MARTHA DOYLE, CIARA O’DYWER, AND VIRPI TIMONEN Trinity College Dublin

‘‘How Can You Just Cut Off a Whole Side

of the Family and Say Move On?’’ The Reshaping

of Paternal Grandparent-Grandchild Relationships

Following Divorce or Separation in the Middle

Generation

On the basis of a qualitative study of 31 grand-parents, this article highlights how separationin the middle generation can result in an erosionof trust and quality of paternal grandparent-grandchild relationships. Notwithstanding thesechanges, grandparents endeavor to support andremain involved in the lives of their grandchil-dren by, inter alia, compensating for a perceivedlack of their sons’ parenting skills, affirmingtheir grandchild’s position in the paternal kinnetwork, and acting as a mediator between theseparated couple to ensure continued contactwith grandchildren. The findings suggest thatthe actions of paternal grandparents can poten-tially have important future implications not onlyfor the grandparent-grandchild relationship, butalso the relationship trajectories of their adultson and child in the post-separation family.

Divorce can have long-term repercussionsthroughout the family system, forcing familymembers to reorganize relationships and assume

Social Policy and Ageing Research Centre, School of SocialWork and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2,Ireland (martha.doyle@tcd.ie).

Key Words: critical role transitions, divorce, grandchildren,grandparents, intergenerational relationships, separation.

new roles (Mederer & Hill, 1983). According tothe ‘‘critical role transitions’’ theory, familyinteractions and negotiation of critical transi-tions, including divorce, can have importantrepercussions on relationship trajectories of fam-ily members (Rodgers, 1964) and the resolutionof key life transitions (Aldous, 1990). This the-ory suggests that the manner in which familiesrespond and react to separation in the earlyphases of the relationship breakdown plays acritical role in determining the course of fam-ily relationships in the long term. The theoryassumes a temporal dimension and acknowl-edges that transitions are negotiated in a disor-ganized manner. As Aldous (1996, p. 31) wrote,‘‘there is a period when families flounder, searchfor, and try out new ways before remaking theirroles and ‘settling’ into new behaviors.’’

Support provided by extended family mem-bers across generations is thought to be increas-ingly important (Bengtson, 2001) and mayfacilitate the negotiation of role transitions inthe post-separation context. This support maybe particularly significant for fathers who arenot granted custody of their children and whoare required to assume the role of a nonresi-dent parent. Little attention, however, has beengiven to how separation in the middle generationaffects the paternal grandparent role and their

Family Relations 59 (December 2010): 587 – 598 587DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00625.x

588 Family Relations

experience of relationship change with theiradult sons and grandchildren post-separation.Acknowledging the interdependence of familyrelations, this article seeks to address this gapin the literature by developing a greater under-standing of paternal grandparents’ subjectiveexperiences of the nature of relationship changeand the responses of paternal grandparents to therevised context in which they find themselves.The discussion applies to a sample of paternalgrandparents residing in Ireland, a country wherethe experience of lone-parent families and theirextended kin network is under-researched.

BACKGROUND

Grandparents can play an important role in fam-ilies that are undergoing stress or crisis. It isargued that in times of stress they can act as astabilizing force for the parents and ‘‘may alsoserve as a catalyst for wider family cohesion’’by being the focal point of family contact andfacilitating family meetings (Hagestad, 1985,p. 46). They can have direct and indirect influ-ences on their grandchildren (Tomlin, 1998).In situations where fathers assume the role ofnonresident fathers, Bradshaw, Stimson, Skin-ner, and Williams (1999) argued, they may be‘‘invisible’’ facilitators in the maintenance oftheir son’s relationship with their children. Inaddition, they can play an important mediatingrole in disagreements between the middle gen-eration and grandchildren (Ross, Hill, Sweeting,& Cunningham-Burley, 2003). Successful main-tenance of paternal kin relations can also havepositive effects on grandchildren. For example,research has indicated that closeness to pater-nal grandparents was associated with a greatercapacity for behavioral adjustment in reconsti-tuted families (Bray & Berger, 1990).

The parent-as-mediator theory argues thatgrandparent-grandchild relationships are bro-kered by the middle generation (Robertson,1975). This brokering is argued to advantagematernal grandmothers who are thought to havea ‘‘matrilineal advantage,’’ which results in theirinvolvement in the lives of their grandchildrenbeing more extensive than that of paternal grand-parents (Aldous, 1995; Chan & Elder, 2000).Socialization theorists have argued that womenare more likely than men to be socialized askin-keepers, and so familial relationships onthe maternal side are likely to be stronger thanthose on the paternal side (Somary & Stricker,

1998). A matrilineal bias is therefore attributedto the strength of relationships between moth-ers and daughters, which can in turn result incloser bonds between maternal grandparents andtheir grandchildren (Chan & Elder). This matri-lineal advantage is thought to persist in thepost-separation family (Ahrons, 2007; Dench &Ogg, 2002). The influence of the middle genera-tion on the grandchild-grandparent relationshipis, however, thought to decline as the grandchildenters adolescence, so that the impact of divorceon the relationships between paternal grandpar-ents and older grandchildren is less deleterious(Cooney & Smith, 1996).

In general, grandchildren have more frequentcontact with maternal than paternal grandparentsfollowing separation (Ahrons, 2007; Bridges,Roe, Dunn, & O’Connor, 2007). There maybe exceptions; for example, Lussier, Deater-Deckard, Dunn, and Davies (2002) found thatgrandchildren living with a biological fatherand stepmother had more contact with paternalgrandparents than with their maternal grandpar-ents. For nonresident fathers, however, continu-ity of paternal family ties is contingent on theyears immediately following their relationshipdissolution (Drew & Smith, 1999). Deteriora-tion in the relationship between fathers and theirchildren can result in a corresponding weaken-ing of relationships between grandchildren andtheir paternal grandparents (Ahrons). Conflictualrelationships between the separating couple aresaid to impact on the third generation and trans-late into greater complications that affect thegrandchild-grandparent connection negatively(Ahrons & Miller, 1993; King & Elder, 1995;Uhlenberg & Kirby, 1998). Geographic mobil-ity and reduced proximity to paternal relativesis also thought to impact more upon paternalgrandparents and limit grandparent-grandchildinteraction (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1985). Theliterature, therefore, highlights a divergence inthe experience of maternal and parental grand-parents and suggests that maternal grandparentsare less likely to experience negative relation-ship changes. The literature, however, provideslittle insight into paternal grandparents’ subjec-tive experiences of these relationship changesafter their son’s separation.

THE IRISH CONTEXT

The phenomenon of grandparenting within thecontext of separation is increasingly widespread

Grandparent-Grandchild Relationships 589

in Ireland. The incidence of marriage breakdownand percentage of families in lone-parenthouseholds remains relatively low in thecontext of Western countries, although it hasbeen rapidly increasing in recent years. Thetotal number of people who have experiencedmarriage breakdown increased from 40,000 tojust under 200,000 in the two decades between1986 and 2006, and the percentage share oflone-parent families has risen from 7.2% ofall families in 1981 to 21.3% in 2006 (Fahey& Field, 2008). At present the legal situationof grandparents in Ireland is unclear. The lawprovides no automatic right of contact butrecognizes that contact with grandparents maybe in the best interests of the child. Althoughthe Children Act (1997) gives individuals theright to apply for access to a related minor,it does not automatically give them the rightof access. Access through this Act is judgedon the welfare principle and the best interestsof the child (Moore, 2009). The in camerarule, however, prohibits any quantification ofthe number of grandparents who seek accessthrough this avenue.

Fathers and the extended paternal kin networkin Ireland are likely to grapple with a policy envi-ronment that does little to facilitate and promotemaintenance of paternal kin relationships post-separation. Qualitative research on children’sperceptions of parental separation by Hogan,Halpenny, and Green (2003) found that contactwith nonresident fathers remained high and thatpaternal grandparents remained heavily involvedin their lives post-separation. They argued that,however, Irish family policy is largely nonin-terventionist and has not developed in tandemwith Ireland’s rapidly changing family struc-tures. Support provided by the extended familyis, therefore, very important. An examination ofpaternal grandparents’ subjective experiences islikely to reveal the significance of their role in thepost-separation family and is, therefore, highlyrelevant.

METHOD

Qualitative interviews were deemed the mostsuitable research method to gain an in-depthunderstanding of grandparents’ experiences andperceptions of change in relationships with theirgrandchildren post-separation. Ethical approvalwas granted by the Social Work and Social Pol-icy Ethics Committee in Trinity College Dublin.

Fieldwork was conducted between August andOctober, 2008. Contact was made with over30 family support/community agencies. In addi-tion, an advertisement was placed in a nationalnewspaper (The Irish Times) and the newslettersof an older persons’ association and a lone par-ents’ association, inviting potential respondentsto contact the research team. The first recruit-ment strategy yielded 15 respondents, and theremaining 16 had responded to the newspa-per/newsletter advertisement.

The authors conducted semi-structured inter-views with 31 respondents. Six couples wereinterviewed jointly and one couple separately.The remaining 17 respondents were interviewedon a one-to-one basis. Duration of interviewsranged from 30 to 120 minutes. Permission wasgranted in all cases to record the interviews,which were subsequently professionally tran-scribed in full. The interview guide was designedto allow respondents flexibility in sharing theirviews and experiences about their experiencesof the divorce or separation process. It addressedsix key issues: (a) the respondent’s views of therole of grandparents in general; (b) the respon-dent’s relationships with their child, the child’spartner, and grandchild(ren) before and afterthe divorce or separation; (c) support and careprovided to their child and grandchildren dur-ing and after the divorce or separation; (d) theimpact of the divorce/separation on the respon-dent; (e) use of formal support and services; and(f) the respondent’s attitude toward divorce andwhether this had changed as a result of theirchild’s divorce/separation.

Sample Characteristics

Nineteen respondents were paternal grandpar-ents and 11 maternal; one respondent had botha son and a daughter who were divorced. Therespondents ranged in age from early 50s to early80s. Sixteen lived in close geographical prox-imity to their grandchildren, and the remaining15 were geographically distant from their grand-children. Respondents came from both affluentand deprived areas, assessed through the gen-eral neighborhood where respondents lived. Wemade the decision, however, not to ask ques-tions about income and wealth or other socialclass indicators, as we believed these would haveincreased respondent burden; for this reason, weare not able to divide the sample into differentsocioeconomic strata.

590 Family Relations

Analysis

The information contained in this article relateslargely to an analysis of question three, thatis, support and care that the respondents hadprovided to their child and grandchildren duringand after the divorce or separation. Through aprocess of open and axial coding, questioning,and constant comparison, we derived categoriesinductively and integrated these into corecategories (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; La Rossa,2005). These categories were then linkedto the lineage of the grandparent, whichhighlighted the divergence between paternal andmaternal grandparents. The process of selectivecoding yielded the core categories of changedintergenerational family relationships from theperspective of the grandparent and the strategiesthey used to resolve these intergenerationalrelationship changes. Divergences in coding andinterpretation between the authors were resolvedthrough discussion and, where necessary, re-readings of the data.

RESULTS

Although there were many areas of overlap inthe experiences of the maternal and paternalgrandparents, the analysis revealed that the lat-ter experienced a greater degree of change inthe relationships with their grandchildren. Asoutlined below, paternal grandparents were lesslikely to experience a smooth transition into thepost-separation context and were more likely toemphasize the need to restructure grandparent-grandchild relationships. They were also morelikely to experience a deterioration of thegrandparent-grandchild relationship and com-mented on the role they played in helping theiradult child restructure their relationship withtheir grandchild. This section outlines the factorswhich led to these experiences.

Changed Intergenerational Relationships

Increased uncertainty and limited availabilityof time. A higher proportion of paternal (n = 8)than maternal (n = 3) grandparents had expe-rienced a reduction in contact time with theirgrandchildren following their adult child’s sep-aration. The reduction in contact time waslargely because their adult child was not themain-custodial parent and contact time wasconstrained by custodial stipulations. Contact

with grandchildren was also reduced becausetheir adult son, who had a limited numberof hours with his child(ren), wanted to pur-sue activities with them that did not involvethe grandparents. Paternal grandparents’ adultsons were typically awarded one day mid-week and (in some cases alternate) weekendsto spend with their children. In three cases,contact was not formalized between the sepa-rated couple, and in another two relationshipsall contact with the grandparents had beenterminated. For virtually all the paternal grand-parents, contact was reduced considerably inthe early stages of relationship breakdown whencourt orders were frequently breached by thecustodial mother, resulting in irregular contactbetween paternal grandparents and their grand-children for a number of months following theseparation.

Mobility of families in Ireland is generallylower than in other countries such as the UnitedStates (Hogan et al., 2003). In four cases, how-ever, separation had resulted in the relocationof grandchildren to geographically distant loca-tions, reducing contact between grandparentsand grandchildren significantly. The impositionof this geographical distance seemed to haveless of a moderating influence on grandparent-grandchild relationships than is highlighted inthe international research (Schutter, Scherman,& Carroll, 1997). This may be because the smallgeographical size of Ireland makes distancesmore manageable; for example, 9 of the 15grandparents who were geographically distantfrom their grandchildren were only a 2-hour cardrive from them. Notwithstanding this, custodialrestrictions had dramatic implications for pater-nal grandparents who lived in close proximityto their grandchildren and had almost daily con-tact with them preseparation. Legal stipulationsthat prohibited contact mid-week and on certainweekends had a constraining effect on relation-ships and prohibited spontaneous interaction andcontact. Custodial arrangements could result ina situation where grandchildren who lived inclose proximity were forbidden to visit theirpaternal grandparents on days not agreed by thecourts. The cessation of these visits prohibitedroutine involvement in the everyday activities oftheir grandchildren, something that Ross et al.(2003) suggested helps to facilitate the devel-opment of strong bonds between grandparentsand grandchildren. Corroborating with the find-ings of Cooney and Smith (1996), however,

Grandparent-Grandchild Relationships 591

there were instances where the older age ofthe grandchild resulted in custodial stipulationsbeing less restraining, and grandchildren visitedtheir grandparents in a more impromptu manner.The opportunity for a greater number of unar-ranged visits was largely because of a lesseningof the parental influence and the grandchild’sown desire to visit their paternal family.

Termination of the grandparent-grandchildrelationship. Three respondents, two paternaland one maternal, had no contact with theirgrandchildren. Research suggests that such cir-cumstances are most likely to arise in caseswhere there is a long history of a poor relation-ship between the relevant set of grandparentsand the custodial parent or when the custo-dial parent has concerns that granting accessto grandparents can result in the noncustodialparent having access to their children and thushave the opportunity to inflict (further) harmon them (Ferguson, Douglas, Lowe, Murch,& Robinson, 2004). In the case of the twopaternal grandparents, this lack of contact wasbecause of the ex-partners’ desire to makea clean break from their former spouse andextended family. Relationships prior to the sep-aration had been strained in one instance butwere conciliatory and cooperative in the other.Termination of the grandparent-grandchild rela-tionship for the maternal respondent was becauseof the maternal grandparent siding with herdaughter’s ex-partner over the custody of thechildren and consequently severing all tieswith her daughter. Echoing research by Fer-gusons et al. (2004), a sense of powerless-ness, helplessness, and remorse was relayed bythe three respondents who had no contactwith their grandchildren following their adultchild’s separation. One paternal grandmotherrelayed:

You are in no man’s land—because [my grandson]is not missing, not dead. He is out there somewhereand you are looking for him in the crowd all thetime, all the time. Everywhere you go, where thereare kids in particular, you always look.

The three grandparents who were estrangedfrom their grandchildren made efforts to main-tain communication with them. This wasachieved by the posting of letters and Christmasand birthday cards, which they thought may havebeen confiscated or censored by the custodial

parent. One grandmother felt compelled to goincognito and observe her grandchildren froma distance. Each of these grandparents com-mented on how, over time, they had resignedthemselves to the reality that contact wouldnever return to what it had been presepara-tion. This acceptance of the loss of a mean-ingful grandparent-grandchild relationship wasalso reported by Drew and Silverstein (2007),who found that grandparents who lose contactwith their grandchildren suffer long-term nega-tive psychological effects with negative healtheffects such as depression escalating in the first3 years of separation but stabilizing thereafter.In this study each of the estranged grandparentsanticipated that in adolescence or young adult-hood their grandchildren might become curiousabout them, questioning the reason for the ter-mination of the relationship and attempting tomake contact. The fact that the length of sep-aration in one instance was 15 years, however,suggests that the chance for such a reconciliationis slim, particularly as the estranged grandchildenters adolescence and other relationships, espe-cially those with their peers, become importantand are likely to be more closely linked totheir adjustment post-parental separation (Kim,Hetherington, & Reiss, 1999).

Erosion of trust and quality of grandparent-grandchild relationships. The existing liter-ature suggests that the loyalties of young(grand)children tend to lie with the main-custodial parent. Douglas and Ferguson (2003)argued that children face a dilemma in remain-ing loyal to both of their parents and setsof grandparents. Ferguson (2004) noted thatchildren as young as 8 maintained discretionwhen talking to their families, so that theycould remain loyal to all parties. This wasechoed in the present research where nine pater-nal grandparents and one maternal grandparent(whose daughter had joint custody) believedtheir grandchild had become detached and aloofor had exhibited signs of confusion regard-ing their relationship in the paternal kin net-work following their parents’ separation. Thealoof and withdrawn behavior of grandchildrenwas perceived to stem from an allegiance tothe main-custodial parent and was most evi-dent at points of high conflict or disagreementbetween the separated couple. Questions relat-ing to the grandchild’s new home arousedsuspicion or anger, emotions that had previously

592 Family Relations

not been displayed by the children. Illustrativeof the confusion experienced by grandchil-dren was the following comment relayed by arespondent:

[The grandchild] says ‘‘Are you my family?’’ andI’d say ‘‘Of course I am your family, I am yourgrandmother’’ and she’d say ‘‘How?’’ And I thinkshe knew the answers but she needed confirmation.And I’d say ‘‘Well I’m your daddy’s mummy andthat means I am your granny and all of this’’ andshe’d say ‘‘Mmmm. I want you to be my grannybut my mummy keeps saying you’re not.’’

In a small number of cases their grandchil-dren’s changed behavior resulted in strainedrelationships devoid of spontaneity and enjoy-ment. Respondents in such situations relayedhow they were on ‘‘guard’’ and were forced tolimit the topics of conversation with their grand-children. The weakening of relations was in allcases ascribed to the custodial parent, who wasthought to openly criticize members of the non-custodial family. A noteworthy finding was thatin instances where two or three grandchildrenwere affected by their parents’ separation, theimpact on their relationship with their grand-parents was not always similar. For example,in three cases, only one grandchild from thefamily exhibited emotions of distrust toward thegrandparents, something that the grandparentsattributed to the personality of the grandchildand his or her close relationship with the custo-dial parent.

Denigration of the nonresident father by thecustodial mother was mentioned more frequentlyby those respondents whose children had expe-rienced high-conflict separations. Criticism wasperceived as stemming from a strongly heldresentment of the custodian toward her ex-partner and extended family and a desire toinstill similar sentiments in the grandchildren.As two respondents stated ‘‘she tries to turn himagainst the grandparents’’ and ‘‘she has drivena wedge totally between her and us.’’ Similaratrocity stories (Silverman, 1993) were relayedby Bradshaw et al. (1999) whereby the behav-ior of mothers is castigated and attributed tothe obstruction of relationships in the paternalkin network. In such instances the adult sonis seen as the victim of injustice, and in thecurrent research, with few exceptions, grandpar-ents endeavored to support their adult child inwhatever manner possible.

Facilitating the Restructuring of FamilyRelationships

Compensating for a perceived lack of sons’parenting skills. The immediate post-separationperiod has been shown to be a difficult time forthe family and a period when parenting skillscan decline (Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1989). Ingeneral maternal grandparents did not voice con-cerns about their daughters’ parenting abilities orspeak about the need to compensate for the poorparenting skills of their adult child. For paternalgrandparents, however, the need to provide par-enting assistance stemmed from a concern thattheir adult child had difficulty coming to termswith the ending of their relationship/marriageand could as a result be neglectful of, or evenignore, their parenting duties.

Many paternal grandparents stated that aperiod of adjustment was necessary for thefathers to adapt to their new role as a non-resident father. Assistance in the maintenance ofrelationships between fathers and grandchildrenwas emphasized particularly in the early stagesof the relationship dissolution. Grandparentswhose sons became parents in their teens or early20s or who only recently become fathers andhad no parenting experience were more likelyto mention their adult child’s need for greatersupport.

In two cases, the grandparents relayed howtheir adult sons had voiced concerns that theymay not have the same sense of affection towardtheir child following relationship breakdown.In both situations, the grandparents attendedclosely to the needs of their son, providingthem with respite from their parenting dutiesand offering extensive child care when required.One of these respondents relayed how her sonhad later told her that she ‘‘taught him how toparent and how to play [with his daughter].’’In both instances, and perhaps as a result ofthis crucial support, the fathers’ bonds with theirchildren were not permanently damaged, andthe grandparents were eventually able to reduceinvolvement in their grandchild’s child care.

Providing accommodation. Eleven paternalgrandparents and two maternal grandparentsprovided accommodation for their adult childrenpost-separation. Coresidency was more com-mon for sons who were not formerly married(n = 8). This was partially linked to a numberof characteristics of the unmarried sons, suchas their young age and low degree of economic

Grandparent-Grandchild Relationships 593

independence. Coresidency provided sons witha stable place to bring their children. It alsofacilitated regular interaction between paternalgrandparents and their grandchildren.

Coresidency spilled over into extensiveinvolvement of paternal grandparents. At vis-itation times, the grandparents endeavored to beavailable to their adult son and grandchild(ren)and to provide whatever assistance and care wasrequired. The amount of care provided tended tobe greater when the grandchild was of preschoolage, reflecting the need for greater hands-on care.The paternal grandparents who were coresidentwith their sons engaged in activities that mightnormally be categorized as being in the domainof parental responsibility, such as meal prepara-tion and feeding and bathing of grandchildren.The extensive provision of care was consideredacceptable and almost obligatory in the earlystages of the separation; however, with timetheir adult children no longer required the sameintensity of support from grandparents. As onerespondent who had provided extensive care andsupport stated:

at the very beginning we [respondent and spouse]did plan our lives around it. . . . If we were goingout for dinner we’d say, ‘‘no we won’t, we’llleave it to the weekend, [when the grandchild] isnot here.’’ But you can only do that for so long. . . .

Now we don’t plan our lives around it [any more].

The care trajectory for maternal grandpar-ents tended to take a similar route, that is, anincrease in caregiving in the immediate after-math of the separation followed by a gradualreduction in intensity thereafter. For a smallnumber of paternal and maternal grandparents,however, cutting back on the provision of carewas difficult. Extensive caregiving had compro-mised the quality of the relationship with theirgrandchildren and they observed that, as an unin-tended consequence of their continuous exten-sive involvement, the relationship had becomedevoid of fun and spontaneity. In short, duty hadreplaced enjoyment. Such findings are in linewith research that examines the psychologicaleffects of separation on heavily involved grand-parents. For example, Minkler, Fuller-Thomson,Miller, and Driver (1997) and Bowers and Myers(1999) have found that grandparents acting asfull-time caregivers experienced higher levelsof clinical depression, stress, and caregiverburden.

Compensating for absent fathers. In three casespaternal grandparents relayed how their sons hadessentially abandoned their children. In two ofthe three cases, the son’s actions were attributedto addiction problems and in another case werethe result of stress resulting from the relationshipbreakdown. The parents of these three adult sonsall felt compelled to compensate for their son’sabdication of his parenting responsibility andto maintain links with their grandchildren. Onegrandmother explained:

He had no parenting skills whatsoever. He actuallywas out of it on drink and drugs at the time. . . . Ihad to give an input. . . . He just had no idea. Hehimself was trying to cope with his own life. . . . SoI had to financially give [his ex-partner] support.I had to, I felt it was my duty. I had to give herevery moral support.

This grandmother maintained contact with hergrandchildren by making informal arrangementswith the mother in relation to visitation times.If she had not taken this action, the grandchildwould have lost all contact with his paternalfamily. One widowed paternal grandfather, theparent of a son with substance abuse problems,sought custodial rights for his grandchild.Another paternal grandmother, whose adult sontemporarily reneged on his parenting duties byleaving the country, sought formal visitationrights through the Children Act. She took thisaction largely in the interest of the well-being ofher grandchild, who, prior to the separation, hadregular contact with the paternal family network.This respondent felt that her adult son took herextensive involvement for granted, even thoughshe suggested that he may have lost contact withhis child without it:

I felt I started taking responsibility for hisrelationship with his children. . . . Because it waslike ‘‘well ma, we’ll be down on Sunday’’, andso I had to be there on Sunday no matter whathappened. And I was making the dinners and hewasn’t doing anything really.

Kin-keeping—affirming grandchild position intheir father’s family. Researchers have referredto the symbolic significance of grandparents inthe lives of grandchildren and the importantrole they play in transmitting values and familyhistory. They have been called ‘‘oral histori-ans,’’ ‘‘family archivists,’’ (Kornhaber, 1996),

594 Family Relations

and ‘‘family watchdogs’’ (Troll, 1983). In thisstudy, paternal grandparents mentioned morefrequently than maternal grandparents the rolethey played in fostering a sense of belongingand connectedness in their grandchildren’s lives,post-parental separation. They felt it necessaryto reassure their grandchildren of their impor-tance in the paternal family unit, in the hopethat this would instill a sense of continuity in thegrandchild’s life. This continuity was consideredparticularly important for grandchildren who,prior to their parents’ separation, had regularcontact with their grandparents. As one grand-mother put it, it was important to ensure thather grandchildren did not feel that they had been‘‘rejected’’ by the extended paternal family:

When he’s going out the door, when he’s afterbeing here, once or twice you know maybe anodd day I’d say to him don’t forget now, you’reour eldest grandchild and nobody can ever takethat away from us or you . . . because I think thathe might have felt alienated [from the paternalfamily].

Paternal grandparents’ feelings of insecu-rity appeared to have contributed toward theimportance they placed on affirming the grand-children’s position in the paternal kin network.Involving grandchildren in family events, how-ever, was not always straightforward. Usuallya special dispensation was required from themother to allow grandchildren to attend a familygathering or holiday outside of agreed contacthours. In most instances this was granted, butin a number of situations, access was denied atthe last minute. Cognizant of the possibility ofthe grandchild’s mother denying access at shortnotice, some paternal grandparents were notable to make long-term arrangements with theirgrandchildren. This impacted not just on theirability to plan but also prevented them fromdiscussing forthcoming family celebrations orholidays, in the fear that the grandchild mightbe denied access to the event at short notice,causing disappointment to everyone.

Acting as a mediator between the separatedcouple. According to the parent-as-mediatortheory (Robertson, 1975), grandparents whomaintain friendly relations with the custodialparents are more likely to successfully maintainor increase contact with their grandchildren(Dench & Ogg, 2002; Schutter et al., 1997).This was found to be true in the small number

of cases where custodial stipulations were notas central a concern to paternal grandparentswho had cordial relationships with their adultchild’s ex-partner. The existence of amicablerelationships between the grandparent and theiradult child’s ex-partner tended to translate intocontact with grandchildren being less formalizedand more flexible. Paternal grandparents in thesesituations frequently negotiated contact directlywith the custodial parent, and, hence, weeklyor mid-week custodial arrangements did nothave to be rigidly adhered to, and contact withgrandchildren was more frequent than specifiedby the courts.

Maintaining an amicable relationship through-out the breakup process, however, often tookeffort, even in cases where it had good ‘‘foun-dations’’ in the form of a friendly preseparationrelationship. In these cases, it appeared that theex-partner was appreciative of the care and sup-port the paternal grandparents provided to theirgrandchildren. A factor that contributed to asuccessful relationship between paternal grand-parents and their son’s former partner was theirwillingness to be available for child care. In someinstances the ex-partner relied on the grandpar-ent for emergency care, for instance when theywere traveling abroad with work, or when thegrandchild was ill and unable to attend creche orschool. Nevertheless, even in situations whererelationships between the ex-partner and grand-parent were congenial, some voiced a concernthat ruptures in the former couple’s relationshipcould have negative ramifications for the rela-tionship between the paternal grandparents andthe grandchild’s mother.

It is noteworthy that for three cases the ami-cable relationship between grandparents andtheir son’s ex-partner persisted despite the factthat their son was somewhat aggrieved abouthis lack of guardianship status. Our research,therefore, suggests that it is possible for somepaternal grandparents to maintain contact withtheir grandchildren even where extreme conflictbetween the parents persists. In other words,the importance of the parents’ relationship ininfluencing the grandparent-grandchild relation-ship is significant but not determining, as itcan be compensated for in circumstances wherethe grandparent is able to forge and maintain apositive relationship with the custodial parent.Notwithstanding this finding, it is important toacknowledge that a small number of respon-dents had no choice in this regard. Their lack

Grandparent-Grandchild Relationships 595

of contact or limited involvement was imposedupon them as a result of the deep rift between theparents and the lack of scope for forging a new,amicable relationship with the custodial parent.

Exceptions: Detached Grandparents

Not all grandparents are actively involved inthe lives of their grandchildren, and the label‘‘detached’’ grandparents has been attributedto a small subset of grandparents (Bengtson,2001; Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1985; Mueller,Wilhelm, & Elder, 2002). Such grandparents areargued to have low levels of connectedness totheir grandchild, and, as such, it is possible thatthese grandparents may not play an instrumen-tal role in the post-divorce family. The reasonsfor grandparents’ lack of involvement may becontingent on the circumstances of the grand-parent. For example, personality, health, andemployment status; the timing of entry into thegrandparental role in the life of the grandparent(Troll, 1985); or the marriage status of the grand-parent (White, 1992) may influence the amountof assistance channeled to offspring. Althoughour methodology prohibited us from attribut-ing grandparenting styles to the respondents,there were instances where the involvement ofgrandparents could be viewed as minimal. Forexample, two paternal grandparents were unableto direct significant attention toward their grand-children post-separation because of their ownmarital breakdown. Another was unable to directattention toward her grandchild because of herown husband’s substance abuse problems at thetime of her child’s separation. A fourth pater-nal grandmother, ironically, the respondent whohad gained access to her grandchild through theChildren Act, stated that she could not extendthe same levels of involvement to her other sonwhose relationship had recently broken down.While experiencing a sense of guilt for notpursing a similar course with the daughter ofthis other son, she outlined that because of theamount of effort she invested in the first relation-ship breakdown she was unable and unwillingto do the same a second time round:

I’m not sure if I would [seek access through theChildren Act] again. Actually, I won’t do thatagain, and funny enough now, I have another. Youknow I said both my sons broke up ok? . . . And. . . I don’t see that [grand]child. Because my sondoesn’t pick her up. The mother is very willing but

my son is not. . . . And I certainly wouldn’t go tothe same extremes to see her as I did for the other[grand]child.

DISCUSSION

It is likely that changing social norms in Irelandhave altered paternal grandparents’ levels ofinvolvement in lone-parent families. Seculariza-tion of Irish society has challenged normativeexpectations about the role of nonresident fathersas solely economic providers (McKeown, Fergu-son, & Rooney, 1999; Newman, 2003; Waters,2009) and eroded much of the stigma associatedwith marital dissolution and childbirth outsideof wedlock (Connell, 1968). The effects of thisdestigmatization were apparent in this studywhere respondents’ perceptions of divorce, ortheir son’s relationship status, were not associ-ated with feelings of shame or guilt. Instead,paternal grandparents conveyed feelings of obli-gation and responsibility to their sons, who theybelieved had been the victims of injustice. Thisperception of their sons (and grandchildren) asvictims, whether factually correct or not, pro-vided the moral justification for grandparents tointervene in the post-separation family and, nodoubt, in many instances, colored their accountsof the post-separation context.

Conceptualizing the role of paternal grand-parent relationships in the post-divorce familywithin a critical role transitions theory is a usefulundertaking. A key contribution of this theoryis that it focuses on the restructuring of familyrelationships, something which is of paramountimportance for paternal grandparents whose sonsare made nonresident fathers as an outcome ofdivorce of separation. As families transit throughthe critical phase of the relationship breakdownthey can move into new roles and new stages inthe family career (Aldous, 1996). The applica-tion of this theory in this study focused attentionon the restructuring of family relationships fromthe perspective of paternal grandparents andilluminated possible ways in which paternalgrandparents play an instrumental role in thepost-divorce family.

Our findings mirror some of the findings inthe existing literature such as the matrilinealadvantage (Dench & Ogg, 2002), the parent-as-mediator theory (Robertson, 1975), and thenegative repercussions of high-conflict relation-ship on grandparent-grandchild relationships

596 Family Relations

(Ahrons & Miller, 1993; King & Elder, 1995;Uhlenberg & Kirby, 1998). Our findings high-light that paternal grandparents can, however,invest significant energy and time in the relation-ships with their adult children and grandchildrenfollowing relationship breakdown. They suggestthat paternal grandparents may interact exten-sively with their adult son and, where possible,with their grandchildren during and after thedivorce and separation process. Furthermore,similar to Bradshaw et al. (1999), our findingsindicate that the role of grandparents may infact underpin the younger generations’ ability tonegotiate the emotional and practical impacts ofrelationship breakdown. This suggests that theactions of paternal grandparents can potentiallyhave important future implications not only forthe grandparent-grandchild relationship, but alsothe relationship trajectories of their adult sonand child in the post-separation family. Grand-parents can reduce role strain for sons who arehaving difficulty adapting to the role of non-resident father. This is particularly likely to bethe case in instances where adult sons are over-whelmed by their new parenting responsibilities,when they need to return to live with their par-ents, and in situations where they temporarilyabscond from their parenting responsibilities inthe early stage of relationship dissolution. Inaddition, paternal grandparents can serve as alink between the separating couple by focusingtheir lives on their son and grandchild (if andwhen possible) in the immediate aftermath of theseparation.

Further research is required to both deepenand refine our understanding of the role of pater-nal grandparents in the post-divorce family. Thisresearch needs to attend to characteristics ofthe nonresident father and grandparent (suchas age, health, and income), which may affectintergenerational relationships. The literatureemphasizes the new ‘‘culture of fatherhood’’and the important role fathers can play in thecare and socialization of children (La Rossa,1988; Robinson & Barret, 1986). La Rossa,however, has labeled ‘‘the involved father’’a middle class phenomenon and argued thatthe higher the employment status, the greatera father’s post-separation contact with his chil-dren. Owing to the methodology adopted, wewere not in a position to draw any conclusionsabout the relationship between the socioeco-nomic status of adult sons and its impact onfamily transitions in the post-separation family.

If La Rossa’s argument is true, we would expectto see evidence that relationships for grandpar-ents whose sons are more economically securewould undergo fewer negative changes. It wouldalso mean that the actions of grandparents whosechildren are not economically secure are partic-ularly apposite, because their sons, relationshipswith their children are at an increased risk ofbeing discontinued.

Our study gives grounds for arguing thatsupporting paternal grandparents is a highlyeffective means of supporting young fathersundergoing divorce or separation. As our find-ings illustrate, the help, care, and support thatgrandparents provide to nonresident fathers, insome cases acting as bridges across the for-mally dissolved family lines, is frequently thelynchpin to successful transition to life afterdivorce or separation both for their adult childrenand grandchildren. We therefore conclude thatsupporting grandparents is important because ittranslates into supporting all generations impli-cated in divorce and separation. In the absence offurther research on the role of paternal grandpar-ents in the post-separation family, the influentialrole they can play in facilitating the maintenanceof intergenerational relationships will remainunderutilized and unsupported.

Limitations

The method of self-selection used for the studymay mean that some of the individuals inter-viewed may have been ‘‘outlier cases’’ ratherthan ‘‘typical cases.’’ In other words, it is pos-sible that individuals interviewed wished to talkabout their experiences as they were experienc-ing a greater number of difficulties as a result oftheir adult child’s divorce or separation than mayhave been the case if a random sampling tech-nique was used. This is particularly the case forpaternal grandparents who in all but a few caseswere accessed through agencies that offered sup-ports to lone fathers. In addition, the research isunable to examine the development of relation-ships between grandchildren and their paternalgrandparents over time because the majorityof the respondents’ adult children had sepa-rated in the recent past. Despite these limitationsthe research has enabled us to characterize thediversity of experiences of paternal grandpar-ents as well as the types of inputs they make intotheir children’s and grandchildren’s lives. Theprevalence of these experiences and degree of

Grandparent-Grandchild Relationships 597

influence, however, would have to be establishedwith the help of further (quantitative) studies.

REFERENCES

Ahrons, C. R. (2007). Family ties after divorce: Long-term implications for children. Family Process,46(1), 53 – 65.

Ahrons, C. R., & Miller, R. B. (1993). The effectof the postdivorce relationship on paternalinvolvement: A longitudinal analysis. AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry, 63, 441 – 450.

Aldous, J. (1990). Family development and lifecourse: Two perspectives on family change.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 571 – 583.

Aldous, J. (1995). New views of grandparents inan intergenerational context. Journal of FamilyIssues, 16(1), 104 – 122.

Aldous, J. (1996). Family careers: Rethinking thedevelopmental perspective. London: Sage.

Bengtson, V. L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family:The increasing importance of multigenerationalbonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1),1 – 16.

Bradshaw, J., Stimson, C., Skinner, C., & Williams, J.(1999). Absent fathers. New York: Routledge.

Bray, J., H., & Berger, S. H. (1990). Noncustodialfather and paternal grandparent relationships instepfamilies. Family Relations, 39(4), 414 – 419.

Bridges, L. J., Roe, A. E. C., Dunn, J., & O’Connor,T. G. (2007). Children’s perspectives on their rela-tionships with grandparents following parentalseparation: A longitudinal study. Social Devel-opment, 16, 539 – 554.

Bowers, B. F., & Myers, B. J. (1999). Grandmothersproviding care for grandchildren: Consequencesof various levels of caregiving, Family Relations,48(3), 303 – 311.

Chan, C. G., & Elder Jr., G. H. (2000). Matrilinealadvantage in grandchild-grandparent relations.Gerontologist, 40(2), 179 – 190.

Cherlin, A., & Furstenberg, F. A. (1985). Stylesand strategies of grandparenting. In L. Bengston& J. Robertson, F. (Eds.), Grandparenthood(pp. 97 – 116). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Connell, K. H. (1968). Illegitimacy before the famine,In K. H. Connell (Ed.), Irish peasant society:Four historical essays (pp. 51 – 86). Dublin: IrishAcademic Press.

Cooney, T. M., & Smith, L. A. (1996) Young adults’relations with grandparents following recentparental divorce. Journals of Gerontology, 51B(2), 91 – 95.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitativeresearch: Techniques and procedures for develop-ing grounded theory (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

Dench, G., & Ogg, J. (2002). Grandparenting inBritain: A baseline study (2nd ed.). London:Institute of Community Studies.

Douglas, G., & Ferguson, N (2003). The role ofgrandparents in divorced families. InternationalJournal of Law Policy Family, 17(1), 41 – 67.

Drew, L. A., & Smith, P. K. (1999). The impactof parental separation/divorce on grandparent-grandchild relationships. International Journalof Aging and Human Development, 48(3),191 – 216.

Drew, L. M., & Silverstein, M. (2007). Grandparents’psychological well-being after loss of contact withtheir grandchildren. Journal of Family Psychology,21, 372 – 379.

Fahey, T., & Field, C. (2008). Families in Ireland:An analysis of patterns and trends. Dublin: DublinStationary Office.

Ferguson, N. (2004). Children’s contact with grand-parents after divorce. Family Matters, 67, 36 – 41.

Ferguson, N., Douglas, G., Lowe, N., Murch, M., &Robinson, M. (2004). Grandparenting in divorcedfamilies. Bristol: Policy Press.

Hagestad, G. O. (1985). Continuity and connected-ness. In V. L. Bengtson & J. F. Robertson (Eds.),Grandparenthood (pp. 27 – 30). London: Sage.

Hogan, D. M., Halpenny, A. M., & Green, S. (2003).Change and continuity after parental separation:Children’s experiences of family transitions inIreland. Childhood, 10(2), 163 – 180.

Kim, J. E., Hetherington, E. M., & Reiss, D. (1999).Associations among family relationships, antiso-cial peers, and adolescents’ externalizing behav-iors: Gender and family type differences. ChildDevelopment, 70, 1209 – 1230.

King, V., & Elder Jr., G. H. (1995). American childrenview their grandparents: Linked lives across threerural generations. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 57(1), 165 – 178.

Kornhaber, A. (1996). Contemporary grandparent-ing. London: Sage.

La Rossa, R. (1988). Fatherhood and social change.Family Relations, 37(4), 451 – 457.

La Rossa, R. (2005). Grounded theory method andqualitative research. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 67, 837 – 857.

Lussier, G., Deater-Deckard, K., Dunn, J., & Davies,L. (2002). Support across two generations:Children’s closeness to grandparents followingparental divorce and remarriage. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 16(3), 363 – 376.

McKeown, K., Ferguson, H., & Rooney, D. (1999).Changing fathers? Fatherhood and family life inmodern Ireland. Wilton, Cork: The Collins Press.

Mederer, H., & Hill, R. (1983). Critical transitionsover the family life span: Theory and research.Marriage and Family Review, 6(1), 39 – 60.

Minkler, M., Fuller-Thomson, E., Miller, D., &Driver, D. (1997). Depression in grandparentsraising grandchildren: Results of a national longi-tudinal study. Archives of Family Medicine, 6(5),445 – 452.

598 Family Relations

Moore, E. (2009). The legal context: Divorce andfamily law in Ireland. In V. Timonen, M. Doyle,& C. O’Dwyer, C. (Eds.), The role of grandparentsin divorced and separated families (pp. 40 – 51).Dublin: Family Support Agency.

Mueller, M. M., Wilhelm, B., & Elder Jr., G. H.(2002). Variations in grandparenting. Research onAging, 24(3), 360 – 388.

Newman, C. (2003, April 19). Fathers in protest overchild access. The Irish Times, p. 5.

Robertson, J. F. (1975) Interaction in three generationfamily—Parents as mediators: Towards a theoret-ical perspective. International Journal of Ageingand Human Development, 6, 103 – 100.

Robinson, B. E., & Barret, R. L. (1986). The devel-oping father: Emerging roles in contemporarysociety. New York: Guilford.

Rodgers, R. (1964). Towards a theory of familydevelopment. Journal of Marriage and the Family,26, 262 – 270.

Ross, N., Hill, M., Sweeting, H., & Cunningham-Burley, S. (2003). Grandparents and teen grand-children: Exploring intergenerational relation-ships. Glasgow: Centre for Research on Familiesand Research.

Schutter, M. E., Scherman, A., & Carroll, R. S.(1997). Grandparents and children of divorce:Their contrasting perceptions and desires for thepostdivorce relationship. Educational Gerontol-ogy, 23(3), 213 – 231.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data:Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction.London: Sage.

Somary, K., & Stricker, G. (1998). Becoming agrandparent: A longitudinal study of expectationsand early experiences as a function of sex andlineage. Gerontologist, 38(1), 53 – 61.

Tomlin, A. (1998). Grandparents’ influences ongrandchildren. In M. E. Szinovacz (Ed.), Hand-book on grandparenthood (pp. 159 – 170). West-port, CT: Greenwood Publishing.

Troll, L. (1983). Grandparents: The family watch-dogs. In T. Brubaker (Ed.), Family relations inlater life (pp. 63 – 74). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Troll, L. E. (1985). The contingencies of grandpar-enting. In L. Bengston & J. Robertson (Eds.),Grandparenthood (pp. 135 – 149). Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

Uhlenberg, P., & Kirby, J. P. (1998). Grandparent-hood over time: Historical and demographic trends.In M. E. Szinovacz (Ed.), Handbook on grandpar-enthood (pp. 23 – 39). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1989). Secondchances: Men, women and children a decade afterdivorce. New York: Basic Books.

Waters, J. (2009, September 11). Unmarried fathersjust want equality. The Irish Times, p. 14.

White, L. (1992). The effect of parental divorce andremarriage on parental support for adult children.Journal of Family Issues, 13(2), 234 – 250.