
(Re .: 25 o less)
0.706
0.756
1.366
1.848
Mo he ’s educa ion:
Uppe seconda y
Pos -seconda y/ e ia y
1.000
0.938
1.013
1.231
Mig an backg ound
0.565*
1.253
U ban a ea
1.025
1.278
Timing o sepa a ion:
P e-bi h
Child <1 yea
Child 1-2 yea s
Wi hin las yea
(Re .: Ne e li ed oge he )
1.715
1.854±
3.277***
1.712±
0.550
0.719
0.486
1.336
Cus ody a angemen :
Fo mal
In o mal
(Re .: None)
2.325**
1.840*
0.943
0.493±
Paymen a angemen :
Regula
Ad hoc
(Re .: None)
1.254
1.706±
0.735
1.089
Fa he -child con ac :
Daily
1-2 imes a week
Weekly o less
(Re .: Ne e )
2.804±
3.691*
1.474
0.056***
0.146***
0.148***
Poo e quali y o pa en al ela ionship
0.587***
1.311*
Pseudo R2
0.298
N
1,118
Sou ce: GUI Coho ’08, Wa e 1.
No e: *** signi ican a p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05; ± p<.10.
As indica ed in Figu e 3.1, consen a es we e somewha lowe when he child was
9 yea s old. Ra es a e highe among mo he s wi h a pos -seconda y o e ia y
quali ica ion (Table 3.3), a pa e n no e iden a ea lie wa es. Ra es a e lowes i
pa en s ne e li ed oge he and highes among he ecen ly sepa a ed. Consen
is also less likely i he e is no paymen a angemen in place. As in p e ious wa es,
consen is ma kedly ela ed o equency o con ac be ween he a he and child
bu he quali y o he pa en al ela ionship makes no addi ional di e ence. Con ac
de ails a e less likely o be a ailable o olde mo he s, a he s who ha e no con ac
wi h hei child and whe e he pa en al ela ionship is poo .
Non- esiden a he s in he G owing Up in I eland s udy | 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)
Consen ed
No con ac de ails
Mo he ’s age:
36-40 yea s
41 + yea s
(Re .: 35 o less)
0.820
0.790
0.905
0.507*
Mo he ’s educa ion:
Uppe seconda y
Pos -seconda y/ e ia y
(Re .: Lowe seconda y o less)
1.392
1.987±
0.713
1.016
Mig an backg ound
0.945
1.192
U ban a ea
0.970
1.324
Timing o sepa a ion:
<4 yea s
5-7 yea s
8-9 yea s
(Re .: Ne e li ed oge he )
2.571***
2.633***
5.669***
0.922
0.786
2.881±
Cus ody a angemen :
Fo mal
In o mal
(Re .: None)
1.076
1.284
0.672
0.669
Paymen a angemen :
Regula
Ad hoc
(Re .: None)
2.146**
2.572*
0.601
1.573
Fa he -child con ac :
Daily
1-2 imes a week
Weekly o less
(Re .: Ne e )
5.662*
4.044*
2.076
0.231*
0.191***
0.225***
Poo e quali y o pa en al ela ionship
0.966
1.312*
Pseudo R2
0.211
N
907
Sou ce: GUI Coho ’08, Wa e 1.
No e: *** signi ican a p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05; ± p<.10.
Su ey comple ion by non- esiden a he s
Analyses so a ha e indica ed ha a he s wi h mo e con ac wi h hei child en
and who ha e a be e ela ionship wi h he child’s mo he a e mo e likely o be
in i ed o ake pa in he GUI s udy. Non- esiden a he s we e sen a pape copy
o he ques ionnai e by pos , which is likely o esul in a lowe esponse a e han
a di ec in e iewe app oach. Fa he s li ing ou side I eland we e included bu
would ha e had o pay he pos age cha ges o e u n he ques ionnai e. A 3 yea s
o age, ques ionnai es we e e u ned by 35 pe cen o he non- esiden a he s in
cases whe e he mo he had gi en pe mission o hem o be con ac ed. This made
up 12 pe cen o he o al g oup o non- esiden a he s. Table 3.4 looks a he
ac o s associa ed wi h esponding o he su ey. Because o small numbe s,
a he s who comple ed he su ey a e compa ed wi h all hose who did no ,
40 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
whe he by eason o e usal by he a he , e usal by he mo he o no con ac
de ails being a ailable. The coe icien s a e p esen ed in e ms o a e age ma ginal
e ec s, which indica es he pe cen age poin di e ence in comple ion be ween
ha ing a pa icula cha ac e is ic o no , holding o he a iables cons an .18 By
necessi y, he analyses ely on in o ma ion p o ided by he mo he so may di e
om pa e nal accoun s o con ac wi h child, o example, an issue ha is explo ed
u he below.
The indings indica e ha su ey esponses a e less likely in mig an -o igin amilies
(wi h a di e ence o 7 pe cen age poin s) and mo e likely in households whe e he
mo he has pos -seconda y o e ia y quali ica ions (a di e ence o 5 pe cen age
poin s). These demog aphic di e ences a e no longe appa en when a he
con ac and he na u e o pa en ing a angemen s a e aken in o accoun (Model
2, Table 3.4). Su ey esponses a e ound o be less likely o co e amilies wi h no
cus ody o main enance/paymen a angemen s. They a e somewha less likely o
co e amilies whe e a he s ha e less equen con ac and whe e pa en al
ela ionships a e poo . Because o small numbe s, a simpli ied model is p esen ed
in Table A3.1 which compa es a he s who esponded wi h hose who did no only
among he g oup o whom mo he s had gi en pe mission o con ac . Response
a es a e ound o be highe , by 13 pe cen age poin s, in mo e highly educa ed
households and whe e a he s ha e equen con ac wi h hei child en.
18 A e age ma ginal e ec s canno be calcula ed o he mul inomial logi models p esen ed abo e.
Non- esiden a he s in he G owing Up in I eland s udy | 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
Mo he ’s age:
26-30 yea s
31 + yea s
(Re .: 25 o less)
-0.009
0.014
-0.012
0.007
Mo he ’s educa ion:
Uppe seconda y
Pos -seconda y/ e ia y
(Re .: Lowe seconda y o less)
0.039
0.052±
0.032
0.048
Mig an backg ound
-0.068**
-0.024
U ban a ea
-0.008
-0.030
Timing o sepa a ion:
P e-bi h
Child <1 yea
Child 1-2 yea s
Wi hin las yea
(Re .: Ne e li ed oge he )
-0.032
-0.015
0.060
0.025
Cus ody a angemen :
Fo mal
In o mal
(Re .: None)
0.078*
0.077**
Paymen a angemen :
Regula
Ad hoc
(Re .: None)
0.060*
0.125**
Fa he -child con ac :
Daily
1-2 imes a week
Weekly o less
(Re .: Ne e )
0.070
0.115*
0.024
Poo e quali y o pa en al ela ionship
-0.040**
Pseudo R2
0.016
0.196
N
1,098
Sou ce: GUI Coho ’08, Wa e 1.
No e: *** signi ican a p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05; ± p<.10.
A he 9-yea wa e, ques ionnai es we e e u ned by 14.3 pe cen o he non-
esiden a he s in cases whe e he mo he had gi en pe mission o hem o be
con ac ed. This made up 3.8 pe cen o he o al g oup o non- esiden a he s.
This compa ison was epea ed o esponses a his wa e (Table 3.5). The e is
be e esponse co e age o amilies wi h mo e highly educa ed and olde
mo he s, di e ences ha a e explained by a ia ion in pa en ing a angemen s
and con ac le els (compa e Models 1 and 2, Table 3.5). Responses a e less likely
o ela e o pa en s ha ne e li ed oge he o sepa a ed jus ecen ly (i.e. when
he child was aged 8/9 yea s) and a e mo e likely o ela e o households whe e
he a he has equen con ac wi h he child (Model 2, Table 3.5). Compa ing only
hose a he s who ecei ed he su ey, esponse a es a e highe o a he s in

42 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
equen con ac and whe e mo he s ha e highe le els o educa ion19
(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
Mo he ’s age:
36-40 yea s
41 + yea s
(Re .: 35 o less)
0.014
0.033*
0.010
0.023
Mo he ’s educa ion:
Uppe seconda y
Pos -seconda y/ e ia y
-0.001
0.052**
-0.002
0.027
Mig an backg ound
-0.016
-0.009
U ban a ea
0.012
0.015
Timing o sepa a ion in ela ion o child’s age:
<4 yea s
5-7 yea s
8-9 yea s
(Re .: Ne e li ed oge he )
0.058***
0.046**
0.053
Cus ody a angemen :
Fo mal
(Re .: None o in o mal)
0.030±
Paymen a angemen :
Regula
Ad hoc
(Re .: None)
0.011
0.001
Fa he -child con ac :
Daily/1-2 imes a week
(Re .: Less o en/Ne e )
0.057**
Quali y o pa en al ela ionship (highe =poo e )
-0.003
Pseudo R2
0.078
0.262
N
932
909
Sou ce: GUI Coho ’08, Wa e 1.
No e: *** signi ican a p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05; ± p<.10.
3.3 FATHER-CHILD CONTACT
A all wa es o he su ey, mo he s we e asked abou he equency o in-pe son
con ac he child had wi h hei non- esiden a he . Figu e 3.3 shows ha o e a
qua e o mo he s epo no con ac be ween he a he and child, a pa e n ha
is ai ly s able o e ime. F equency o con ac is g ea es in he ea ly yea s, wi h
19 Couples end o ha e simila le els o educa ional a ainmen , a pa e n known as educa ional homogamy. The pa e ns
ound a e he e o e likely o ela e o highe esponse a es among mo e highly educa ed a he s. This is consis en
wi h highe esponse a es among mo e highly educa ed households ound in GUI mo e gene ally (see, o example,
McNama a e al., 2020).
Non- esiden a he s in he G owing Up in I eland s udy | 43
a ound hal o he babies and oddle s seeing hei a he s e e y day o once o
wice a week. Con ac is somewha less equen as child en make he ansi ion
o school, hough a ound a hi d o 5- and 9-yea -olds see hei a he s a leas a
ew imes a week. A ages 5 and 9 yea s o age, mo he s we e asked abou o he
con ac (no ace- o- ace), p esumably phone and/o ideo calls, wi h such con ac
happening a leas a ew imes a week o 39 pe cen and 35 pe cen espec i ely.
As well as a he -child con ac , he equency wi h which mo he s alk o a he s
abou he child also declines (no shown). Howe e , epo ed ela ionship quali y
be ween pa en s emains s able. F om he child pe spec i e, o e hal (53 pe cen )
cha ac e ise hei ela ionship wi h hei non- esiden a he s as ‘ e y good’. The
a he -child ela ionship is be e whe e he e is mo e equen con ac and whe e
he pa en s ha e a be e -quali y ela ionship (see Smy h 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
Sou ce: GUI Coho ’08.
The in o ma ion collec ed om mo he s also p o ides in e es ing insigh s in o he
complexi y o amily s uc u es and pa en ing a angemen s. When he s udy child
was 9, mo he s epo ed ha 23 pe cen o hei o me pa ne s we e now li ing
wi h o he child en. This comp ises 9 pe cen who we e li ing wi h he child’s ull
siblings and 14 pe cen who we e li ing wi h ano he child o child en (ei he he
child’s hal -sibling o an un ela ed 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 mon hs 3 yea s 5 yea s 9 yea s
Daily 1-2 a week Weekly o less None
44 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
As discussed in Chap e 1, da a on non- esiden a he s a ages 3 and 9 we e
ecen ly a chi ed. The amoun o de ail ha can be included he e is limi ed by
small cell sizes, especially a he 9-yea wa e. When he child was 3 yea s old,
a ound hal o hese a he s desc ibed he amoun o ime hey spen wi h he child
as ‘abou igh ’ wi h he emainde desc ibing i as ‘nowhe e nea enough’ o ‘no
qui e enough’. Jus o e hal indica e ha he child spends a leas se en nigh s a
mon h wi h hem. Fou -in- en a he s desc ibed hemsel es as ha ing ‘a lo o
in luence’ in majo decisions conce ning he child. A numbe o s udies
in e na ionally ha e poin ed o di e ences in he accoun s o sepa a ed pa en s
(see Chap e 1). The ques ions on equency o con ac we e no he same o
mo he s and a he s so canno be di ec ly compa ed. Howe e , simila measu es
we e collec ed o he equency wi h which he pa en s discussed he child, and
o he quali y o he pa en al ela ionship. Measu es o pa en al discussion had a
mode a e co ela ion20 (0.385), indica ing some consensus bu qui e a bi o
a ia ion in pa en al accoun s o he equency o communica ion abou he child.
Mo he s epo ed signi ican ly less communica ion han a he s did. Measu es o
pa en al ela ionship quali y a e mo e s ongly co ela ed (0.523) bu indica e
some di e gence in iews be ween pa en s. Unlike pa en al discussion, his did no
a y ma kedly by gende . Smalle pa icipan numbe s a he age 9 wa e mean ha
mos in o ma ion canno be epo ed. Howe e , a simila le el o ag eemen
be ween pa en s abou ela ionship quali y (0.592) is e iden a he 9-yea wa e.
3.4 CONCLUSIONS
Bo h esiden and non- esiden a he s ha e been included in almos all wa es o
he GUI s udy and in o ma ion on non- esiden a he s’ in ol emen wi h hei
child en has been collec ed om mo he s. Non- esiden a he s a e ound o ha e
equen con ac wi h hei child en, wi h hal seeing babies and oddle s se e al
imes a week. Con ac is somewha less equen as child en make he ansi ion
o school, hough a ound a hi d o 5- and 9-yea -olds see hei a he s a leas a
ew imes a week. Jus o e a qua e ha e li le o no con ac wi h hei child en.
F om he child’s pe spec i e, jus o e hal (53 pe cen )21 epo ge ing on ‘ e y
well’ wi h hei a he a age 9, indica ing he impo ance o hei a he in hei
li es. P e ious analyses ound ha child en who had mo e con ac wi h hei a he
and s ayed o e a leas once a o nigh we e mo e likely o epo ‘ge ing on e y
well’ (Smy h and Russell, 2021).
As in se e al o he coho s udies (see Chap e 2), esiden mo he s ac as a
ga ekeepe o accessing non- esiden a he s. A ound a hi d o mo he s we e
willing o gi e pe mission o he a he o be con ac ed when he child was
20 Pea son’s co ela ion anges om 0 o +1 (and 0 o -1) wi h highe alues indica ing a s onge ela ionship.
21 This igu e ises o 65 pe cen i hose who did no espond o he ques ion (p esumably hose who ha e no con ac
wi h hei a he ) a e excluded.
Non- esiden a he s in he G owing Up in I eland s udy | 45
9 mon hs and 3 yea s old, d opping o jus o e a qua e when he child was age 9.
Such willingness does no a y ma kedly by socio-demog aphic ac o s bu does
e lec a he -child con ac and mo he - a he ela ionship quali y. As a esul ,
a he s in mo e equen con ac wi h hei child en and who ha e be e
ela ionships wi h he esiden mo he s a e mo e likely o be in i ed o ake pa
in he s udy. Among hose who we e con ac ed when he child was 3, 35 pe cen
comple ed he su ey; his is on a pa wi h he esponse a e o non- esiden
a he s in many compa able s udies in e na ionally (see Chap e 2). The esponse
a e alls o 14 pe cen by he age o 9. Again, in e na ional s udies seem o
indica e some decline in esponse a es as child en g ow olde (as well as a decline
o e ime in su ey esponse a es in gene al). Fa he s in mo e equen con ac
wi h hei child and o me ly pa ne ed wi h mo e highly educa ed mo he s a e
mo e likely o comple e he su ey.
The su ey esponses om non- esiden a he s ela e o a mo e selec i e g oup.
None heless, hey yield use ul insigh s, highligh ing he dissa is ac ion o many
a he s (e en hose who ha e mo e con ac ) wi h he equency wi h which hey
see hei child. In keeping wi h in e na ional esea ch (see, o example, Coley and
Mo is, 2002; Ki e ød and Lyngs ad, 2013), he e a e some di e ences be ween
pa en al accoun s, wi h mo he s appea ing o epo lowe le els o a he -child
con ac han do a he s.
52 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
il e s. … De ini ely a 9 child en a e much mo e cagey a ound wha
hey’ e going o say. (O ganisa ion 1, in e iewee 1)
Howe e , ano he s akeholde sugges ed ha he e we e issues a ound consen
and sensi i i y in asking he child abou hei ela ionship wi h he non- esiden
pa en .
The e could be In o ma ion abou how o en hey [ he child] sees he
o he pa en o whe he hey eel hey see hem enough…... You’d
ha e o make conside a ion o consen and s u like ha . And wha
he p ima y ca egi e pa en may eel abou he child being asked
ha . Because i could be some hing ha hey’ e qui e sensi i e abou
o i could be some hing ha upse s he child i hey asked abou i .
(O ganisa ion 2)
4.2.4 Wha kinds o in o ma ion should be collec ed om non- esiden
a he s?
S akeholde s iden i ied signi ican gaps in he knowledge abou pa en ing in
amilies ha ha e sepa a ed, and abou he expe iences o he non- esiden
pa en s in na iga ing hei pa en ing ole.
I hink i ’d be eally in e es ing o hea hei pe spec i e on hei
ela ionship wi h hei child en. You know, wha is you ime wi h you
child like? ……. And wha do you no ice abou you child? Wha do you
hink you child is eally good a ? Wha is i like li ing away om you
child? (O ganisa ion 1, in e iewee 2)
Finding ou mo e abou dads and hei so o iew o hemsel es as a
pa en … jus inding ou mo e abou he ela ionship and how hey
iew hemsel es as pa en s and dad’s ole in child en’s li es.
(O ganisa ion 1, in e iewee 1)
Ano he s akeholde el ha i would be enligh ening o compa e he answe s o
he wo pa en s:
I hink he e’d be a e y in e es ing compa ison o see how much
a iance he e is be ween he p ima y ca egi e and he non- esiden
pa en s. I you ask hem hings like how many hou s a week do you
spend wi h you child. Maybe i he e’s ques ions a ound ‘I eel I ha e
su icien inpu in o how my child is aised’ and hen he o he pa en
is asked. ‘I eel he o he pa en has su icien inpu ’ because he
compa ison be ween he wo I hink could be e y in e es ing.
(O ganisa ion 2)

Pe cei ed bene i s o , and challenges in, including non- esiden a he s | 53
Majo gaps in he suppo s o non- esiden /sepa a ed a he s we e also iden i ied
The e was also a pe cep ion among a he s ha he suppo s we e no designed
o o a ailable o hem, e en i hey we e no o icially excluded.
The amily suppo social ca e wo k, i ends o be a lo o mo he s
p esen ing, whe eas a lo o dads come o [ olun a y se ice] because
he e’s e y li le. The e’s a huge gap in se ice p o ision ou he e and
i ’s e y challenging and a lo o a he s ha we would mee a e eally
s uggling wi h he cou se ice and wi h he o he pa en s, s uggling
wi h he emo ional impac ha no seeing hei child en has on hem
and ha ing o igh o ime wi h hei child en. (O ganisa ion 1,
in e iewee 2)
Because a lo o dads don’ link in wi h se ices, a lo o dads ha e
ound he p ocess no eally o hem, i ’s o mam and baby.
(O ganisa ion 4)
Fo a numbe o he o ganisa ions in e iewed, p o iding in o ma ion and suppo
o sepa a ed pa en s was one o he aims, and hey no ed ha we e s ill gaps in
in o ma ion and suppo o a he s.
Dads need huge men al heal h suppo s … We need o ge i igh and
we’ e miles away in ela ion o se ices and esou ces o dads.
(O ganisa ion 4)
This sugges s he need o addi ional da a collec ion on access o o mal and
in o mal suppo s o a he s, hei use o se ices and unme needs. This could
use ully in o m policy de elopmen in he a ea.
4.3 INTERVIEWS WITH PARENTS
In o de o explo e issues a ound collec ing da a on non- esiden a he s in I eland,
one- o-one in e iews we e conduc ed wi h i e a he s no li ing ull- ime wi h
hei child en and one lone mo he who was no longe li ing wi h he a he o he
child en. As ou lined in Chap e 1, hese in e iewees we e con ac ed ia he NGOs
wo king wi h pa en s in e iewed o Sec ion 4.2. The in e iews wi h pa en s
ocussed on a numbe o issues, including how o iden i y and con ac a he s who
a e no li ing ull- ime wi h hei child en, implica ions ega ding collec ing con ac
de ails o a he s om mo he s, implica ions ega ding ob aining in o ma ion om
bi h egis e da a, and collec ing in o ma ion on a he s om mo he s. The a he s
we e also asked o iden i y in o ma ion ha should be collec ed om hem.
54 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
4.3.1 Es ablishing con ac wi h non- esiden a he s
The in e iewees acknowledged he di icul y o iden i ying and con ac ing non-
esiden a he s: ‘I p obably unde s and ha . I hey’ e no li ing wi h child en, ha
ha could be di icul ’ (Dad4). The in e iewees el ha , in gene al, con ac
in o ma ion on such a he s could be collec ed om he mo he o he
child/child en. Howe e , he success o his app oach la gely depends on he
quali y o ela ionship be ween he a he and he mo he .
I hink in my case, i you we e o con ac my ex, she would gi e you my
de ails, you know. … Bu my unde s anding is, as you p obably know,
in o he si ua ions, he e a e con lic s you know. And … a lo o imes
hey [mo he s] a e some imes no alking o he dads. (Dad1)
In o de o iden i y and engage non- esiden a he s in a esea ch s udy, some
in e iewees sugges ed using social media, adio o newspape ad e isemen s.
I suppose i i was on he adio, you know and i I saw some hing in he
newspape , o … I suppose i I saw, you know, an ad e isemen o
some hing – I would espond. (Dad1)
P obably y he social media … will be one way. (Dad3)
So maybe a social media campaign o s u like ha , ha ha migh
help. (Dad4)
One in e iewee no ed ha da a p o ec ion can be an issue when ying o iden i y
non- esiden a he s, pa icula ly i he mo he is no com o able sha ing he
in o ma ion: ‘GDPR and s u like ha . I p obably migh be an issue’ (Dad4).
Se e al a he s sugges ed going h ough suppo o ganisa ions o g oups o lone
pa en s: ‘I can unde s and i could be di icul , bu I hink e en linking in wi h
[o ganisa ion] o helplines o a he s.’ (Dad4). This app oach could be used o:
…maybe con ac some kind o g oups like sepa a ed a he s’ suppo
g oups. And hen he e’s like maybe I ishDads.ie, con ac hem maybe.
And hen ob iously Lads o Dads, which is he g oup ha I was in ol ed
in a one s age, you could con ac hem and hey would ha e a lis o
sepa a ed pa en s, a he s and hey could p obably gi e you he
in o ma ion … So, I hink he hing o do would be o y and go in wi h
suppo g oups and he e’s some suppo g oups o sepa a ed a he s
and … o le ’s say, he e’s websi es … You could p obably ge
in o ma ion om a he s h ough ha . (Dad2)
Pe cei ed bene i s o , and challenges in, including non- esiden a he s | 55
Dad2 el ha going h ough dedica ed suppo g oups o o ganisa ions is likely o
p o ide mo e posi i e esul s han con ac ing non- esiden a he s di ec ly:
I would say an o ganisa ion would de ini ely… p obably ge mo e
esul s quicke han cold con ac ing o unless he pa ies we e pa o
some kind o g oup wha e e … he sepa a ed pa en s’ g oup, o
whe he i was some hing online … So, you know, … a di ec con ac
migh no always be ad isable. Well, you can always y di ec con ac ,
bu I hink i depends on ci cums ances, I guess. I hink con ac ing an
o ganisa ion is p obably he bes way, o h ough wo d o mou h e en.
(Dad2)
Howe e , some o hese sugges ions we e mo e ele an o a ge ing non-
esiden a he s in gene al a he han o he a he s o he s udy child.
Incen i es could be used o encou age a he s o pa icipa e in a s udy:
Maybe some so o incen i e o p ojec o in e iew maybe. No
necessa ily a mone a y ewa d, bu along hem lines – ha would
encou age a he s o con ac you…. maybe hey could o e o people
you know, maybe he ee, he ee legal ad ice … maybe GP
ecommended o people, o some hing like his, o psychologis maybe
… some hing like ha . (Dad3)
A snowballing app oach was conside ed ano he op ion o con ac ing non-
esiden a he s:22
The e’s ano he way you could go abou … so, o example, le ’s say I
know maybe h ee o ou sepa a ed pa en s, a he s … I could
p obably each ou o hem and ask did hey wan o be in ol ed in he
su ey o ge in o ma ion om hem. (Dad2)
Dad2 el ha when i is e iden ha he a he does no ha e much con ac wi h
he mo he o he child, he e may be li le poin in ying o con ac hese a he s:
I hink again i depends on he ci cums ances; sepa a ed o jus some
cases ou he e, a he jus goes walkabou and doesn’ ha e any
con ac wi h he mo he o he child en as I’m su e you’ e awa e o .
So hen … he e’s no poin in ying o each ou o hose kinds o
people. (Dad2)
22 As wi h wo king h ough o ganisa ions, his is unlikely o assis wi h including a he s in a child coho s udy.
56 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
An in e iew wi h a sepa a ed mo he indica ed ha in o de o unde s and he
eluc ance o some mo he s in no p o iding in o ma ion abou he a he o he
child, he su ey ques ionnai e should p obe o he easons behind i .
I suppose he i s hing I would hink would be he ques ionnai e o
he su ey. You know in e ms o he ques ions ha a e being pu
he e, o maybe expand on hem mo e o y and ga he mo e insigh
as o he easons behind he in o ma ion no being disclosed. Is he e
mo e ques ions ha can be asked in he su ey jus o ge ha sense?
… And hen ha would maybe gi e you a be e pic u e o he easons
why, you know, I suppose in a sensi i e way … ha ’s no going o
conce n hem. (Mo he )
4.3.2 Collec ing con ac in o ma ion om mo he s
The in e iewees el ha collec ing con ac de ails o a he s om mo he s can
be di icul , pa icula ly i he ela ionship be ween he child’s mo he and a he
is no amicable. I was also no ed ha in o de o pass on he a he ’s con ac
de ails, he mo he needs o i s secu e his ag eemen o hem o do so.
And ce ainly, he e a e ci cums ances – like ying o ge access ime
wi h hei child en … so … i ’s qui e di icul . And hen he e’s p obably
o he pa en s … p obably would shy away om gi ing ha
in o ma ion…. I would say i depends on he ci cums ances be ween
he a he s and mo he s – like… is he ela ionship amicable a his
s age. I depends on he ci cums ances o hei ela ionship. And
maybe some mo he s p obably wouldn’ wan o gi e ou in o ma ion
abou a he s, because hey’d ha e o ge he a he ’s pe mission i s ,
and hen, depending on how well hey’ e now in ha ela ionship – is
he e, you know a p oblem. I will p obably be qui e di icul ge ing
ha in o ma ion om mo he s. (Dad2)
A mo he ’s eluc ance o pass on con ac de ails o he a he may also be ela ed
o he inancial implica ions o he mo he who may be conce ned abou he
in o ma ion collec ed being passed on o ele an au ho i ies. Howe e , i he
mo he s a e assu ed ha he in o ma ion is collec ed o esea ch pu poses only,
hey may be mo e likely o sha e he a he ’s con ac de ails.
Whe he hey’ e willing o sha e. The e migh be ce ain lack o
unde s anding a ound o why [ he con ac de ails a e needed]. Will
he mo he ge in o ouble? (Dad4)
Single pa en s, basically – hey may lose ce ain elemen s o bene i s
o child bene i o he social wel a e aspec , i you a e no wo king.
Because like you know, jus sha ing you in o ma ion, o you s o y,
because i can be p esen ed o people you know … passing in o ma ion
Pe cei ed bene i s o , and challenges in, including non- esiden a he s | 57
o be sha ed …. I hink i i ’s an anonymous, kind o a a ge ed su ey,
p obably yeah. (Dad3)
Fu he mo e, depending on he quali y o ela ionship, he a he s may no
app ecia e he mo he passing on hei con ac de ails.
I do know no all dads wan o be in ol ed in he child’s li e – i ’s e y
sad. (Dad5)
I don’ hink i ’s always going o be success ul, you know. … And in
e ms o …b eakups you know wha I mean. … …I hink you’ll ge some
mams e using o gi e you a numbe and I hink … you migh also ge
some dads esponding nega i ely o he ac ha you’ e go he
numbe om he mo he s you know wha I mean. … I hink in hese
scena ios I hink you need o y and maximise you each, don’ you.
So, … i ’s like you ha e o ha e a mul i-p onged app oach o ge ing
he numbe s, you know. (Dad1)
4.3.3 Collec ing in o ma ion om bi h egis a ion da a
In p inciple, bi h egis a ion eco ds could be used o di ec ly ec ui ing non-
esiden a he s o he s udy (see Chap e 2 on he Ea ly Li e Coho Feasibili y
S udy in he UK). In I eland, he HSE bi h egis a ion applica ion o m con ains
con ac in o ma ion o bo h pa en s o he child. In o de o explo e he
accep abili y o his app oach, he in e iewees we e asked how hey would eel
abou esea che s collec ing in o ma ion om bi h egis a ion da a. Some a he s
did no see a p oblem collec ing in o ma ion om bi h egis a ion, pa icula ly i
he pu pose o he s udy is explained o hem:
I hink ha would be a good idea. And hen I guess …you can ge hei
con ac de ails and maybe con ac hem s aigh ei he ia phone call
o an e-mail o le hem know ha you’ e doing his su ey, and you’ e
jus in e es ed in asking hem some key ques ions. (Dad2)
I don’ ha e a p oblem wi h i pe sonally, you know. I hink i ’s OK.
(Dad5)
Howe e , collec ing in o ma ion om bi h egis a ion da a also has a po en ial
downside, pa icula ly i he a he s a e unce ain abou he pu pose o collec ing
hei in o ma ion o i he a he is no p esen in his child’s li e:
Posi i e is ha you’ e ge ing o he a he s. Nega i e is hey migh
p obably lack unde s anding o how you go i o why you’ e
con ac ing hem. I will come down o maybe a pe sonal opinion. I

58 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
know om my hough p ocess; my mindse would be – you ha e o
make a he s hea d, gi e hem a oice. So ha ’s ul ima ely why I’m
he e. Possibly some o he a he s migh n’ ha e ha opinion, you
know, so. Bu yeah, a leas you’ e con ac ing hem. (Dad4)
I suppose I hink he e a e some dads ha don’ ake esponsibili y o
hei kids and I hink i ’s no he way o con ac hose dads. I would
app o e [o collec ing in o om bi h egis a ion], so I suppose ha ’s
he sho answe you know. (Dad1)
Howe e , Dad1 a gued ha i would be be e o op o in he s udy han ha ing
hei de ails accessed wi hou hei knowledge, an app oach which could be
conside ed in usi e.
I I go a call ou o he blue you mean? You jus wan i o do a s udy
abou pa en s o kids g owing up in I eland. I suppose I would be
eeling a sligh in usion, you know wha I mean. You pe sonal de ails
you know … I would p e e o go willingly in o some hing like his. I
migh be he i s one o pa icipa e in his, bu I’d p e e o op in.
(Dad1)
Fu he mo e, no all a he s may be eco ded on bi h egis a ion da a, as was he
case o Dad3 who became a a he a a e y young age.
Con iden iali y was he majo conce n among he in e iewees ega ding collec ing
in o ma ion di ec ly om bi h egis a ion.
I suppose depending on wha he objec i e is, i he e’s going o be any
nega i e consequences o he mo he , you know. I i ’s jus a su ey
and yeah, you know, I can’ see why no . Ob iously, you ha e he
whole GDPR si ua ion. … We’ e all con ac ed andomly o hings you
know. So I don’ [know], I mean, i i ’s impo an ha hese a he s a e
con ac ed. (Mo he )
You’d ha e o be making su e … hei con iden iali y … ha i ’s
de ini ely going o be eleased o he igh people ob iously, ha no
pe son ha would jus ing up and say I’m his dad. And nex hing
he e’s in o ma ion leaked e e ywhe e abou he kid... you know wha
I mean? Tha ’s he only down all I can hink o . Now I wouldn’ hink
he e’s any p oblem wi h ha in any in o ma ion o o a bi h
egis a ion you know. A he end o he day, you’ e no going o ge
Pe cei ed bene i s o , and challenges in, including non- esiden a he s | 59
much ou o i eally. You’ e going o ge , you know, was he child en’s
a he p esen a bi h, yes o no. (Dad5)
Well, I suppose he e could be p os and cons o ha depending on he
a he s a us wi hin he uni , he amily uni . You know, i hey a e
in ol ed. Like ha could be a con en ious issue, po en ially. You know
you could be con ac ing a a he ha is ying o ge in con ac o
ying o be p esen and ha e access wi hin hei child en’s li es. They
will be e y happy wi h ha , you know, and hen you could ind
somebody else ha is in imida ed by i , you know, and eels as an
agenda. And ha could come back on he mo he . So i ’s di icul .
(Mo he )
Well, i ’s jus i he a he is ge ing a andom phone call om
somebody asking ques ions, you know, he e migh be, depending on
wha ’s going on in ha amily si ua ion, i could, you know, po en ially
cause issues. I don’ know. So I suppose i could be posi i e and
nega i e, you know ou comes depending on each indi idual si ua ion.
(Mo he )
4.3.4 In o ma ion on a he s collec ed om mo he s
In e na ionally, in o ma ion has been collec ed om mo he s and olde coho s o
child en on non- esiden a he s (Goldman e al., 2021). The in e iewees in his
s udy we e asked abou wha kind o in o ma ion could be collec ed om mo he s
on a he s. O e all, i was el ha compa ed o non- esiden a he s, i is easie o
con ac mo he s who migh also be mo e willing o espond o he ques ions.
I hink … i ’s p obably easie o con ac mo he s han i is a he s, I
would say. Maybe mo e mo he s a e mo e open o mo e willing o gi e
in o ma ion eely o wha e e eason. … I would say, i ’s qui e
di icul o ge in con ac wi h a he s in gene al who a e sepa a ed.
(Dad2)
When asked wha in o ma ion could be collec ed on a he s om mo he s, a
numbe o opics eme ged, including ime spen wi h he a he , means o con ac
be ween he a he and he child, a he ’s access o he child, and suppo s
a ailable o sepa a ed/di o ced a he s.
So wha ype o in o ma ion can be collec ed …. I’d say i ’d be down o
how o en hei child en ge o spend ime wi h hei a he … I guess
how o en a e hei child en allowed o spend ime wi h hei a he ,
le ’s say a e hey eligible o ideo o phone calls once wice a week
now, how much con ac hey ha e, a e hey able o spend a weekend
60 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
wi h hei a he – e e y second o hi d weekend … whe he i ’s in he
a he ’s house o a e hey able o ge access o phone calls, ideo calls
a leas , a leas once a week I would say … is i possible ha he
child en a e allowed o s ay o e in he a he ’s house and possible …
depending on ci cums ances and ob iously du ing holidays, whe he
ha ’s Ch is mas holidays, maybe Eas e holidays, bank holidays,
school holidays. (Dad2)
I’d like you know …wha le el o ime …. do you eel is a ailable o you
as a pa en …. I know a ew si ua ions whe e dads a e es ic ed om
seeing he kids. … I would be in e es ing, I hink, o hea om dads
[whe e] … he e is no es ic ion you know … o else I’m no allowed o
see my kids, you know. So I hink ha ’s aluable in o ma ion … and
na ional suppo s. A e he e suppo s o young men? (Dad1)
This being said, he e was some unce ain y abou he accu acy o his in o ma ion,
when collec ed only om he mo he :
I would wonde … I hink i would be biased in an answe you’d ge ,
and I would wonde abou he alidi y o ha in o ma ion you know.
And because … and like you could ge a si ua ion whe e he’s had
momen s when he s ayed wi h he dad bu she says no… I would
wonde abou he alidi y o he in o ma ion. I would be conce ned
abou ha ac ually. (Dad1)
And I suppose om my expe ience- like I’m e y in ol ed in he li es o
my child, so … you know, I could p obably do a lo o hings ha maybe
a lo o women do – ex acu icula s planning, school wo k planning,
exam p ep – all ha kind o s u . Bu I hink i you ask my ex wha I do
… you wouldn’ ge all ha in o ma ion, you know. And i ’s no
necessa ily malice o any hing, bu … jus om knowing he , I don’
hink she would. So, in my case – I don’ know i i will be accu a e. And
hen … you could ask, bu … you’d ha e o e i y ha om he dad,
you know … I hink. You’ e eally alking abou pe cep ion I hink, …
and you’ e no ge ing in o ma ion …. I wonde , how scien i ic ha
in o ma ion is, you know wha I mean. (Dad1)
4.3.5 In o ma ion ha should be collec ed om non- esiden a he s
In e ms o in o ma ion ha should be collec ed om a he s, he in e iewees
no ed ha i depends on he ocus o he s udy as well as he ques ions asked o
he mo he s. I was sugges ed ha in o ma ion be collec ed abou di e en
Pe cei ed bene i s o , and challenges in, including non- esiden a he s | 61
aspec s, including a he ’s ime wi h his child/child en, a he ’s in ol emen in
helping wi h homewo k, and gene al in e ac ion wi h he child. Access o hei
child en eme ged as a majo opic o se e al a he s ha we e in e iewed o his
s udy.
I guess wha e e ques ions you’ e asking, i makes sense o ask he
a he s he same kind o ques ions. Whe he hey’ e in school yea s o
whe he hey’ e in eenage yea s o wo k yea s and all ha kind o
hing. Why would age make a di e ence? Because, I guess, … i
pa en s had child en in school yea s – you could y and ind ou how
much ime dads spend wi h hei child en, does he ge o be able o do
homewo k o bene i his child, alk abou school o be a ound o be
able o help wi h schoolwo k. (Dad2)
Possibly hei access a angemen s. How much in ol emen hey ha e
in hei child en’s li es. How did i come o his kind o access
a angemen ? (Dad4)
To be able o access child’s heal h you know …. you ha e e e y igh o
access ha . (Dad5)
As many dads e e ed o ‘ci cums ances’ when alking abou he dynamics
be ween hemsel es and hei ex-pa ne s, hey we e also asked whe he bo h
pa en s should be asked indi idually abou he quali y o hei ela ionship wi h
each o he . The in e iewees el ha in o de o unde s and he quali y o he
ela ionship, i is impo an o es ablish he dynamics be ween he wo bi h
pa en s:
I hink i would be OK o ask ha ques ion and ge an unde s anding
o i he e’s a good ela ionship, a heal hy ela ionship ha ’s ocused
on hei child en. Ul ima ely, I hink ha will bene i you esea ch o
child en g owing up in I eland. (Dad4)
4.4 CONCLUSIONS
This chap e has d awn on in e iews wi h NGOs wo king wi h pa en s and wi h six
pa en s hemsel es o explo e he po en ial o in ol ing pa en s no li ing ( ull-
ime) wi h hei child en in esea ch abou hose child en. The e was a consensus
among bo h g oups o he alue o including non- esiden pa en s in esea ch, wi h
in e iewees highligh ing he ac i e in ol emen o a he s in hei child en’s li es
and he consequen impac on child de elopmen . In e iewees indica ed some
po en ial o in o ma ion on he a he -child ela ionship o be collec ed om
esiden mo he s bu cau ioned ha his migh p o ide a pa ial o po en ially
68 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
comp ehensi e pic u e o he ange o in luences on child en’s li es, including he
ole o a he s no cu en ly li ing wi h hem. This pe spec i e has been e lec ed
in he inclusion o non- esiden a he s in almos all wa es o GUI o da e. The s udy
indings poin o a numbe o g ounds o hei inclusion in u u e wa es o da a
collec ion. Fi s , a signi ican p opo ion o child en – a ound one-in-six – do no
li e wi h hei a he ull- ime so no including hei a he gi es only a pa ial
pic u e o hei li es. Second, a ound hal o hese a he s ha e e y equen
con ac wi h hei child en, especially when he child is younge , and hus can be
conside ed as a key in luence on hei de elopmen . Thi d, child en hemsel es
alue his ela ionship, wi h o e hal o 9-yea -olds saying hey ge on e y well
wi h hei non- esiden a he . Fou h, pa en s do no necessa ily sha e he same
pe cep ion o he a he ’s in ol emen in he child’s li e so cap u ing bo h
pe spec i es is impo an . Fi h, amilies wi h a non- esiden a he a e mo e socio-
economically disad an aged in p o ile han o he amilies. Unde s anding he
esou ces – inancial (di ec and in-kind), social and emo ional – p o ided by non-
esiden a he s is he e o e c ucial in unde s anding child po e y and de eloping
policy o ackle i .
Howe e , he s udy indings do poin o challenges in in ol ing non- esiden
a he s in child coho s udies. Response a es o non- esiden a he s in GUI ha e
been on a pa wi h se e al in e na ional s udies bu lowe han o he s. A key
challenge is accessing non- esiden a he s. GUI, like almos all o he s udies, elies
on con ac ia he esiden mo he , esul ing in a mo e selec i e g oup o a he s
who ecei e any con ac om he esea ch eam. Non-con ac and non- esponse
mean ha hose who comple e he su ey a e e en mo e selec i e in p o ile, o e -
ep esen ing hose in equen con ac wi h he child and wi h a good ela ionship
wi h he mo he . Di ec con ac wi h he non- esiden a he , h ough bi h
egis a ion da a, does no necessa ily esul in high esponse a es. None heless,
his a enue is wo h explo ing in he I ish con ex ; he e is nea -uni e sal co e age
o all a he s and di ec con ac may se e as an impo an signal o he cen ali y
o a he s o hei child en’s li es. A he same ime, he issue o con ac ing a non-
esiden a he wi hou he mo he ’s pe mission mus be handled wi h ca e, wi h
a ge ed messaging o bo h pa ies abou he impo ance o including a he s.
Based on he expe ience o in e na ional s udies and quali a i e in e iews he e
and elsewhe e, he scoping s udy indings poin o ways o po en ially enhancing
su ey pa icipa ion among his g oup o a he s. These include: s ong messaging
o he esiden mo he as o why a he s a e being included in he s udy; s ong
and ailo ed messaging o all a he s – including hose no li ing wi h hei child en
– as o hei cen ali y in hei child en’s li es, an app oach ha could also help
pa icipa ion by esiden a he s; limi ing he scope o non- esiden a he s ha

Conclusions and implica ions o he u u e | 69
ha e a leas some con ac wi h hei child (on he basis o mo he epo s);28 using
in e iewe s as he i s poin o con ac and ollow-up, a he han elying on
pos al o online ques ionnai es; and demons a ion o he alue o he in o ma ion
collec ed h ough eedback o pa icipan s and he wide public. Demons a ion o
he alue o his in o ma ion depends on a chi ing hese da a o use by
esea che s and s akeholde s; po en ially guidelines on he use o hese da a, gi en
lowe esponse a es, would be help ul o da a use s. While conside a ion should
be gi en o cap u ing he speci ici ies o pa en ing a angemen s in sepa a ed
amilies, ocusing mo e posi i ely on hei ole as a a he may enhance he
expe ience o pa icipa ion. Valuable in o ma ion on he child’s con ac wi h he
non- esiden a he has been, and should con inue o be, collec ed om he
esiden mo he . Howe e , o he esea ch has indica ed ha he quali y o he
in o ma ion ga he ed could be u he enhanced, gi en some ambigui y in he
in e p e a ion o some ques ions, especially a ound he amoun o ime he child
spen wi h hei a he (see Goldman e al., 2019).
28 The e a e disc epancies be ween mo he and a he epo s o con ac bu hese gene ally ela e o le el o con ac
among hose who ha e any. No including a he s wi h no con ac wha soe e helps add ess e hical and p ac ical
challenges abou con ac ing hem o su ey pu poses.
70 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
REFERENCES
Adamsons, K. and Johnson, S.K. (2013). ‘An upda ed and expanded me a-analysis o
non esiden a he ing and child well-being’, Jou nal o Family Psychology, 27(4),
589-599.
Al enbu ge , L.E. (2022). ‘Residen and Non- esiden Fa he In ol emen , Copa en ing,
and he De elopmen o Child en’s Sel -Regula ion Among Families Facing
Economic Ha dship’, F on . Psychol., 21 Feb ua y 2022Sec. Gende , Sex and
Sexuali ies Vol. 13 – 2022 | h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ psyg.2022.785376.
Bax e , J. (2015). Di e si y, complexi y and change in child en’s households. LSAC Annual
S a is ical Repo .
Bax e , J., Edwa ds, B. and Magui e, B. (2012). New a he igu es and a he s who li e
elsewhe e. Occasional Pape No. 42. Aus alian Ins i u e o Family S udies.
Be gneh , D. and Wahls öm Hen iksson, H. (2023). ‘Single pa en hood, he non-
esiden ial pa en and co-pa en ing in Swedish daily news’, Feminis Media
S udies, 23:4, 1559-1574, DOI: 10.1080/14680777.2022.2033295.
B adshaw, P., B omley, C., Hill, T., Mabelis, J., Pa kes, A., Smi h, K., Swee ing, H., Wa ne ,
P. and Wigh , D. (2013). G owing up in Sco land Bi h Coho 2: esul s om he
i s yea . h ps://de a.ioe.ac.uk/17356/7/00414641_Redac ed.pd .
B yson, C. and McKay, S. (2012). Non- esiden pa en s: Why a e hey ha d o cap u e in
su eys and wha can we do abou i ? Discussion Pape CASE/210. London School
o Economics.
B yson, C. and McKay, S. (2018). Non- esiden pa en s: Why a e hey ha d o cap u e in
su eys and wha can we do abou i ?. London: LSE.
Bu gess, A. and Goldman, R. (2022). ‘B inging Baby Home: UK a he s in he i s yea a e
he bi h’ ( ull epo ), Con empo a y Fa he s in he UK se ies. London:
Fa he hood Ins i u e
Choi, J.-K. and Jackson, A.P. (2012). ‘Non esiden a he s’ pa en ing, ma e nal mas e y
and child de elopmen in poo A ican Ame ican single-mo he amilies’, Race
and Social P oblems, 4(2), 102-111. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s12552-012-9070-x.
Cla ke, A. and Mui , K. (2017). Non- esiden pa en s and sha ed housing. Camb idge
Cen e o Housing and Planning Resea ch.
Coa es, E.E. and Pha es, V. (2019). ‘Pa hways Linking Non- esiden Fa he In ol emen
and Child Ou comes’, Jou nal o Child and Family S udies (2019) 28:1681-
1694h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10826-019-01389-6.
Coley, R.L. and Mo is, J.E. (2002). ‘Compa ing a he and mo he epo s o a he
in ol emen among low-income mino i y amilies’, Jou nal o Ma iage and
Family, 64(4), 982-997.
Culpin, I., Heu elman, H., Rai, D., Pea son, R.M., Joinson, C., He on, J., E ans, J. and
Kwong, A.S.F. (2022). ‘Fa he absence and ajec o ies o o sp ing men al heal h
ac oss adolescence and young adul hood: Findings om a UK-bi h coho ’,
Jou nal o A ec i e Diso de s, 314, 150-159.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jad.2022.07.01.
Re e ences | 71
De mo , E. (2016). ‘Non- esiden a he s in he UK: li ing s anda ds and social suppo ’,
Jou nal o Po e y and Social Jus ice, 24(2), 113-125.
Emmo , E.H. and Mace, R. (2021). ‘Why he son-bias in ca egi ing? Tes ing sex-
di e ences in he associa ions be ween pa e nal ca egi ing and child ou comes
in England’, Jou nal o amily issues, 42(6), 1354-1383.
Fagan, J. (2024). ‘Child en’s con ac wi h a he s who ne e co- esided wi h hem and
a he –child ela ionship quali y a age 9’, Jou nal o Family Issues, 45(11), 2802-
2821.
Fahey, T., Keil hy, P. and Polek, E. (2012). A s udy o he amilies o nine yea -olds in
I eland: Family ela ionships and amily well-being. Dublin: Uni e si y College
Dublin and he Family Suppo Agency.
Goldman, R., B adshaw, P. and Bu gess, A. (2021). ‘A disagg ega ed app oach o
ec ui ing Own Household Fa he s in coho s udies’, Social Resea ch P ac ice.
Issue 11 Summe 2021.
Goldman, R., B adshaw, P., Bu gess, A. and Vosnaki, K. (2019). ‘Rec ui men and e en ion
o bi h a he s in spli -o households. Me hodological conside a ions o coho
and longi udinal s udies’. Wo king pape p epa ed o ESRC.
Goldman, R. and Bu gess, A. (2018). Whe e’s he Daddy?: Fa he s and Fa he - igu es in
UK Da ase s. Fa he hood Ins i u e.
Hannan, C. and Halpin, B. (2014). ‘The in luence o amily s uc u e on child ou comes:
E idence o I eland’, The Economic and Social Re iew, 45(1, Sp ing), 1-24.
Haux, T. and Reichl Lu h a, R. (2019). Wha is sha ed ca e?. Essex: ISER.
Inskip, H.M., God ey, K.M., Robinson, S.M., Law, C.M., Ba ke , D.J. and Coope , C. (2006).
‘Coho p o ile: he Sou hamp on women’s su ey’, In e na ional jou nal o
epidemiology, 35(1), 42-48.
IPSOS (2023). Child en o he 2020s Wa e 1: Technical Repo . London: Depa men o
Educa ion.
Kie nan, K. (2016). Fa he s and pa ne s in li e s udy: g oundwo k, ou comes and lessons.
A ailable a :
h ps://www.yo k.ac.uk/media/spsw/KKFa he s%20and%20Pa ne s%20in%20L
S%20Repo %20 o%20NF%2020816%20(1).pd .
King V. and Sobolewski J.M. (2006). ‘Non esiden Fa he s’ Con ibu ions o Adolescen
Well-Being’, J Ma iage Fam. Aug; 68(3):537-557. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2006.00274.x.
King, V. and Hea d, H. (1999). ‘Non esiden a he isi a ion, pa en al con lic , and
mo he ’s sa is ac ion: wha ’s bes o child well-being?’, Jou nal o Ma iage and
he Family, 61(2), 385-396.
Ki e ød, R.H. and Lyngs ad, J. (2013). Compa ing mo he s’ and a he s’ epo s on he
non- esiden a he ’s con ac wi h his child en. Oslo: S a is ics No way.
Lade , D. (2008). Non- esiden pa en al con ac , London: ONS.
Manlo e, J., Ryan, S., Wildsmi h, E. and F anze a, K. (2010). ‘The ela ionship con ex o
nonma i al childbea ing in he US’, Demog aphic Resea ch, 23, 615.
72 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
Ma ya , L., Reid, S. and Waso , F. (2009). G owing Up in Sco land: Yea 3-Non- esiden
Pa en s. Edinbu gh: The Sco ish Go e nmen .
McIn osh, J., Smy h, B. and Kelahe , M. (2011). ‘P1-237 Pos -sepa a ion pa en ing
a angemen s: pa e ns and de elopmen al ou comes’, Jou nal o Epidemiology
& Communi y Heal h, 65(Suppl 1), A132-A132.
McIn osh, J.E., Smy h, B.M. and Kelahe , M. (2013). ‘O e nigh ca e pa e ns ollowing
pa en al sepa a ion: Associa ions wi h emo ion egula ion in in an s and young
child en’, Jou nal o Family S udies, 19(3), 224-239.
McMunn, A., Ma in, P., Kelly, Y. and Sacke , A. (2017). ‘Fa he s’ in ol emen : Co ela es
and consequences o child socioemo ional beha io in he Uni ed Kingdom’,
Jou nal o Family Issues, 38(8), 1109-1131.
McNama a, E., O’Mahony, D. and Mu ay, A. (2020). Design, Ins umen a ion and
P ocedu es o Coho ’08 o G owing Up in I eland a 9 Yea s Old (Wa e 5).
Dublin: ESRI/ TCD/ DCYA.
Menning, C.L. (2006). ‘Non- esiden a he ing and school ailu e’, Jou nal o Family Issues,
27, 1356-1382.
Mohal, J., Lansangan, C., Gasse , C., Howell, L., Hockey, P., Du y, J., Renda, J., Sco elle,
A., Jessup, K., Da agano a, G. and Mundy, L. (2023). G owing Up in Aus alia: The
Longi udinal S udy o Aus alian Child en – Da a Use Guide, Release 9.1C2, Ap il
2023. Melbou ne: Aus alian Ins i u e o Family S udies.
Nepomnyaschy, L. and Ga inkel, I. (2007). ‘Child suppo , a he hood, and ma iage:
Findings om he i s 5 yea s o he agile amilies and child wellbeing s udy’,
Asian Social Wo k and Policy Re iew, 1(1), 1-20.
Nepomnyaschy, L. and Ga inkel, I. (2011). ‘Fa he s’ in ol emen wi h hei non esiden
child en and ma e ial ha dship’, Social Se ice Re iew, 85(1), 3-38.
Nepomnyaschy, L., Thomas, M., Ha alampoudis, A. and Jin, H. (2022). ‘Non esiden
a he s and he economic p eca i y o hei child en’, The Annals o he Ame ican
Academy o Poli ical and Social Science, 702(1), 78-96.
Nixon, E., G eene, S. and Hogan, D. (2012). ‘Like an uncle bu mo e, bu less han a a he :
I ish child en’s ela ionships wi h non- esiden a he s’, Jou nal o Family
Psychology, 26(3), 381-390.
NRFC (2008). ‘Non- esiden a he s and child de elopmen ’, Resea ch Re iew. US
Depa men o Heal h and Human Se ices.
Paulson, J.F., Daube , S.E. and Lei e man, J.A. (2011). ‘Pa en al dep ession, ela ionship
quali y, and non esiden a he in ol emen wi h hei in an s’, Jou nal o Family
Issues, 32(4), 528-549.
Pea son, H. (2016). The Li e P ojec : The Ex ao dina y S o y o ou O dina y Li es.
London: Penguin.
Poole, E., Speigh , S., O’B ien, M., Connolly, S. and Ald ich, M. (2016). ‘Who a e non-
esiden a he s?: A B i ish socio-demog aphic p o ile’, Jnl Soc. Pol. (2016), 45, 2,
223-250. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess 2015 doi:10.1017/S0047279415000653.
Re e ences | 73
Poole, E., Speigh , S., O’B ien, M., Connolly, S. and Ald ich, M. (2024). ‘Wha do we know
abou non- esiden a he s?’. B ie ing pape . A ailable a :
h ps://na cen.ac.uk/si es/de aul / iles/2024-02/B ie ing-pape -Non- esiden -
a he s.pd .
Qu, L. and Wes on, R. (2015). ‘Child en’s iews abou pa en al sepa a ion’, Annual
s a is ical epo 2014, 13.
Qu, L. and Wes on, R. (2014). ‘Fa he s’ in ol emen in he li es o hei child en’, Annual
s a is ical epo 2013, 151.
Raybould, A., Calde wood, L., Hollings, P., Goldman, R. and Bu gess, A. (2023). ‘Engaging
“less-o en-hea d” g oups in bi h coho s udies: quali a i e insigh s om own-
household a he s and low-income amilies’, Social Resea ch P ac ice, 13.
Ree e, K. and Benze al, M. (2024). ‘Imp o ing ques ionnai e con en o pa en s and
amilies li ing apa ’, Unde s anding Socie y Wo king Pape 2024-03, Colches e :
Uni e si y o Essex.
Rendall, M., Cla ke, L., Pe e s, E., Ranji , N. and Ve opoulou, G. (1999). ‘Incomple e
Repo ing o Men’s Fe ili y in he Uni ed S a es and B i ain: A Resea ch No e’,
Demog aphy, Vol. 36, No. 1 pp. 135-144.
Rus en, N.F., Pe e son, E.R., Unde wood, L., Ve bies , M.E., Waldie, K.E., Be y, S., ... and
Mo on, S.M. (2019). ‘Psychological dis ess among esiden and non esiden
a he s: Findings om New Zealand’s Who A e Today’s Dads? P ojec ’, Jou nal o
Family Issues, 40(3), 293-314.
Sa iscsany, L., Ga inkel, I. and Nepomnyaschy, L. (2019). ‘Desc ibing and unde s anding
child suppo ajec o ies’, Social Se ice Re iew, 93(2), 143-182.
Schoppe-Sulli an, S.J. and Fagan, J. (2020). ‘The e olu ion o a he ing esea ch in he 21s
cen u y: Pe sis en challenges, new di ec ions’, Jou nal o Ma iage and Family,
82(1), 175-197. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/jom .12645.
Sco ish Go e nmen (2009). G owing up in Sco land. Sweep 3 Non- esiden Pa en
Repo .
Smy h, E. and Russell, H. (2021). Fa he s and child en om in ancy o middle childhood.
Dublin: ESRI.
S ykes, J.B., Manning, W.D. and B own, S.L. (2013). ‘Non esiden Fa he s and Fo mal Child
Suppo : E idence om he CPS, NSFG, and SIPP’, Demog aphic Resea ch, 29: 46,
1299-1330.
Sulak, T.N., Ba na d-B ak, L. and F ede ick, K. (2012). ‘The ela ionship be ween a he
esidency and a child’s ADHD symp oms’, Ea ly child de elopmen and Ca e,
182(1), 59-69.
Ves e gaa d, A., O’Shea, J., Ga cia, J., Ga dne , C. and De mody, A. (2023). ‘Es ablishing
Meaning ul Rela ionships be ween Child en and Fa he s who Do No Li e
Toge he : Challenges and Solu ions’, T eoi /Quali y Ma e s, Dublin.
Violi, D., Kwok, C., Lewis, P. and Wilson, N.J. (2022). ‘Non- esiden Fa he s’ Voice:
Ma ginalized, Disempowe ed, and Silenced’, Ame ican Jou nal o Men’s Heal h
July-Augus 1–6. DOI: 10.1177/15579883221115594.

74 | Including non- esiden a he s in coho esea ch: a scoping s udy
Violi, D., Lewis, P., Kwok, C. and Wilson, N.J. (2023). ‘Becoming a non- esiden a he :
Ma ginalised h ough dis ess, disad an age and disempowe men ’, Heal h
P omo ion Jou nal o Aus alia, DOI: 10.1002/hpja.810.
Violi, D., Lewis, P., Kwok, C. and Wilson, N.J. (2024). ‘Aus alian Non-Residen Fa he s’
Rela ionship and Ongoing Engagemen wi h Thei Child en: A C i ical Focus on
Powe ’, Social Sciences 13: 478. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/socsci13090478.
Why e, D. (2017). ‘Non- esiden Fa he s: A Li e a u e Re iew o Fac o s In luencing hei
Wo ld’, Jou nal o Social Ca e. 1(5). doi:10.21427/D7XH95. A ailable a :
h ps://a ow. udublin.ie/jsoc/ ol1/iss1/5.
Wild eue , R. and Fagan, J. (2022). ‘Longi udinal associa ions among low-income a he s’
esilience and non esidence du ing ea ly childhood and in ol emen du ing
adolescence’, Ad e si y and Resilience Science, 3(1), 99-112.
Economic & Social Resea ch
Ins i u e
Whi ake Squa e
Si John Roge son’s Quay
Dublin 2
Telephone: +353 1 863 2000
Email: [email p o ec ed]
Web: www.es i.ie
' & *
An Ins i iúid um Thaighde
Eacnamaíoch a agus Sóisial a
Cea nóg Whi ake
Cé Si John Roge son
Baile Á ha Clia h 2
Teilea ón: +353 1 863 2000
Ríomhphos : [email p o ec ed]
Suíomh G éasáin: www.es i.ie