The Influence of Non-Residential Father Relationships on Stepfamily Experiences

Purpose: Recent estimates suggest that up to half of children will live with a social father (stepfather that is married or cohabiting) before they turn age 18. Comparisons between stepfamilies and traditional nuclear families note that stepchildren often do worse in school, engage in risky behavior more frequently, and experience internalized and externalized problem behaviors. Although substantial research notes that contact with a non-residential father can ameliorate many of these negative outcomes, there is mixed evidence on how non-residential father contact can influence stepchild-stepfather relationships. Further, very little research has addressed how the quality of the non-residential father/child relationship influences adjustment to stepfamily life. Our paper addresses this gap in the literature by assessing how non-residential father/child contact and relationship quality is associated with stepfamily quality, stepfamily influence (how stepfamily life affects later life), and stress during stepfamily formation.

Method: Data came from the Stepfamily Experiences Project (STEP), a retrospective data source on stepfamily life, made up of a quota sample of 1,250 emerging adults (18-29) who lived in a stepfamily between the ages of 8 and 18 collected in 2013. The sample matches Census population estimates of racial/ethnic composition and educational attainment for this group. Our outcomes were derived from a four-item scale for stepfamily quality (α= 0.93), a three-item measure for stepfamily influence (α= 0.86), and a dichotomous measure for stress during stepfamily formation (0= low stress, 1= moderate to high stress). The key independent variable was non-residential biological father relationship quality, made up of four items assessing the closeness and warmth of the relationship, parenting quality, communication quality, and whether the child was used to get back at the biological mother (α= 0.87). Controls include gender, age, income, stepfamily income, race/ethnicity, stepfamily cohabitation, region, parental relationship quality, and non-residential biological father contact. We used both OLS regression and logistic regression with robust standard errors.

Results: Our results indicated that the quality of non-residential father relationships was significantly and moderately associated with improved stepfamily quality from the perspective of stepchildren (b= .141; β= .162; p<.001), reduced the negative influence of stepfamilies into emerging adulthood (b= -.156; β= .158; p<.001), and decreased the odds of experiencing high stress in the stepfamily (OR= .897). These findings are congruent with a framework which argues that stepchildren may gain/retain significant social and emotional currency from positive relationships with the nonresident father.

Implications: Our paper assessed the impact of positive non-residential father relationships with stepchildren on how the formation, duration, and aftermath of stepfamily life was experienced. The results suggest that social service agencies and clinicians working with stepfamilies and stepchildren should emphasize the significance of non-residential fathers for building high-quality stepfamilies and for mitigating some of the long-term potentially negative effects of stepfamily living. Further, stepfamily education programs may desire to emphasize the importance of non-residential fathers in the lives of stepchildren and their significance in stepfamily systems.