Search Results for Nonresident parents

... of nonresident parent wealth among children who ever lived with both parents in a shared household. We use the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (1984–2021)—whose survey design enables us to produce unbiased estimates with respect to factors that condition access to nonresident parents—to describe...

... ’ contact with their nonresident biological children. We find that father involvement drops sharply after relationships between unmarried parents end. Mothers’ transitions into new romantic partnerships and new parenting roles are associated with larger declines in involvement than fathers’ transitions...

... Children After Divorce: The Influence of Custody on Support Levels and Payments . Family Law Quarterly , 22 , 319 – 39 . Schaeffer , N.C. , Seltzer , J.A. , & Klawitter , M. ( 1991 ). Estimating Nonresponse and Response Bias: Resident and Nonresident Parents’ Reports About Child...

... result from children’s continued residence with their other biological parent outside of the stepfamily household. This explanation is consistent with research findings that nonresident fathers make fewer financial contributions to children compared with resident fathers (McLanahan et al. 2013...

... processes. With this in mind, we track a cohort of women in Norway from age 18 to 31, recording the emergence of birth and migration events as well as their proximity to nonresident family networks (siblings and parents). Using a multilevel multiprocess statistical framework, with observations nested within...

... initiatives is that nonresident fathers not only have a right to maintain regular contact with their children but also that doing so will improve those children’s developmental outcomes. Advocates for this position point to evidence concerning risks to development among children with divorced parents as well...

... are less likely to work as migrants when a parent is ill. Poor health of an elderly parent has less impact on the probability of employment as a migrant when an adult child has siblings who may be available to provide care. We also highlight the potential importance of including information on nonresident...

... Social Structural Constraints.” Sociological Forum 14. Schaefer , N.C. , Seltzer , J.A. , & Klawitter , M. ( 1991 ). Estimating Nonresponse and Response Bias: Resident and Nonresident Parents’ Reports about Child Support . Sociological Methods and Research , 20 , 30 – 59...

... With Children After Separation . Journal of Family Issues , 15 ( 1 ), 49 – 77 . 10.1177/019251394015001003 Smock , P.I. , & Manning , W.D. ( 1997 ). Nonresident Parents’ Characteristics and Child Support . Journal of Marriage and the Family , 59 , 798 – 808 . 10.2307/353783...

... for handling missing data. We conclude that parents’ ability to work together in rearing their common child across households helps keep nonresident fathers connected to their children and that programs aimed at improving parents’ ability to communicate may have benefits for children irrespective of whether...

... with more than one partner. Multiple parenting relationships result in growing family complexity; over the course of their childhood, many children will come to share a household and parent with half-siblings and to share a nonresident parent with other half-siblings who live elsewhere. Multiple-partner...

... affecting single-parent families is child support. When children live with only one biological parent, the nonresident parent (usually the father) 3 is typically required to pay child support to the resident parent (usually the mother) to contribute to child-rearing expenses. A public child support...

..., income sharing is not automatic, and the nonresident par- ent often fails to provide for the child. Court-ordered child support is the mechanism through which society attempts to ensure that nonresident parents make financial trans- fers to their children. The importance of child support has increased...

... <Y N ot e: In co m es re po rte d by st ud ie s ar e in ba se -y ea r do lla rs u n le ss sp ec ifi ed o th er w ise in pa re nt he se s. a M or e in fo rm at io n m ay be pr ov id ed in a gi ve n st ud y th an is di sp la ye d he re .F or m an ag ea bi lit y w e ha ve tr ie d to ch oo se th e fig ur es m o st re le va nt to o u r o w n st ud y fo rp re se nt at io n. b Tw en ty -y ea r ra n ge , st an da rd iz ed at 19 69 le ve l. C M ea n n et w ee kl y ea rn in gs (ea rni ng sl es s ta xe s an d u n io n du es )a s re po rte d by Ch am be rs , tim es 52 . d In co m es o fn o n re sid en tf at he rs w er e im pu te d o n th e ba sis o f m o th er s' ch ar ac te ris tic s. e D oe s n o t in cl ud e se pa ra te d o r re m ar rie d fa th er s. f Fa m ily in co m e. g R ep or te d in co m e is th e av er ag e in co m e o fn o n re sid en tf at he rs o v er th os e ye ar s be tw ee n 19 70 an d 19 81 in w hi ch th ey w er e di vo rc ed ("e x- co up le ye ar s" in H ill 's st ud y). h O 'N ei ll al so pr es en ts a m ea n in co m e es tim at e ba se d o n m o th er s' re po rts o f th ei r ex -h us ba nd s' in co m es fro m th e A pr il 19 79 CP S. Th is fig ur e, $1 7,8 00 in 19 78 do lla rs ($3 2,3 00 in 19 88 do lla rs ), w as de riv ed fro m re po rts o f th e re la tiv el y fe w w o m en in th e sa m pl e w ho ha d ch ild su pp or ta w ar ds an d w ho kn ew th ei re x -h us ba nd s' in co m es (re co rde dc ru de ly in o n e o fs ix ca te go rie s). i R an ge d fro m 19 73 to 19 86 . j Ea rn in gs . k M ed ia n in co m e. I Ch ild Su pp or tE nf or ce m en tA ge nc y. m Em pl oy m en tS ec ur ity Co m m iss io n o f N or th Ca ro lin a. r i ~ ~ ~ r- ~ ~ ~ Income Growth among Nonresident Fathers 231 earnings of young absent fathers.' Though the latter includes a large percentage of nonmarital fathers, to our knowledge no studies have addressed the income pattern of this group alone. In the discussion that follows, as above, we have converted reported figures into 1988 dollars. Duncan and Hoffman assess a sample of 250 men divorced for at least five years from the Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Though not necessarily fathers, it is likely that many, if not most, were, because of the age restriction in the sample. Of these, most probably did not have custody of their children. The authors find that in the year before their divorce, the men had an average family income of $33,000, which fell to $27,900 in the year after the divorce and then rose gradually to $33,700 five years after. Hill also studies a sample from the PSID, though she includes only nonresident fathers. Also, rather than maintaining a sample that is constant over time, she examines all fathers divorced for certain numbers of years, up to eight. In the first year after divorce her estimates are based on 147 men; for the eighth postdivorce year, they are based on only 70. Rather than calculating means, Hill presents family income distributions in each year. For ease of comparison, we transformed these distributions to means.? The result was an average income of $36,200 (in 1988 dollars) in the year after the divorce, which then fluctuated but gradually climbed to $41,800 by the eighth postdivorce year. These figures are slightly higher than those found by Duncan and Hoffman. The discrepancy most likely is explained by the fact that Duncan and Hoffman subtract child support and alimony payments from income when appropriate, though their inclusion of some nonfathers and imprecision in our transformation may also contribute. In either case, both studies show that average postdivorce family income rises somewhat over time, which is to be expected as work experience increases and more fathers remarry. Duncan and Hoffman also find that men's incomes fall off somewhat, at least immediately after separation. This decline can be explained largely by the fact that wives' earnings are no longer available and by the subtraction of child support and alimony-expenses the fathers did not have prior to separation. In contrast to these two studies, Lerman's study reports a different measure of income for a different subpopulation of nonresident fathers. Moreover, Lerman uses a different methodology than the others. His annual income measures are not relative to the year the man became nonresident; rather, he selects all who were absent fathers in 1984, and then looks at their incomes in the prior two and the following three years. Some of these men may have been fathers in the earlier years, and some may not. The figures reported by Lerman-which rise from a mere $8,600 (in 1988 dollars) in 1982 to $13,600 by 1987-are considerably lower than those reported either by Duncan and Hoffman or by Hill. This is to be expected, because Lerman is reporting earnings (the others report family income) and because his sample is restricted to very young men (age 19 to 26 in 1984). Certainly the most striking feature of Lerman's study is the relatively rapid growth in the young men's mean earnings. Looking specifically at the trend in poverty over time, Duncan and Hoffman find a definite decline in poverty for men during the first five years after divorce. These findings, which are consistent with those of Chambers (1979), Hill (1988), Nichols-Casebolt (1986), and Weitzman (1981), make one thing quite clear: fathers, as a whole, experience increases in their standards of living after divorce. This is due, of course, to the fact that poverty status takes family size into consideration, and after divorce nonresident fathers have smaller households, almost by definition. Hill also reports on the poverty rate of nonresident fathers in the first eight years after divorce, but notes that it ranges from 1.7% to 6.1%, with "no apparent systematic variation from one year to the next" (1988, p. 11). It would seem that the instability is due at least in part to the small sample sizes and to the fact that the cells do not contain exactly the same fathers across years. 232 DATA Demography, Vol. 30, No.2, May 1993 The data used in this project come from three unique but matched data bases managed and maintained by the Institute for Research on Poverty (IRP): IRP's Wisconsin Court Record data set (CRD), the Wisconsin Department of Revenue data set (DaR), and the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services Aid to Families with Dependent Children data set (HSS). The CRD originally was collected to enable evaluation of several child support reform initiatives piloted in Wisconsin during the mid-1980s. This data set is drawn from the official court documents of 21 counties (10 original pilots, 10 demographically matched controls, and Milwaukeej.> and it contains detailed information on nearly 12,000 divorce, separation, child support, and paternity cases involving children in which the initial petition dates fall between July 1980 and January 1989. Of these, we retained paternity establishment and divorce cases in which the father was a nonresident parent...

.... ( 1993 ). Developing a Middle-Range Theory of Father Involvement Postdivorce . Journal of Family Issues , 14 , 550 – 71 . 10.1177/019251393014004005 Juby H. , Billette J.-M. , Laplante B. , &amp; Le Bourdais C. ( 2007 ). Nonresident Fathers and Children: Parents’ New Unions...

... configurations to focus on relationship dynamics between parents and their new partners, between children and their stepparents, or between children and their nonresident parents (Ganong and Coleman 2004 ; Ganong et al. 2011 ). Less attention has been paid to whether and how the presence of step- and half...