EXAMINING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CHILD ACCESS AND CHILD SUPPORT

EXAMINING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CHILD ACCESS AND CHILD SUPPORT

Jessica Pearson and Jean Anhalt

This article exornines the connection between fathers’ access to children and their maintaining chiM support. Also examined are various appmaches to obtaining compliance with support orders. The effect of various factors on payment of support, such as frequency of contact, remarriage, and the length of time since the separation, is analyzed.

Whereas there is little disagreement that access and child support payment following separation and divorce are serious problems for many families, there is little agreement about the causes of these phenomena and their relationship to one another. National probability samples find that approxi- mately one third (Seltzer, 1991) to one half (Furstenberg, 1988) of children living apart from one parent had no direct contact with their nonresidential parents in the previous year; on average, only about a sixth saw their fathers as often as once a week. In the child support arena, national reports indicate that 41% of custodial parents had no child support award at all, and that among those with awards, half received full payment in the preceding year, a quarter received some, and a quarter received none. Combining those who had no award with those who received no payments leads to the conclusion that only 47% of eligible children and mothers received at least some support (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990).

Advocacy groups for fathers contend that the root of the noncontact problem is interference by the residential parent and that millions of children suffer from denied visitation because mothers are unsupportive of access, uncooperative in arranging visits, inflexible in altering visitation schedules, and discourage children fiom visiting (National Council for Children’s Rights, 1991). Other researchers find, however, that most residential parents want fathers to play a larger role in the children’s upbringing (Furstenberg, 1988) and that residential parents commonly complain about missed or late visits and constant changes in the visitation schedule. Another factor that

Authors’ Note: This article was developed under a grant fmm the State Justice Institute (SJI-89-llM-E-021). Points of view expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the oficialposition or policies of the State Justice Institute. For additionaI information, contact the Center for Policy Research, I720 Emerson Street, Denver: CO 80218.

FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS REVIEW, Vol. 32 NO. 1, January 1994 93-109 0 1994 Sage Publications, Inc.

93

94 FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS REVIEW

features heavily in the controversy about noncontact and its causes is concern about the child’s safety and well-being during visitation. Many studies have found that safety concerns feature prominently in disputes about visitation, suggesting that visitation is not “being denied vengefully, but rather because of potential harm to the child the [residential parent] perceives in allowing scheduled visitation” (Fenaughty, Wolchik, & Braver, 1991, p. 12).

With the exception of a few studies finding no relationship (Berkman, 1986; Weitzman, 1985), most studies also find apositive correlation between visitation and support performance. For example, more than a decade ago, in one of his Michigan county samples, Chambers (1979) found that fathers who had little or no contact with their children after the divorce paid only about 34% of their child support, whereas fathers in regular contact paid 85%. In her analysis of a national probability sample of adults in the United States in 1987-1988, Seltzer (1991) reported that about two thirds of those with frequent contact pay child support as compared with one fifth with no contact.

What is less clear is the manner in which payment and contact are related. One possibility is through the influence of one or more independent variables. Several variables have been proposed as predictors. For example, paternal attachment has been suggested as a predictor of both support and contact. As one author speculates,

paying support, visiting, and discussing the children may all be components of a father role. Fathers who do one of the activities are likely to do all of them as a part of fulfilling a general set of parental responsibilities or as a way to demonstrate commitment to their children. (Seltzer, 1991, p. 94)

On the other hand, a number of empirical studies indicate that the predivorce nature of the parent-child relationship does not track with the postdivorce relationship. Highly involved fathers may become the most disengaged following divorce to minimize the pain of separation (Lund, 1987) because visiting relationships are so inadequate relative to physical custody (Kruk, 1992). Furstenberg and Cherlin (1991) also find little connection between pre- and postdivorce support and access patterns. Based on their findings of diminished contact and child support payment behavior over time, Furstenberg and Cherlin argue that many fathers view marriage as a “package deal.” As a result, breaking ties between the parents results in broken ties with a child. From this perspective, fathers move on to support their children from a new relationship or the children the new partner brings with her rather than maintaining strong financial ties and contact with the biological children that resulted from a failed spousal relationship.

The quality of the relationship between the parents is another frequently suggested variable predictive of contact and payment (Braver, Wolchik,

Pearson, Anhalt I CHILD ACCESS/SUPPORT 95

Sandler, Fogas, & Zvetina, 1991; Pearson &Thoennes, 1985; Weiss & Willis, 1985). These studies have suggested that contact and payment vary jointly because a generally positive relationship between the parents encourages both the payment of support and visitation. Thus Furstenberg (1988) notes that parents who are determined to subordinate their differences to the best interests of the child are those who develop workable visitation and child support plans. Access patterns have been shown to track with the amount of conflict in the marriage (Koch & Lowery, 1984; Kurdek, 1988).

The remarriage of one or both of the parents may also help to explain variation in the amount of payment and in the amount of contact. Following remarriage, residential parents rely on their new partners for child care that was previously provided by the other parent. As a result, some of the time that children formerly spent with fathers is subsequently spent with stepfa- thers (Seltzer & Bianchi, 1988). Remarriage may also affect child support payment behavior. Based on interviews with a convenience sample of 101 divorced men in the Orlando, Florida area, Tropf (1984) concluded that father-child visitation declined following the remarriage of either parent and that voluntary support declined following the remarriage of the residential parent. Over half of the fathers in the study felt that the stepfather should assume a greater responsibility for the children. In a similar vein, several researchers have found that when the nonresidential parent remarries the increased demands on his time and money may lead to decreases in both child support and visitation (Hetherington & Camara, 1984; Seltzer, 199 1; Wallerstein & Huntington, 1983).

The effect of remarriage, however, is not consistent across all studies. Contrary to findings of reduced contact due to remarriage, other studies find that stepparents are able to avert or diffuse negative patterns of behaviors between parents (Atwell, Moore, & Nowell, 1982). As Furstenberg (1988) concludes,

while remarriage may sometimes aggravate relations between a formerly married couple, in other instances it helps couples who have continued to experience tensions to set them aside and make peace with one another.

Finally, independent of remarriage, the length of time since the separation appears to be inversely related to both the amount of parent-child access and support payment. The longer that children and fathers live apart, the less contact they have (Furstenberg & Nord, 1985; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1982; Seltzer & Bianchi, 1988) and the greater the likelihood that child support will become delinquent (Seltzer, 1991). With the passage of time, both access and child support taper off (Pearson, Anhalt, & Thoennes, 1991).

(P. 300)


Adding to the confusion and the difficulty in unraveling causeeffect relationships is the fact that problems with both access and support typically develop very quickly following parental separation. For example, one study of divorce cases found that visitation denial and nonpayment problems had both set in by the time the frrst research assessment took place (Pearson & Thoennes, 1988), and it was consequently impossible to assess their causal order.

This article reexamines the relationship between child support and access problems with a population that used novel court programs to help them exercise visitation rights. In recent years, in response to criticism that the aggressive enforcement of child support was not matched by attention to visitation enforcement, several courts have developed programs to address the problems of visitation denial and assist parents who have persistent child access problems following separation and divorce. By focusing on the population served in these programs, we were able to obtain a reading on the salience of child support for those with visitation problems that come to the attention of formal court-based programs and the extent to which the two problems co-occurred.

METHOD

Following a national survey, we selected five visitation enforcement programs for intensive analysis: the Visitation Intake Program in Wayne County, Michigan; Expedited Visitation Services of Maricopa County, Ari- zona; the Support and Visitation Enforcement Program of Lee County, Florida; Court Services of Wyandotte County, Kansas; and the Pre- Contemptors/Contemptors Group offered in the Los Angeles District Court. Each program addresses access problems in a unique way.

The Visitation Intake Program in Wayne County, Michigan, was established in 1987 by the Counseling and Mediation Division of the Friend of the Court following passage of a law requiring the agency to enforce visitation orders. Custodial and noncustodial parents with a court order may file a pro se complaint alleging visitation denial. Upon filing, program personnel investigate the matter and attempt to resolve the problem in a variety of ways, including telephone and personal conferences, mediation interventions, referrals for counseling and other services, civil contempt procedures, and show cause hearings.

Expedited Visitation Services of Maricopa County (formerly known as the Judicial Supervision Program) is a court-based program established in 1988 to comply with an Arizona statute requiring expedited visitation enforcement

Pearson, Anhalt / CHILD ACCESS/SUPPORT 97

procedures. Following a parental (or court initiated) request to enforce the terms of a custody or visitation order, program staff notify the other parent and schedule a conference where an attempt is made to resolve the problem. Officers may also evaluate the situation and make a recommendation to the court, which usually involves monitoring by program personnel for 6 months. The monitoring process typically involves telephone calls with each parent following scheduled visitation episodes. Parents may also be ordered to obtain services for supervised visitation and supervised exchanges, counseling, and random urine analysis.

The Support and Visitation Enforcement Program of Lee County, Florida was created in 1986 to enable parents with visitation and/or child support disputes to participate in mediation interventions, pretrial conferences, and judicial hearings designed to identify and remedy both problems in the same intervention. Parents requesting services are seen by a program mediator and/or court attorney who conducts a brief pretrial conference. In the event of failure to reach an agreement by the parties themselves, the clerk’s attorney presents the case to a judge who also reviews all private agreements by the parties. The program is accessed by complaining parents themselves.

Court Services in Wyandotte County, Kansas consists of a mandated parent education program for divorcing parents with minor-aged children and case management services for couples who have continuing problems with visitation. Initiated in 1988, case management was designed to deal with “petty grievances” and to head off more serious parenting and communication blocks. It may include telephone contact with one or both parents, in-person meetings, and recommendations to the court. The process may also lead to referrals for various services, including mental health treatment and supervised visitation. All program participants are referred by the judiciary and tend to consist of parents who have private attorneys rather than those involved with pro se proceedings.

The Pre-ContemptorsIContemptors Group was created in 1988 by medi- ators at the Family Mediation and Counseling Service of the Los Angeles District Court. It is a mandated educational program for those who are found in contempt of custody/visitation orders, are about to be found in contempt, or are engaging in behavior that produces continuing litigation due to noncompliance with previous court orders. The 12 hours of classes for groups of parents who fall into this category provide information about the law concerning custody and visitation, the effects of parental conflict and litigation behavior on children, the developmental needs of children, and tech- niques to improve communication and develop problem-solving skills. All program participants are referred by the judiciary.


To assess the types of parents served by each program, the access problems they had, the types of interventions they received, and short- and longer-term outcomes and reactions to these interventions, we conducted a comprehen- sive evaluation of clients served in 1989 and 1990. We reviewed court and program files for 678 couples served in the five programs and administered telephone interviews to 394 of the 1,164 parents we were able to locate. In addition, all program sites were visited, interventions were observed, and interviews were conducted with staff, family law attorneys, judges, and court administrators.

The results of our evaluation, along with more detailed information on the programs themselves and the evaluation methodology, appear in the project final report (Pearson & Anhalt, 1992) and other publications (Pearson & Anhalt, 1993). In the remainder of this article we focus on the salience of child support issues for this population and the relationship between child access and child support problems. Most of the cases we describe involved what we term “usual” custody arrangements where children lived primarily with their mothers and the fathers were visiting parents and the ones expected to pay child support. A smaller number of cases had the opposite residential and visitation pattern. In the cases we term “unusual,” children lived primarily with their fathers and the mothers were the visiting parents and the ones expected to pay support.

FINDINGS

CHARACTERISTICS OF PROGRAM USERS

Visitation program users at all the sites shared a number of key demo- graphic and background characteristics. For usual custody cases, nearly all had been married for about 7 years and divorced for about 2.6 years. Fathers were more apt than mothers to have remarried or be in a marriagelike relationship. With the exception of Michigan, where the majority of users were Black, the programs served apopulation that was predominantly Anglo. At all sites, the client population reported modest wages and low levels of educational attainment. For example, the median gross monthly wage for mothers and fathers, respectively, was $922 and $1,320. Median household income levels were $26,785 and $32,754, respectively. With the exception of California mothers, only about one fifth of users at any site had graduated from college, and at least one third to one half had not gone beyond high school in their educational training.

Pearson, Anhalt I CHILD ACCESS/SUPPORT 99

Nearly all the cases at the project sites (77%-84%) involved some type of maternal residential custody arrangement; about 8%-18% of the cases had some type of paternal residential arrangement. The incidence of joint legal and residential custody was negligible at all sites but California where it occurred in 15% of the cases, although the child spent only half the time with each parent in about half of these cases.

Visitation orders were also fairly comparable across the sites. About a third to one half at each site were unspecified and merely stated that visitation would occur at reasonable levels, with the parties working out details on their own. The rest of the orders were specified, most of which called for traditional levels of contact not to exceed two weekends per month. About one fifth to one quarter of the orders at each site called for visitation exceeding two weekends per month and allowing the nonresidential parent to be with the child up to one third of the child’s time. Only a few orders at any site exceeded this level of contact and approached what could be termed shared custody.

PARENTAL CONFLICT AND PRIOR LITIGATION OVER CHILD SUPPORT

A feature common to most visitation enforcement cases was entrenched conflict about child support. Asked to report the incidence of fighting and disagreement over various aspects of the divorce order at the time of separation, a higher proportion of mothers reported conflict over support (46%) than visitation (33%). Another consistency across sites was the prevalence of arrearages. Given the traditional custody and visitation profile for program users, it follows that virtually all the cases (90%-99%) where the mother was the residential parent involved a child support order. Order levels ranged from $186 per child to $490 and accounted for about 22%-28% of obligor income. In Michigan and Florida, an arrearage was present in more than three quarters of the cases. In California, Kansas, and Arizona, the proportion of cases with arrearages was 39,49, and 56 percent, respectively. The average amount of back due support for project cases with an arrearage was fairly comparable across the four sites with available data, ranging from $2035 in Kansas to $4744 in Michigan (see Table 1).

There was also evidence of substantial litigation about child support. For example, in Arizona and Michigan, where comparable information was readily available, in one third of the cases child support was the subject of legal action in at least one of the two litigation episodes immediately prior to the visitation enforcement filing. Typically, this consisted of a contempt proceeding regarding child support, a motion to modify child support or an order to show cause regarding nonpayment of child support. This level of


Table 1 Child Support Orders and Payment Status

~ ~ ~~~

Arizona Michigan Florida Kansas California Cross-site

% Cases with order 90 96 99 95 84 93 Average amount

Total as 46 of

% Cases with

Average amount

% Wages withheld of

per child $309 $245 $230 $186 $490 $268

obligor income 21 28 27 24 22 24

arrearages 56 77 78 49 39 63

arrearage $3,387 $4,744 $2,160 $2,035 - $3,442

ordered cases 52 70 52 20 - 52 Number of cases 83-168 85-122 33-86 62-100 34-49 291-522

litigation concerning child support even exceeded prior litigation concerning visitation. For example, in 18% and 24% of the cases in Arizona and Michigan, respectively, visitation had been the subject of litigation in the two previous litigation episodes noted in the court files.

In Kansas, where more complete litigation histories were available, we were able to assess the incidence of support litigation prior to involvement with the visitation enforcement program over the whole life of the case rather than restricting it to the previous two actions. We found that the incidence of previous litigation over visitation and support was extremely high. Looking back to the time of first contact with the court system, 66% of cases referred for visitation enforcement had litigated child support and 78% had litigated visitation issues. Indeed, in Kansas cases, the median number of prior litigation episodes per case was 3.0, with the average a staggering 5.1 (see Table 2).

Still another indicator that child access problems may mask more basic problems with child support is the incidence of arrearages in cases with complaints of visitation denial and failure to exercise contact. Nearly all (88%) of the cases with vague complaints about noncontact had an arrearage. Cases with more specific types of complaints, on the other hand, were significantly less likely to have arrearages (49%). This suggests that visitation denial and noncontact may be euphemisms for more basic discontents about financial issues.

Not surprising, parents tended to view child support as very central to the visitation problem. Even after going through the enforcement program intervention, about half of the mothers at each site suspected the father’s


Table 2 Incidence and Level of Prior Litigation

Arizona Michigan Florida Kansas California Cross-site

% Cases with litigation of any kinda 64 50 NA as 94 66

Median number priors 1 .o 1 .o 1 .o 3.0 2.0 1.3

% Cases with support Average priors 1.5 .a 2.6 5.1 2.4 2.1

priors in past two

% Cases with access priors in past two

actions (all for ~ a n s a s ) ~ 33 33 60 66 31 41

actions (all for Kansas) ia 24 NA la 57 32 Number of cases 177 123 a7 50 51 4aa

a. Florida cases with prior access litigation were intentionally excluded; therefore, median and average numbers of priors are for support actions. b. Figures for Kansas refer to prior episodes of litigation in the entire life of the case, not simply the past two actions.

motives in filing a visitation complaint and believed that the action was initiated because “he was angry about child support.” As further evidence of the heavy interconnection between child support and access issues, most mothers (76%) and fathers (64%) said that they favored joint consideration of the two issues in a single intervention. The exception to this was fathers in Arizona. Finally, about a quarter of the interviewed fathers expressed approval for the statement “If I were visiting my children more regularly, I would feel more like paying child support.”

CHILD SUPPORT OUTCOMES OF VISITATION PROGRAM INTERVENTIONS

With the exception of Florida, none of the visitation enforcement programs handled child support problems. Complaints about child support were referred for separate treatment by different court staff and/or N-D agency personnel. The focus of the visitation enforcement program intervention was on the exercise of access as per the court order. Most visitation program interventions at all sites involved conferences with parents to discuss visitation schedules, court hearings to amend visitation orders, phone monitoring by court staff to track the exercise of visitation, supervision of visitation, and/or the exchange of children for visitation, and referral to other services like counseling and substance abuse treatment to resolve the obstacles to successful visitation.

102 FAMlLY AND CONCILIATION COURTS REVIEW

Accordingly, the most direct program outcomes were related to access. For example, the most common, immediate result of the program intervention at all sites was the specification of orders that were vague and called for the exercise of “reasonable” visitation. This occurred in about 40% of cases with unspecified orders. The second most common outcome at all the sites was referral for community services like counseling and supervised visitation. This occurred in about 30% of cases with maternal custody and 8% with paternal custody, particularly where an allegation about safety had been lodged against one or both parents.

Although not directly addressed, there was some evidence that the programs also had effects on child support payments. Using assessments of payment provided by mothers, which were consistently less favorable than reports by fathers, it appeared that payment patterns improved modestly following program participation. For example, with the exception of Cali- fornia where 33% of interviewed mothers reported payment declines, the percentage of obligors who became current was greater than or equal to the percentage of obligors who fell behind. In Florida and Arizona, parental reports suggested that obligors maintained the status quo following program participation (see Table 3).

Additional evidence about the salience of child support comes from an analysis of the predictors of access problem resolution. Child support payments featured prominently for both mothers and fathers. For example, based on reports of payment given by mothers, we found that preprogram support payment behavior was significantly associated with both support payment and visitation frequency following program participation. Although prior access, on the other hand, correlated with child support payment behavior, it did not predict postprogram support or access. Thus the variable that was most predictive of subsequent payment and access patterns was child support payment.

As further evidence of the importance of support payment behavior, we found that among fathers who had visited regularly before program participation, those who were behind in child support payments at the time they filed for visitation enforcement services were most likely to see their access deteriorate at the postprogram interview (80% vs. 28% of fathers with current child support payments). A similar but nonsignificant trend occurred among fathers who exercised occasional access prior to filing the visitation complaint.

We also failed to observe any program impact on the level of relitigation over child support matters. Although the rate of court action on access issues decreased significantly following program participation in Kansas, the rate of litigation on child support did not change. As a result, the overall level of

Pearson. Anhalt / CHILD ACCESS/SUPPORT 103

Table 3 Parental Reports of Changes in Payment Status Foflowing Program Participation, by Site {in percentages)

~~ ~~

Current- Behind- Current- Behind- Current Current Behind Behind # Cases

Mothers’ repoIts Arizona 29 21 12 38 42 Michigan 19 46 4 31 26 Florida 36 27 5 32 22 Kansas 53 16 16 16 19 California 25 8 33 33 12

Arizona 54 44 0 2 41

Florida 38 50 0 13 16 Kansas 53 41 0 19 19 California 60 40 0 0 5

Fathers’ reports

Michigan 10 81 0 10 21

Table 4 Mean Number of Actions Per Year in Kansas

Court actions on visitationa Child support

Before program 1.84 1.74 After promam 0.52 2.24

~~~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

a. Before- and after-program differences significant at the .05 level.

litigation for both issues combined remained comparable at both time points. It will be recalled that the Kansas program did not deal with child support matters and focused exclusively on visitation (see Table 4).

PREDICTORS OF VISITATION PROBLEM RESOLUTION

The final way in which we explored the influence of child support factors in the resolution of access problems was to compare their salience for parents who reported their visitation problems to be solved following program participation with those who did not. At the telephone interview following program participation, parents were asked whether they still had visitation problems. Across sites, about half the mothers and half the fathers said their problems had been solved; the remainder reported continuing problems. Thus we were able to examine the correlates of problem resolution for the 50% who reported relief.


The technique we used was the multivariate approach-discriminant analyses. We used five types of discriminating variables to predict resolution of visitation problems: quality of the relationship at the time of separation, including the amount of disagreement over custody, visitation, and support; child support payment before and after the program; visitation frequency before and after the program; socioeconomic variables, including children’s age, mothers’ and fathers’ gross monthly income, and parent’s level of education; and presence of allegations against either parent. Each set of variables was entered in a stepwise fashion. This enabled us to determine their relative importance.

Not surprising, the factors that were associated with problem resolution differed for mothers and fathers, although the analyses reinforced the importance of child support factors for both parents. For fathers, we achieved a classification rate of 69% using four variables: low amounts of disagreement over support combined with consistent child support payments, initially regular levels of visitation, and relatively young children (see Table 5) .

Although it was more difficult to predict success in resolving visitation disputes for mothers, child support factors were also relevant. The six predictor variables that met the assumptions of discriminant analyses and yielded about a two thirds prediction rate are shown in Table 6 in the order in which they were chosen in the stepwise analysis.

Like fathers, mothers were more likely to report cessation of problems if visitation occurred more frequently. Like fathers, mothers were also more likely to report resolution if the father had had a good child support record and if there had been little disagreement over child support at the time of separation. Unlike fathers, however, many other variables were required to predict group membership, namely, older children, moderate levels of conflict over visitation at the time of separation, moderate levels of contact, and lower paternal incomes.

Despite certain anomalies in patterns for mothers versus fathers, the analysis highlights the salience of child support conflict and payment patterns in reaching satisfactory resolution of visitation problems. For both parents, two child support variables were present in the discriminant functions: regular payment patterns and low amounts of disagreement over support matters at time of separation. Visitation enforcement programs led to complete resolution of problems for visiting fathers only when they occurred in an otherwise stable pattern of visitation and child support payment. The programs were far less successful when there had been a lot of conflict about child support, poor payment, and a history of irregular visitation to begin with.

Pearson, Anhalt I CHILD ACCESSISUPPORT 105

Table 5 Discriminant Function Predicting Fathers' Perceived Resolution of Visitation Problemsa

Variable Standardized coefficient

Child support payment status at the time of filing -.60 Amount of disagreement over support at the time

of separation .64 Visitation frequency at the time of filing .48 Age of the children .49

~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

a. The mean separation vectors are. significantly different at the .05 level.

Table 6 Discriminant Function Predicting Mothers Perceived Resolution of Wsitation Problemsa

Variable Standardized coefficient

Father's gross monthly income .58 Post-program visitation frequency .47

Amount of disagreement over visitation

Amount of disagreement over support

Child support payment status at the time

a. The mean separation vectors are significantly different at the .05 level.

PATTERNS IN UNUSUAL CUSTODY CASES

Age of the child -.51

-.47

.43

of the interview -.32

at the time of separation

at the time of separation

We had 100 unusual custody cases where children lived primarily with fathers and mothers exercised visitation rights. These cases differed from patterns noted in the analysis of usual, maternal custody cases in several important ways. Among these was the salience of child support for the two groups. In many unusual custody cases it appeared not to be an issue at all. Half (49%) of unusual custody cases had no child support orders, compared to 6% of usual custody cases. Nor was there apparent conflict over the absence of child support orders. For example, none of the interviewed parents lacking child support orders reported that there was conflict over child support at the time of separation. There was also no evidence that fathers had contested the lack of a child support order or that there had been more disagreement over access than among residential fathers without child support orders. Moreover, none of the residential fathers lacking child support orders reported having withheld visitation for lack of child support.


When there was an order, nonresidential mothers paid significantly less money per child ($115 vs. $209) than nonresidential fathers but comparable percentages of their income (26% vs. 23%). Virtually identical percentages of mothers and fathers with orders were current with their child support (39%) when the visitation complaint was filed. Unlike usual custody cases, however, where child support tended to be the subject of considerable litigation activity, most litigation in paternity custody cases dealt with custody and visitation matters. Whereas custody actions rarely preceded program entry and support actions occurred in 56% of usual custody cases, the opposite pattern occurred in unusual custody cases where custody (22%) and visitation (31%) actions were more common.

Another difference between usual and unusual cases was postprogram child support payments. In the handful of unusual custody cases with child support awards and interview data, payment appeared to deteriorate following program participation. Nearly all residential fathers (87%) reported that their ex-spouses were behind in their child support payments. In comparison, just under half (47%) of residential mothers reported that child support payments were not up to date. As was true for nonresidential fathers, the majority of nonresidential mothers (85%) reported that they were current in their child support payments.

DISCUSSION

In response to criticism that the aggressive enforcement of child support orders has not been matched by attention to the issue of visitation, several courts have initiated novel programs to enforce visitation orders. Information gleaned from 700 cases handled in five such programs during 1989 and 1990 reveal the extent to which the problems of child support and visitation are interconnected, particularly in conventional custody cases where the children reside with mothers and the fathers exercise visitation. Although the two issues are legally distinct, they are practically linked in all sites but Florida. Most visitation enforcement cases had child support arrearages, especially those with vague, contradictory complaints alleging visitation denial and noncontact. Many cases had a history of prior litigation about child support; in a substantial proportion of cases, a child support filing immediately preceded the visitation complaint. More to the point, child support behavior patterns-more than prior visitation pattems-were predictive of both subsequent child support payments and access. Also, the best predictors of perceived resolution of the visitation problem following participation in the programs for both mothers and fathers involved two child support variables:


regular payment patterns and low amounts of disagreement over support matters at time of separation.

These patterns suggest that vague problems with visitation denial and noncontact may belie more basic conflict about economic matters. The patterns also suggest that visitation enforcement programs lead to complete resolution of problems for visiting fathers only when they occur in an otherwise stable pattern of visitation and child support payment. Fathers who were behind in payments were most apt to see their access deteriorate following program participation, The programs were far less successful when there had been a lot of conflict about child support, poor payment, and a history of irregular visitation to begin with.

There is less evidence of linkage between the child support and access issue in unusual custody cases where children reside primarily with fathers and the mothers have visitation rights. Typically, child support is not ordered in such cases, nor is it a source of contention. The substantial litigation that occurs in unusual custody cases tends to deal with custody matters rather than child support.

Additional support for the lower salience of child support issues in unusual custody cases comes from a survey with a statewide, random sample of custody parents conducted in the State of Colorado during 1990 (Pearson, Thoennes, & Anhalt, 1993). Like their counterparts who use visitation enforcement programs, fathers with custody in Colorado were significantly less likely than custodial mothers to have a child support order and to even want one. Among those with orders, payment patterns for mothers and fathers were identical, with equal proportions making full, partial, or no payments at all. Unlike male obligors, however, noncustodial mothers were significantly more likely to maintain contact with the children and continue to exercise visitation regardless of their payment status.

Unfortunately, we were unable to ascertain a causal order between child support and access; problems with both set in very quickly after separation. Their co-occurrence suggests that they stem from the same root. According to a recent longitudinal study of 378 families in Phoenix, Arizona, the strongest predictor of both visitation frequency andchild support compliance was the noncustodial parent's perceived control over the divorce settlement and the child's upbringing. Among those who had no unemployment, short distances between parental residences, and high perceived control, contact and payment were both high and regular even 3 years after filing for divorce (Braver et al., 1992).

The prevalence of child support factors in access disputes in the vast majority of cases where children reside primarily or exclusively with their mothers has definite implications for divorce policy. With few exceptions,


laws, court decisions, and agency policy necessitate that problems with the two issues must be addressed in separate interventions with different court staff and filing procedures. Thus the father who is the recipient of an enforcement action for nonpayment of support must file a separate motion to enforce his visitation rights; the mother who participates in a mediation session dealing with alleged obstruction of the visitation order will be silenced if she raises the matter of nonpayment of child support.

These study results challenge the efficacy of the automatic separation of the two issues and argue for the use of holistic interventions where both can be addressed. Without encouraging the conditioning of these obligations, courts must acknowledge their interconnections and the mutual dependence of their solutions.

REFERENCES

Atwell, A., Moore, U., & Nowell, C. (1982). The role of step-parents in child custody disputes. Bulletin of the AAPL, 10,211-217.

Berkman, B. (1986). Father involvement and regularity of child support in post-divorce families. Journal of Divorce, 9,67-74.

Braver, S. , Wolchik, S. , Sandler, I., Fogas, B., & Zvetina, D. (1991). Frequencyof visitation by divorced fathers: Differences in reports by fathers and mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(3), 448-454.

Braver, S., Wolchik, S. , Sandler, I., Fogas, B., & Zvetina, D. (1992). A longitudinal szudy of noncustodial parents: Parents without children. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Chambers, D. (1979). Making fathers pay: The enforcement of child support. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press.

Fenaughty, A., Wolchik, S., & Braver, S . (1991). Problems in visitation qfter divorce: Sfabiliw, c h g e , and bias. paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, San Francisco.

Furstenberg, E (1988). Marital disruptions, child custody, and visitation. In A. Kahn & S. Kammeina (Eds.), Childsupport: From debt collection to socialpolicy. Newbury Park, C A Sage.

Furstenberg, F., & Cherh, A. (1991). Dividedfamilies: What happens to children whenparents part. Cambridge, MA: Haward University Press.

Furstenberg, F., & Nord, C. W. (1985). Parenting apart: Patterns of child-rearing after marital disruption. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47,893-904.

Hetherington, E., & Camara, K. (1984). Families in transition: Theprocesses of dissolution and reconstitution. In R. Parke (Ed.), Review of child development research: The family (Vol. 7, pp. 398-439). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hetherington, E., Cox, M., &Cox, R. (1982). Effects of divorce on parents and children. In M. Lamb (Ed.), Non-traditional families (pp. 233-388). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Koch, M., &Lowery, C. (1984). Visitationand thenoncustodial father. Journalof Divorce, 8,47-65. Kruk, E. (1992). Psychological and structural factors contributing to the disengagement of

noncustodial fathers after divorce. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 30(1), 81-101.

Pearson, Anhalt I CHILD ACCESSlSUPPORT 109

Kurdek, L. (1988). Custodial mother’s perceptions of visitation and payments of child support by noncustodial fathers in families with low and high levels of preseparation interparent conflict. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 9,315-328.

Lund, M . (1987). The non-custodial father: Common challenges in parenting after divorce. In C. Lewis & M. O’Brien (Eds.), Reassessing fatherhood: New observations on fathers and the modern family (pp. 212-224). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

National Council for Children’s Rights, Inc. (1991, Fall). 100 people hear message from President Bush at candlelight vigil. Speak Out for Children, p. 7.

Pearson, J., & Anhalt, J. (1992). The visitation enforcement program: Impact on child access and child support (Final report to the State Justice Institute). Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research.

Pearson, J., & Anhalt, J. (1993). The enforcement of visitation rights: Experiences in five U.S. courts. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Pearson, J., Anhalt, J., & Thoennes, N. (1991). Childsupport in Colorado: The results of a 1990 household survey. Denver, 0: Center for Policy Research.

Pearson, J., & Thoennes, N. (1985). Divorce mediation: An overview of research results. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problem, 19(4), 451-484.

Pearson, J., & Thoennes, N. (1988). The denial of visitation rights: A preliminary look at its incidence, correlates, antecedents, and consequences. Law and Policy, 10(4), 363-380.

Pearson, J.,Thoennes,N., &Anhalt, J. (1993).ChildsupportintheUnitedStates:Theexperience in Colorado. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 31(2), 226-243.

Seltzer, J. (1991). Relationships between fathers and children who live apart: The father’s role after separation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53,79-101.

Seltzer, J., & Bianchi, S. (1988). Children’s contact with absent parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, SO, 663-677.

Tropf, W. (1 984). An exploratory examination of the effect of remaniage on child support and personal contacts. Journal of Divorce, 7(3), 57-73.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990). Child support and alimony: 1987 (Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 167). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wallerstein, J., &Huntington, D. (1983). Bread and roses: Nonfinancial issues related to fathers’ economic support of their children following divorce. In J. Cassetty (Ed.), The parentalchild support obligation (pp. 135-155). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Weiss, Y., & Wdlis, R. (1985). Children as collective goods and divorce settlements. Journal of Labor Economics, 3,268-292.

Weitzman, L. (1985). The divorce revolution: The unexpected social and economic consequences for women and children in America. New York Free Press.

Jessica Pearson is Director of the Center for Policy Research in Denver, Colorado and has published numerous articles on research regarding dissolution, mediation, child support, and other related issues.

Jean Anhalt is a researcher at the Center for Policy Research.

Documents

EXAMINING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CHILD ACCESS AND CHILD SUPPORT