Why does the law underestimate the psychosocial benefits of fathers?
My previous article considered the positive effects on families when fathers provide care during the first year of a child’s life. It explored the difficulties fathers may face, due to UK law, when trying to look after their newborn child. It argued the law excludes a proportion of biological fathers from birth onwards and creates barriers to fathers who want to provide ‘hands on’ care to their child.
This second article considers the statutory structures in the UK that makes being an involved father more difficult following parental separation or divorce. It will particularly focus on child maintenance and social services which appear structured in a way to discourage some fathers from providing in-person care. It also explores the psychological, social and economic effects these systems may have on both the father and the child.
“father involvement was associated with children who were less aggressive and had less involvement in the criminal justice system […] improved IQ scores, fewer mental health problems and better psychological functioning […] better educational attainment and fewer instances of homelessness”
On average, having an involved father is beneficial throughout a child's life. A 2007 literature review of 24 studies found a positive effect of direct father involvement in 22 of them. Behaviourally, father involvement was associated with children who were less aggressive and had less involvement in the criminal justice system. Psychologically and cognitively it showed correlation with improved IQ scores, fewer mental health problems and better psychological functioning. Socially it correlated with better educational attainment and fewer instances of homelessness. The conclusion of the study was that there is sufficient evidence for policy makers and professionals to promote fathers involvement in children’s lives.
A 2018 literature review of 60 studies found that children in joint custody arrangements, rather than sole custody arrangements, generally had better outcomes. The authors also raised concerns that some activist scholars were minimising the positive effects of joint custody arrangements. They identified misreporting of studies which downplayed the benefit of contact with a father.
“…around 3 million children do not live with their father, 25% of all children in the UK”.
There are approximately 12 million children in the UK of which 3.6 million are in separated families. 86% of non-resident parents are male, which means around 3 million children do not live with their father, 25% of all children in the UK.
These non-resident fathers vary in their involvement with their children, some by choice but others may feel restricted in how much care they are allowed to provide. A study in 2008 showed that 32% of non-resident parents that used the court system to obtain contact orders got less contact than they were hoping for. A 2011 report notes around 94% of court applications to obtain a contact order were brought by a father. The legal costs of applying for child arrangement orders, that go to court, can exceed £5000 according to one law firm.
Divorce and separation can be hard for mothers, fathers and children. Following separation or divorce, men are at an increased risk of suicide, substance misuse and depression. Yet the more in-person contact a father has with their children, following a divorce, the more likely they are to have better emotional wellbeing and health outcomes. A 2020 study demonstrated a correlation between men who had difficulty obtaining in-person access to their children and deteriorating mental health. Non-resident fathers are also at increased risk of finding themselves in poverty and are an overlooked subpopulation during policy discussion.
“While it is important that children are supported, financially and otherwise […] child maintenance payments appear to be moving many non-resident parents into poverty.”
If a biological father does not live with his children or they stay with him less than half the year, he is expected to financially contribute to the resident parent. A father is expected to pay child maintenance even when he has not been given parental responsibilities. Child maintenance is calculated based on a percentage of the non-resident parent’s income, the number of children they have and how frequently the child stays with them. The less a non-resident parent sees a child, the more money they contribute to the resident parent for care.
An estimated £2.3bn per year is transferred between resident and non resident parents in Great Britain, and 94% of those who pay child maintenance are male. While child maintenance payments move an estimated 3% of children and their resident parents out of poverty, 5% of non-resident parents are moved into poverty. While it is important that children are supported, financially and otherwise, the system should also maintain the welfare of their parents if it wishes to provide a stable environment for care. However child maintenance payments appear to be moving many non-resident parents into poverty.
The reason for non-resident parents moving into poverty may be due to housing costs. Before housing costs are included, 2% fewer non-resident parents fall into poverty. If a non-resident parent wants their child to stay with them they are likely to require at least one, if not two, additional bedrooms. Due to the way child maintenance is calculated, it may cost more to have some contact with a child then none at all.
To illustrate this, I put my personal circumstances into the child maintenance calculator, my income is around the mean national average for men in the UK. If I were to never see my two boys I would have to contribute £491.60 a month and if I were to see them 1-2 nights a week I would have to contribute £70.30 less. However, to host two boys requires having at least 1 additional bedroom. The average difference in cost between a one bedroom and two bedroom flat where I live is £181 a month. This means I would be financially better off if I never saw my children. This difference in costs is unlikely to deter a motivated father from spending time with his children, but it could explain the disproportionate increase of financial hardship after accounting for housing costs.
“If the non-resident parent is not able to pay or refuses to pay this new increased amount, the child maintenance service can [confiscate their] passport, driving licence or send them to prison. There is ongoing discussion whether these non-resident parents should be tagged and curfewed so they can still go to work but not socialise.”
While I am not suggesting children and resident parents don’t need this money, we must question what impact this system has on all individuals involved. A cursory examination of child maintenance suggests it has the capacity to economically discourage contact with children and can displace rather than alleviate poverty.
If a non-resident parent falls behind on their payments or refuses to pay child maintenance, the resident parent can request that the child maintenance service collects it on their behalf, via the ‘collect and pay’ service. Collect and pay charges an additional 20% to non-resident parents and another 4% to the resident parent, potentially compounding any financial difficulties the non-resident parent was already having. Unlike other government systems designed to provide childcare support, such as child care vouchers and free child care hours, child maintenance payments are not subsidised by the government or paid before tax.
If the non-resident parent is not able to pay or refuses to pay this new increased amount, the child maintenance service can ask the courts to take the non-resident parents’ passport, driving licence or send them to prison. There is ongoing discussion whether these non-resident parents should be tagged and curfewed so they can still go to work but not socialise. The vilification of non-resident ‘feckless fathers’ has in the past resulted in MPs considering forced labour in public for not maintaining child maintenance payments.
The state's expectation of fathers as caregivers and/or as financial support appears to shape how child maintenance systems are devised. In countries where shared parenting is assumed, such as Finland, child maintenance payments reflect this and non-resident fathers are less impoverished.
The health implications of falling into poverty or debt cannot be overstated. It increases the likelihood of developing a mental health disorder, experiencing suicidal thoughts and generally having a shorter life expectancy.
Following the initial separation, contact with a non-resident parent becomes less frequent over time. One 2008 study showed that after 5 years of a divorce, 1 in 5 children had no contact with their father at all.
Once contact with a child no longer takes place, biological fathers are rarely sought or involved by statutory services in the care and welfare of their child. Even when the parenting capabilities of a resident parent are being questioned by children’s social services, natural fathers are ‘routinely left out’. Some researchers have attributed this to gendered thinking within the social work profession, biological fathers being exclusively assessed as either a ‘risk or resource’.
This sadly has meant that there have been occasions when biological fathers, who have been excluded from their children’s lives, were not informed that social services were involved, even when their child is in danger. A recent example of this was in 2022 when 5 year old Logan Mwangi was murdered by his Mum, her boyfriend and his step-brother. Logan's biological father wasn’t informed that his son had been put on the child protection register.
Benjamin Mwangi is reported saying “If I would have had any inkling whatsoever that Logan was known (to social services), I would have gone with a police escort and told social services ‘OK, I’m getting my son’s things and I’m taking him away from this obviously hostile environment. If he’s in danger, let’s make him safe’.”
This has resulted in Mr Mwangi asking for a change in the law to ensure that non-resident parents are informed by social services if their children are at risk. The petition has so far received over 13,000 signatures.
A father’s involvement in a child’s life is likely beneficial to the wellbeing of both the child and father. Throughout a child’s life some fathers in the UK are met with legislative and institutional barriers when attempting to provide in person care. We need to consider, as a society, if we believe children have the right to know their father. We also need to consider whether mothers and fathers should be treated as equally valuable in a child’s life, and if so, design systems that make it easy for both parents to provide care.
Scroll down to join the discussion
Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.
Like our articles?
Click here to subscribe to our FREE newsletter and be first
to hear about news, events, and publications.
Have you got something to say?
Check out our submissions page to find out how to write for us.
.
