Category: Blog

August 2, 2019 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

A criminal justice approach to domestic violence hasn’t ameliorated the problem and may be making it worse. We need to find other methods of addressing DV if we’re to reduce its incidence. That’s the gist of this much-needed article by Professor Leigh Goodmark (New York Times, 7/23/19).

She argues for a more sensible approach to intimate partner violence. Goodmark doesn’t mention the fact, but any such approach would significantly improve the system of divorce, child custody and parenting time. For decades now, claims of domestic/sexual violence – aka “the silver bullet” – have been understood by family lawyers to be a tactic in wresting custody from a disliked ex.

The points Goodmark makes are scarcely new. That the decline in DV rates is attributable not to the criminalization of the problem or mandatory arrest policies, but to the overall decrease in violent crime has been noted many times since at least 2006.

Replication studies have shown that arrests have modest effects on deterrence in some places, no effect in others, and can actually spur violence. One study found that the likelihood of reoffending was entirely attributable to other factors — like a criminal history — rather than arrest. The impact of prosecution is similarly inconclusive: A conviction may have some effect on recidivism, but its deterrence largely disappears without continuous monitoring, such as intensive probation.

In short, the roots of DV grow in the same soil as other types of violence.

Childhood experiences like abuse, neglect or witnessing violence suggest whether a person will bring violence into his or her home.

The childhood experience of abuse is a very strong predictor of becoming an abuser. Add to that alcohol or drug abuse, unemployment and other stressors and the likelihood of DV increases. That means treating DV simply as a criminal justice matter is demonstrably unlikely to make the type of change that we all want to see. Indeed, since domestic abuse is correlated with employment woes, arresting a perpetrator and thereby increasing his/her probability of losing a job, seems likely to increase the possibility of future violent incidents.

Now, it must be said that some domestic violence must be dealt with by the police, prosecutors, judges and juries. Extremely violent or injurious first-time offenses must have a criminal justice response as must repeat offenses.

But violence against an intimate partner is learned behavior and can therefore be unlearned. So efforts must be made to find the proper therapeutic interventions to reduce domestic violence rates. Because much of DV is reciprocal, my guess is that those interventions will likely take the form of couple’s therapy. Certainly the Duluth Model of DV intervention that holds that men perpetrate DV out of a need to impose control over their female partners not only doesn’t work to reduce the incidence of DV, but misdiagnoses the illness.

Plus, decades of research demonstrate that women and girls are at least as likely to engage in violence against a partner as are men and boys and that lesbian relationships on average are the most violent of all with heterosexual ones second and gay male relationships last.  Any approach to ameliorating DV must be based on facts, not ideology. That means recognizing both men’s and women’s abilities to be violent toward family members. It means offering services both to victims and perpetrators, regardless of sex. Today in the U.S., it’s about equally difficult for a female abuser and a male victim to access the services they need to change their intimate relationships. Sadly, Goodmark fails to mention that there are over 1500 women’s shelters but only 3 for men, and that services for female abusers are virtually non-existent.

Goodmark lays out some suggestions for a change in policy, some of which make sense, and others not so much.

[W]e could provide economic support to low-income men and women. We could intervene to prevent the childhood traumas that lead to violence in adulthood. We could address the attitudes and beliefs among adolescents that drive intimate partner violence. We could use community accountability and restorative justice programs to meet the needs of victims who will never willingly turn to state systems. We could focus our efforts and resources on stopping violence before it starts, rather than intervening ineffectually after the fact.

Goodmark could have added that, among our current system’s many defects, is the fact that most people are loathe to use it. Rates of reporting incidents of DV are woefully low, both in the United States and elsewhere and much of that can be laid at the door of exactly what she inveighs against, the criminal justice system.

Unless an incident is very serious or is part of a pattern, many victims see no reason to have their partner arrested and barred from the home for weeks requiring money be paid to a lawyer and the creation of a criminal record, all courtesy of the criminal justice system.

A kinder, gentler approach would likely work better and find greater acceptance among everyday people.

Thanks to Leigh Goodmark for speaking the truth about a problem that so far has evaded solution and that needs a fresh approach to begin to reduce violence in our homes.

July 31, 2019

The work of the Kentucky chapter of the National Parents Organization has been highlighted in a newspaper article: https://www.thegleaner.com/story/news/2019/07/26/henderson-dad-celebrates-anniversary-kentucky-shared-parenting-law/1841407001/

“Three years ago, Jordan Pyles was a very unhappy father. Now, he is celebrating the first anniversary of a new law that helped make him much happier.

“Kentucky received a D-minus, with only two states being lower,” said Matt Hale, who was the founder and then-head of the Kentucky affiliate of the NPO.

“Kentucky was behind the nation in family court law,” Hale said. “The law was archaic and put a lot of stress and pressure on families breaking apart. It put a lot of stress on parents and a lot of stress on children.”

Now, Kentucky has default shared parenting and Jordan’s daughter is one of the many kids winning by having equal time with both parents. 

Share this article on social media! 

Print it out and take it to meetings. Remember, change starts with YOU. 

July 25, 2019 By Ginger Gentile, National Parents Organization Deputy Executive Director

National Parents Organization affiliate leaders are hard at work creating a roadmap on how to create momentum to pass shared-parenting legislation and educate the judiciary about its benefits. This road map will include practical lessons on how to create a core group of members, fund raise, and build alliances with organizations. Too often activists rush into trying to get legislation passed without knowing how to build a foundation of support. 

The good news is that shared parenting custody arrangements for children after divorce is overwhelmingly popular, with polling showing numbers as high as 87% that cross gender, socioeconomic and party lines. But translating this support into change isn’t always easy with legislative bodies that move slowly and are captured by special interests. That is why our messaging must always be child-focused: shared parenting is not only an effective way to reduce adversarial divorce proceedings and prevent childhood trauma, it will also save tax-payers money. 

The roadmap initiative is being led by Matt Hale, leader behind the 2018 Kentucky default shared parenting law, and Christian Paasch, of Virginia, who runs one of the largest NPO affiliates. This roadmap will be matched with the NPO mentorship program that matches new affiliate leaders with more experienced ones. 

In 2019-2020 the focus of NPO will be on building bridges with women’s groups, domestic violence advocates, ACES (Adverse Childhood Experience Study movement to prevent childhood trauma), and the legal community. Friendly messaging and diversifying our base with fresh voices will expand our message of healing post-divorce. While “Parents” is part of our identity, our organization welcomes adult children of divorce, social workers, lawyers, retired judges, teachers and academics who realize that loving, fit parents being erased from their children’s lives after divorce and separation is the silent public health crisis of our time. 

If you are ready to be part of the solution, fill out this form so we can put you in contact with a local affiliate or start a new one. 

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/take-action/start-an-affiliate-in-your-state

July 24, 2019

Christine Giancarlo, Ph.D.
Senior Lecturer, Anthropology
Mount Royal University, Calgary

I’m an anthropologist who studies human, and non-human, primates. I’m also a mother, author (Parentectomy, 2018), and feminist whose primary concern is for a healthy, sustainable future for all. Children are our collective hope for that future. As parents and adults, our job is to make sure that children have the best possible support during their development. Yet when parents divorce, kids are often relegated to the sidelines as the adults bicker, litigate, even fight for who gets the biggest award… measured in court-directed custody time. Research across cultures confirms that children are most likely to succeed in life when they have two parents who love and co-parent them. Whether a couple remains intact or divorced, they remain married to their children for life. This three-part blog uncovers the origin and necessity of two-parent families throughout human evolution as best-practice in child rearing.

Part 1 traces our human story from its earliest stages when our ancestors became bipedal to present-day. Part 2 considers parenting strategies of our closest mammal relatives, especially other primates, for evidence of shared-parenting outcomes. Part 3 is a mash-up of evolutionary, cross-species, and social science research that firmly places co-parenting as in the best interests of children.

PART 1

Fossil skeletons and footprints preserved in African volcanic ash up to five million years old show us that our ancestors walked much as we do today. These hominins were likely preoccupied with two main concerns: Finding food and… avoiding BEING food! Contrary to popular belief about “man” the hunter and our great brawn/ brain power, these hominins had a small brain (less than 1/3 the size of a modern human brain), lacked speed, claws, and sharp canine teeth. They were, essentially, sitting ducks for predators. Hominins gathered whatever plants they could find and occasionally scavenged meat left from other animals’ kills. So how did they survive and even flourish? Only through cooperation.

Cooperation provides safety in numbers, mate choice, greater success obtaining food, finding water, and brainstorming. It was cooperation, not competition, that allowed humans to survive then… and now.

The harnessing of fire about a million and a half years ago coincided with a much larger, more complex brain and the invention of sharp, two-sided stone tools. Now free-standing shelters could be made and protected by a hearth, food was cooked and meat became more accessible and less contaminated. The result was improved health, decreased mortality and an increased birth rate. Body size of these later hominins also increased, though there remained a significant difference in sexual dimorphism, males larger than females. As in all species, different size indicates different jobs: Males had a defense role in the group while females were smaller, requiring fewer calories to survive and reproduce. Both sexes and all group members had to cooperate to sustain their children, and their society.

Just eleven thousand or so years ago, somebody had the bright idea to plant seeds and grow crops. Groups cooperated to tend, harvest, and reap the benefits of a preferred and accessible diet. Agriculture was born and the village arose. The gathering and hunting lifestyle gave way to a new means of subsistence that required farm labour and defense of occupied land. Men defended and women ran the farms, cooperating to ensure a bountiful harvest and a healthy future generation.

The industrial revolution in the eighteenth century brought maximized production via machinery and human population growth skyrocketed. The village became the city, then the state. Land and resources became increasingly scarce and cooperation declined while competition increased. War became a means to defend or gain land; men became the warriors and women became the producers of the next generation of warriors. Males were thus rendered disposable by the state and an unspoken deal was struck: Men would be used as pawns to fight and die for the state… but they would also be given control (by law and religion) of “their” women to ensure and maximize paternity.

Over five million years, a species evolved from hominin to humankind, cooperative by nature but competitive by circumstance. Children were raised by cooperative parents within a group which ensured group survival in perpetuity. Patriarchy has only emerged recently in evolutionary time as a consequence of competition for resources. Though males and females differed to varying degrees in physical size and job, all parents played a crucial role in the well-being of their children.

Christine Giancarlo is author of the book, Parentectomy, which tells the stories of 30 capable, loving parents who became alienated from their children’s lives. Parentectomy is based on Christine’s peer-reviewed study, Kids Come Last: The Effect of Family Law Involvement in Parental Alienation (Giancarlo & Rottmann, 2015). Dr. Giancarlo’s research sheds light on an urgent and widespread social crisis, currently enabled by our broken family law system. Christine brings three decades of experience with parental alienation through interaction with young adults and her own personal journey. You can visit her website at christinegiancarlo.com.

July 23, 2019 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

The Abell Foundation’s report on the child support system in Maryland doesn’t simply criticize, it offers solutions as well (Abell Foundation, June, 2019). My first piece on the report appears here.

The report, written by former commissioner of the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Vicky Turetsky, pulls no punches. It points out that support orders are routinely set too high for non-custodial parents to pay resulting in skyrocketing debt, most of which is uncollectable. All of that hits the poor disproportionately hard and results in the marginalization of non-custodial parents (most often dads) in their children’s lives.

So the report urges three fixes for the current system: (1) base orders on non-custodial parents’ actual incomes, (2) reduce uncollectable child support debt and (3) ensure that children, not the state, get the money intended for them.

Turetsky comes down hardest on imputed income:

A major culprit behind unaffordable orders is using attributed, or imputed, income as the basis for calculating support obligations in low-income cases. Imputed income is fictitious income.

Child support orders based on fictitious income are almost certain to go unpaid in large part. How could it be otherwise? A parent may have once had a good job, but if he/she is out of work, that income no longer rolls in, irrespective of what a judge may decide. In Maryland, a full one-fourth of all child support orders were based on imputed income. Plus,

Parents having orders based on imputed income actually earned 72 percent less than the amount listed on the child support worksheets.

Unsurprisingly, parents with imputed income paid far less of what they owed than did parents whose orders were based on actual earnings.

Fortunately, the OCSE amended its regulations in 2016 to discourage the use of imputed income. The new standard

requires support orders for low-income parents to be based on “earnings, income, and other evidence of ability to pay,” established through fact-finding about the parents’ specific circumstances.

As to uncollectable arrears, the Abell report urges states to first write off uncollectable debt. The Administration for Children and Families has, in the past, calculated that some 40% of current arrears will never be collected. In that case, states should admit the obvious and write of those debts as uncollectable. But doing so isn’t just an accounting function.

There is ample evidence that many low-earning parents facing substantial child support debt become discouraged and leave formal employment. This usually is because they cannot afford to live on the earnings that remain once child support has been deducted from their paychecks. High arrears can substantially reduce child support payments, earnings, and labor force participation by noncustodial parents.

Worse,

Indebted noncustodial fathers have significantly less contact with their children, are less engaged in their daily activities, and provide less frequent informal support.22 Indebtedness is associated with greater parental depression, alcohol overuse, poor health, worsened family relationships, less effective parenting, and deteriorating child behavior.

In short, high levels of child support debt are bad for everyone, the child, the non-custodial parent and the economy. That’s a powerful argument for reform.

Last, the Abell report argues for what many others have before: that children, not the state, receive child support money. As it is, when a custodial parent receives Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, any child support that comes later goes to repay the state until that debt is paid in full. Only then do child support payments go to the custodial parent.

It’s a system that’s well-known to discourage payment. Non-custodial parents are often hard enough pressed to pay at all, but when they realize that whatever they pay goes, not to the child, but to the state, many simply keep the money.

When Vickey Turetsky talks, people should listen. Turetsky knows the path to more sensible child support practices that would help kids and parents alike, plus cutting state bureaucracies. Can sensible child support reform be far away?

July 19, 2019 by Robert Franklin, Esq. Member, National Board of Directors

Here’s how she begins her write-up of the Abell study:

Two decades of research present a stark message to Maryland policymakers: Unrealistic child support policies and practices entangle poor African American men and their families in poverty and have become a destabilizing force in the Baltimore community. Child support orders set beyond the ability of noncustodial parents to comply push them out of low-wage jobs, drown them in debt, hound them into the underground economy, and chase them out of their children’s lives.

What words could be more damning of a system that is meant to help kids?  Those words are amply supported by empirical facts.

Maryland’s non-custodial parents owe a whopping $1.35 billion in arrears.  That amount increases every year and, as Turetsky states, “will never be paid.”  Why?  Because courts set child support obligations at levels higher than obligors can pay.  Unsurprisingly, they don’t, and when they don’t, their debt increases.

When that happens, they tend to abandon paid work for the underground economy.  After all, paychecks can be garnished to pay child support, but cash cannot be.

And those who can’t pay are overwhelmingly likely to be poor.

Across Maryland, 50 percent of noncustodial parents in the state child support program caseload were employed in 2017, and 43 percent of these earned minimum wages or less.

Plus, the poorer the non-custodial parent, the greater the percentage of his/her income demanded by the child support system.

Maryland noncustodial parents who earn a $50,000 median income are ordered to pay 14 percent of their earnings toward child support, while noncustodial parents earning a $6,000 median income are ordered to pay 61 percent according to a University of Maryland analysis.

So it is the poorest and least able to pay who are hardest hit by child support.  What’s left for the non-custodial parent who earns little and is required to pay 61% of it in child support?  The system expects the impossible leading to parents opting out of the system altogether, which does nothing to benefit their kids.

I’ll say more about the Abell Foundation report in the near future.  Although it’s concerned strictly about matters in Maryland, the report is applicable to the country at large.

With one exception.  Unlike 32 other states, Maryland charges child support obligors no interest on their indebtedness.  In that, Maryland is an oasis of good sense in a senseless desert.  Indeed, many states still charge obligors interest at 12% and 10%, rates unpayable by the junkiest of junk bonds.  Those rates demanded of poor parents are strictly punitive.  If the parent can’t pay in the first place, what makes state lawmakers believe they can pay usurious interest too?

So, as you read the Abell Foundation report, keep in mind that, as bad as things are in Maryland, they’re worse elsewhere.

July 17, 2019 by Ginger Gentile, National Parents Organization Deputy Director

“It was just easier not to see her.”

“They left it up to me if I wanted a relationship with my dad.”

“My dad hates my mom. My brother hates my mom, and I can’t see either of them.”

For my upcoming documentary, Erasing Family, I interviewed children who had a parent erased from their lives after divorce. These children were suffering from divided loyalties and torn between two parents. In talking with so many children who have lost contact with a loving, fit parent after divorce, a pattern emerged. So profound is their need for stability that they will decide not to talk to a parent for years, even decades, in an attempt to keep the peace and love of the parent they have. These children are desperate to avoid conflict, which caused them to run away from the “other” parent.

Some of these families had 50/50 child custody arrangements, but they were not honored by one parent and the courts didn’t enforce them. Family courts allow children to state who they want to live with but don’t investigate what led to that statement. So a tense family dynamic isn’t stopped by the courts, rather, it feeds on it.

As we fight for default shared parenting, it is important to remember that we need to look at 50/50 custody holistically and make sure that parents have the tools to implement it successfully. Do they have parenting classes on how to stop arguing? Anger management programs? Free mediation to keep them out of court? Support services, like free child care and afterschool programs to allow a stay-at-home-parent to transition into the workplace? Does our parental leave offer equal (and paid!) time off for both mothers and fathers?

Kids want to have a relationship with both parents after divorce and separation. Default shared parenting is the first step in this direction, but it is not the only step that must be taken by families and society.

NPO Study Prompts Ohio Counties to Update Parenting Time Rules

July 16, 2019 by Don Hubin, PhD

When we think of success in promoting shared parenting, the image that often comes to mind is NPO’s stunning success in Kentucky. There, Matt Hale led a successful movement for a dramatic legislative change. In Ohio, we haven’t been able to duplicate this sort of shared parenting home run … yet! But a study that several of us undertook last year seems to be producing base hits.

In 2018, Frank Glandorf, Julie Carpenter-Hubin, and I reviewed the parenting time guidelines of each of Ohio’s county courts, grading these on the degree to which they promoted equal shared parenting. The results, presented in the NPO Ohio Parenting Time Report, were depressing but not surprising. Sixty-four of Ohio’s 88 counties were still locked into the “every-other-weekend-and-one-evening-a-week” model that dates from the Madmen era.

This approach to separated parenting has never been shown by scientific research to be beneficial to children and, even if there was a time when it made sense, we are far beyond that time. The work and parenting patterns of modern families are far different from those of the 1950s.

Shortly after the publication of the NPO study, there were already signs that it was having an impact. The lone county to receive an ‘F’ was surprised to find out that their guidelines specified that it was “Father” who was to have the every-other-weekend schedule. We know that when such a schedule is imposed, it is almost always father who is taken out of a full parenting role for the children. But courts weren’t supposed to say that out loud. The Van Wert magistrate was taken aback at the presence of the gendered language and indicated that the rule would be reviewed.

Several other county courts, or the bar associations in the county, let NPO know that they would be reviewing their guidelines, some seeking NPO’s input.

Now, we’re seeing the fruits of our efforts. We learned last week that two counties had changed their rules. One moved from a good, but not great parenting time schedule to one that presumes equal parenting time by both parents. Another moved from the old every-other-weekend schedule to present multiple options, one of which is at least a vast improvement over this schedule and two of which allow the children equal time with each parent.

In addition, NPO has just learned that the only Ohio county out of all 88 to earn an ‘F’ did more than remove its gendered language. It recently enacted a new parenting time rule that presents parents with multiple options, the very first of which allows the children equal time with both parents.

Those of us in Ohio will continue working for equal parenting legislation similar to Kentucky’s. But it’s worth remembering that while all home runs produce scores, there are ways to run up the score with base hits as well. Through different strategies, NPO is making a difference in children’s lives.

July 15, 2019 by Dr. Linda Nielsen

Based on the social science research summarized in my books for the past three decades, after parents separate, fathers’ relationships with their daughters are generally more damaged than their relationships with their sons.^{1, 2} This is not especially surprising since, when parents are living together, mothers generally have closer relationships with their daughters than with their sons. Mothers also generally disclose more personal information and seek advice and comfort more often from their daughters. Daughters are more likely than sons to hear damaging information about their dads from their moms and to end up being their mom’s confidante and “counselor”—a situation that generally gets worse and further weakens the father-daughter relationship after the parents separate.

Three situations that do the most damage to the father-daughter relationship are the mom’s refusal to share the physical custody of the children, her gatekeeping behaviors, and her negative reactions to the dad’s girlfriend or new wife. ^1,2

Based on peer reviewed published articles summarizing the 60 studies that compared the outcomes for children in sole and shared physical custody, children fare better in families where they live with their dad at least 35% of the time.³ Many scholars have independently reached this conclusion, including 112 international experts in a consensus paper,³ 12 experts at an international conference on shared parenting,⁴ and 33 mental health and family law professionals at a think tank sponsored by the Association of Family & Conciliatory Courts.⁵ Interestingly, in those studies where there were differences between the sons’ and daughters’ well-being, shared physical custody was generally more beneficial for girls in terms of not being clinically depressed or having an anxiety disorder. ³

The second damaging factor is maternal gatekeeping.^{6, 7} Gatekeeping is a situation where the mom intentionally or unintentionally behaves in ways that close the metaphorical “gate” between fathers and children. The gatekeeping mother believes that she is the better parent and that the children need and benefit more from mothering time than from fathering time. Gatekeeping can and does occur in married families. But it is more prevalent after parents separate. For example, after divorce, the mom might not allow the kids to have pictures of their dad in her home, might make it difficult for him to spend time with them, and might badmouth him and his extended family. Since moms are typically closer to their daughters than to their sons, these gatekeeping behaviors may be especially damaging to father-daughter relationships.

Compared to sons’ relationships, the father-daughter bond also tends to deteriorate more when the dad becomes involved in a serious romantic relationship, especially if he remarries ^1,2, Daughters react more negatively to stepmoms than to stepdads—and they react more negatively than sons. ⁸ This, in turn, makes the father-daughter relationship even more fragile and more complicated. In part this happens because fathers and stepfathers are generally more accepting of each other than are mothers and stepmothers. Then too, divorced men usually remarry before their ex-wives. So the first stepparent children have to get used to is a stepmom. Dad’s remarriage also tends to increase the conflict between the two parents and creates tension between the mom, stepmom, and kids. The drama, jealousy, and conflict is likely to take the greatest toll on the father daughter bond since daughters are more likely than sons to hear their mom complain about the stepmom or about dad’s new girlfriend.

Well before the parents separate, dads need to be more aware of what is likely to happen in their relationships with their daughters—and to more fully understand the root of these problems. There are steps that dads can take to minimize the damage. Among them are spending more time alone with their daughters without their sons around—time spent talking and doing things together like hiking, cooking or playing a one-on-one sport like golf or tennis. Dozens of these activities and specific questions for dads to discuss with teenage or young adult daughters are described in my book, “Between fathers and daughters: Enriching or rebuilding your relationship.” Other ideas are available on my Psychology Today blog site. ⁹

You can purchase Dr. Nielsen’s book Between Fathers and Daughters: Enriching and Rebuilding your Adult Relationship here and her book Embracing Your Father: How to Build the Relationship You’ve Always Wanted with Your Dad here.

Reference List

     (1)   Nielsen L. (2008) Between fathers and daughters: Enriching and rebuilding your adult relationship. Nashville: Turner Publishing

https://www.amazon.com/Between-Fathers-Daughters-Rebuilding-Relationship/dp/1581826613/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=linda+nielsen&qid=1563041632&s=books&sr=1-2;

     (2)   Nielsen L. (2019) Fathers and Daughters: Contemporary Research and Issues. New York: Routledge, second edition. https://www.amazon.com/Father-Daughter-Relationships-Textbooks-Family-Studies/dp/0367232871/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=linda+nielsen&qid=1563041713&s=books&sr=1-1

     (3)   Nielsen L. Joint versus sole physical custody: Children’s outcomes independent of parent-child relationships, income and conflict in 60 studies. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 2018;59:247-281.

     (4)   Braver S, Lamb M. Shared parenting after parental separation: The views of 12 experts. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 2018;59:372-387.

     (5)   Pruett M, DiFonzo H. Closing the gap: Research, policy, practice and shared parenting. Family Court Review 2014;44:152-174.

     (6)   Ganong L, Coleman M, Chapman A. Gatekeeping after separation and divorce. In: Drozd L, Saini M, Olesen N, editors. Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family court.New York: Oxford University Press; 2016. 308-346.

     (7)   Austin B, Fieldstone L, Pruett M. Bench book for assessing parental gatekeeping in parenting disputes. Journal of Child Custody 2013;10:1-16.

     (8)   Papernow P. Surviving and thriving in stepfamily relationships: What works and what doesn’t. New York: Routledge; 2013.

     (9)   Nielsen L. Father-daughter relationships. Psychology Today blog site https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fathers-daughters. 2019.

July 14, 2019