Sunday, August 03, 2003

By Mackenzie Carpenter, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

What does the social science say?

Do children of divorce do better when their primary custodial parent is financially and emotionally secure? Or is it more important to have both parents nearby when growing up, even if it means prohibiting the custodial parent from moving to take on a better job or remarriage?

In allowing relocations over the past 15 years, many state courts have relied on research by prominent divorce expert Judith Wallerstein and others showing a child's best interests are inextricably linked with the custodial parent. So, if that parent, usually the mother, has to move to better her social and financial circumstances, she should be allowed to do so, because in the end, that will be best for the child.

But what about the other parent, usually, the father?

Wallerstein and others say it is possible to have good long-distance relationships with noncustodial parents; that the quality of time spent with the child is more important than quantity.

Pennsylvania's own case law reflects those findings:

"When relocation is likely to result in a substantially enhanced quality of life for the custodial parent, often the child's best interests will be indirectly but genuinely served," said Superior Court Judge Phyllis Beck in Gruber vs. Gruber, a 1990 case that lays out guidelines for granting or denying relocations.

But that notion was challenged recently by Sanford Braver, an Arizona State psychology professor who has written several books sympathetic to fathers. Braver contended that Wallerstein's studies and those of other social scientists were inconclusive, and that better research was needed on how relocation affects children of divorce.

He released a study of his own, compiled from written questionnaires distributed to freshmen psychology students, comparing children of divorce who had both parents living nearby with those with at least one parent who had moved more than an hour's drive away. The results suggested that children who had one parent relocate after divorce suffered more adjustment problems and hostility.

Braver issued the study just as the California Supreme Court prepared to reconsider its own 1996 decision making it easier for custodial parents to move with their children. While acknowledging his study's limitations -- there was no cause-and-effect relationship found between a move and a child's later problems, only the suggestion of one -- he said he hoped his work would influence the court and trigger more research.

But Wallerstein quickly challenged Braver's study, saying it was far less in-depth than her own work. While she has been criticized over the years for her small sample size -- 59 families to start with (a control group was added later) -- Wallerstein said she had conducted 25 years of intensive interviews with these families, something no other researcher has matched.

"Why didn't he look at kids whose parents were ordered to stay by the court vs. those who were allowed to leave? There are no comparisons like that in the study, and they are crucial," Wallerstein said. "It's a modest study with no context. He doesn't know who these young people are at all."

But even those who generally support Wallerstein's theories say that the social science is still far from complete and may never be, given the difficulty of conducting large-scale studies measuring childrens' outcomes over time.

"This is not an area where the research has produced a solid, secure finding, and frankly, I doubt the research will ever be that conclusive," said Frank Furstenberg, a University of Pennsylvania professor and co-author, with Harvard professor Andrew Cherlin, of an influential book on divorce, "Divided Families."

Furstenberg said most evidence showed that "it isn't the frequency of contact between noncustodial parent and child, it's how parents support or undermine each other. Any particular arrangement can work depending on how well the parents get along."

E-mail this story   Print this story