Alyanna Tennant Drgrist Psy 3531 June 2023 Group Poster Proj

Alyanna Tennantdrgristpsy 3531june 202362 Group Poster Project D

Alyanna Tennant Dr.Grist PSY 3531 June .2 Group Poster Project: Discussion and Conclusion Steinbach, A., & Augustijn, L. (2022). Children’s well-being in sole and joint physical custody families. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(2), 301–311. According to Children’s Well-Being in Sole and Joint Physical Custody Families, kids who have separated parents participating in joint physical custody (JPC) tend to divide their time equally between the mother and father to have time to spend with both. Ideally, the results for kids in sole physical custody (SPC) showed that most of the time, children only live with their mothers. Unfortunately, the JPC arrangement does not indicate healthy well-being for the children and needs more attention from the social scientists at work (Steinbach et al., 2022). A survey titled; Family Models in Germany (FAMOD) involved 1,161 cases of children aged 2-14 in JPC and SPC household families, which measured children's psychological, physical, social, and cognitive/educational state of being. The results leaned toward children who lived in SPC family arrangements in all four dimensions (Steinbach et al., 2022). Although children living under the SPC families scored higher than those living in JP arrangements, kids with parents who are still married and live together benefit the most in all four measurements (Steinbach et al., 2022). Families who abide by the SPC arrangements could cause potential stress to the children due to constant movement of house. However, the data is minimal and needs more attention. Steinbach, A. (2023). Coparenting as a mediator between physical custody arrangements and children’s mental health. Family Process. What are the results, and what do they mean? According to Co-Parenting as a Mediator between Physical Custody Arrangements and Children's Mental Health, intending to support child and family outcomes, this study focused on the relationship with the non-residential parent, suggesting the father. One of the parents not participating in the children's day-to-day lives negatively triggers the kid's support regarding financial, emotional, and social resources (Steinbach et al., 2023). Children need attention and emotional help regarding the minimal problems they might face throughout their day. Usually, without much knowledge, kids could cause more problems if they continue forward with the decisions they've concluded by themselves. Interestingly, the study suggests that the contact between the two parents does not necessarily damage children's maladjustment risk; instead, the quality of the relationships children attain from both parents (Steinbach et al., 2023). Children desire to understand and grow in ways that they study their parent's living occurring too. A positive co-parenting relationship could require a lot of time and agreement. Co-Parenting is a conceptual term that refers to how parents and parental figures relate to each other in the role of parent" (Steinbach et al., 2023). Importantly, children require love and protection which is needed daily from both parents. Elam, K. K., Sandler, I., Wolchik, S., & Tein, J.-Y. (2016). Non-Residential Father–Child Involvement, Interparental Conflict and Mental Health of Children Following Divorce: A Person-Focused Approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence: A Multidisciplinary Research Publication, 45(3), 581–593. According to Non-Residential Father–Child Involvement, Interparental Conflict and Mental Health of Children Following Divorce, a study was conducted to aim for the well-being of children living in between separation of their guardians. The researchers had used a person-centered latent profile analysis, to view interparental conflict, support and contact between the child and father. The factors of the study included the time fathers spend with their kids, the activities or other engagements revolving around father-child relationships, and the quality of mothers parenting. Unfortunately, the results found greater internalising and externalising issues among fathers who were involved in high conflict (Elam et al 2016). Sadly, these developed problems could continue to affect young people until they reach mid-adulthood. The study stresses considerable evidence of children's well-being relating to the father's contact and support following the divorce or separation of parents (Elam et al., 2016). Minors strive unconsciously to have relationships with their parents in ways of support. From birth, the child needs the mother to feed it using the breast of the other person, which requires a relationship.

Paper For Above instruction

The examined body of research on children’s well-being in different family custody arrangements underscores significant implications for family law, social policy, and psychological intervention. The evidence collectively suggests that children generally fare better socially, physically, and psychologically when in sole physical custody (SPC) arrangements with stable environments, compared to joint physical custody (JPC) setups, which often involve frequent house moves that may induce stress.

Steinbach and Augustijn’s (2022) study reveals that children in SPC arrangements typically demonstrate higher scores across psychological, physical, social, and educational domains. Despite the intuitive appeal of joint custody, its potential downsides, such as instability and routine disruption, warrant further scrutiny. Notably, children benefit most in family environments when parents are married and cohabiting, signifying that relational stability is a crucial factor for child well-being. These insights imply that custody decisions should consider not only the legal and logistical dimensions but also psychological stability and routine consistency to optimize child development outcomes.

Furthermore, the importance of high-quality parent-child relationships is emphasized in Steinbach’s (2023) work. The quality of co-parenting relationships, especially the support from both parents—regardless of physical custody arrangements—correlates strongly with children’s mental health. The study argues that active, positive engagement by both parents, particularly non-residential parents like fathers, plays a crucial role in children’s emotional well-being. This aligns with broader research indicating that children’s support networks and ongoing emotional bonds are vital for their mental health, more so than physical proximity alone (Ahrons, 2004).

The critical role of father involvement is further illustrated in Elam et al. (2016), where high-conflict father-child relationships following divorce are associated with increased internalizing and externalizing problems. These findings underscore that quality of contact and supportive engagement are potent mediators in children’s post-divorce mental health trajectories. It is not merely paternal presence but the nature of that involvement that determines the developmental outcomes. Children exposed to conflict-ridden relationships tend to exhibit behavioral and emotional challenges extending into adolescence and adulthood, thus highlighting the importance of conflict resolution and supportive parenting.

From a practical perspective, these findings suggest that legal and therapeutic interventions should prioritize fostering healthy co-parenting relationships and providing support to non-residential parents to reduce conflict and promote constructive engagement. Family courts might consider emphasizing not just custodial arrangements but also the quality of parental cooperation as essential criteria. As research increasingly emphasizes emotional stability and relational quality over mere physical arrangements, policymakers can develop programs aimed at parental conflict reduction, co-parenting education, and parenting support services.

In conclusion, while custody arrangements directly influence children’s daily routines, the overarching determinant of their well-being appears to be the quality of the parent-child relationship and the support system maintained by both parents. Stability, emotional support, and non-conflictual co-parenting are vital for fostering resilient, well-adjusted children. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies to better understand causal pathways and intervention effectiveness in promoting optimal family environments. Strategic emphasis on emotional health and constructive parental engagement represents a crucial advancement for enhancing children’s developmental outcomes post-divorce or separation.

References

Ahrons, C. R. (2004). We’re still family: What divorced parents say about contact, co-parenting, and remarriage. Harper Collins.

Elam, K. K., Sandler, I., Wolchik, S., & Tein, J.-Y. (2016). Non-Residential Father–Child Involvement, Interparental Conflict and Mental Health of Children Following Divorce: A Person-Focused Approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(3), 581–593.

Steinbach, A., & Augustijn, L. (2022). Children’s well-being in sole and joint physical custody families. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(2), 301–311.

Steinbach, A. (2023). Coparenting as a mediator between physical custody arrangements and children’s mental health. Family Process.

Kelly, J. B. (2012). Risk and protective factors influencing child and adolescent adjustment following family transition. The Future of Children, 22(1), 115-138.

King, V., & Sobolewski, J. M. (2010). Nonresident Fathers' Contributions to Adolescent Well-Being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(2), 382-395.

Lamb, M. E. (2010). The Role of the Father in Child Development. John Wiley & Sons.

Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on Divorce: Continuing Trends and New Developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 650-666.

Kelly, J. B., & Emery, R. E. (2003). Children’s Adjustment Following Divorce: Risk and Resilience. Family Relations, 52(4), 352-362.

Parsons, T., & Bales, R. (1955). Family, Socialization, and Interaction Process. Free Press.