Nonresidential Fathers: Their Perceptions Toward Assuming the Custody of Children in Foster Care

Background: The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoption Act of 2008 mandates engagement of relatives, including fathers, as part of the permanency planning options.  Studies have found fathers could be a positive resource for decreasing risks for child maltreatment.  To date, there is very little evidence established on the extent to which nonresidential, biological fathers are or should be involved with their children. Consequently, there is an urgent need for more research on nonresidential fathers as a potential option for permanency planning. The present study explored the characteristics of fathers with children in the child welfare system and the factors associated with fathers’ perceptions on their chance of assuming the legal custody of their children.    

Methods: This study used information collected from 75 nonresidential, biological fathers, who had their children in foster care. Study participants were recruited from a social service agency, homeless shelters, drug and alcohol programs and low income neighborhoods in urban Philadelphia. Face-to-face, in-depth interviews were conducted to solicit information about father’s demographic background, his involvement with the child in care, the father’s feeling of closeness with the child, barriers to the father’s involvement, the likelihood that the father will assume physical/legal custody of his child, and the father’s personal challenges (e.g., substance use, arrest history).

Results: The average age of nonresidential, biological fathers was 40 years, and the majority of them were African American.  More than 73% of the fathers attained low levels of education (e.g., high school or less).  Almost 70% of fathers reported frequent face-to-face contact with their children.  On average, fathers reported using 1.44 kinds of substances (SD=0.96) and experienced multiple arrests (M = 3.4, SD=5.45, range: 0 to 34).  Logistic regression result showed that fathers with more substance usages perceived lower likelihood that they might assume the custody of their children in care.  If fathers thought that they had a better relationship with their children, they reported better odds of anticipating regaining the custody of their children in care.

Conclusions: Nonresidential fathers had the intention to stay involved with their children, especially if they reported being close to their child, despite their backgrounds and limitations. Child welfare professionals should: (1) be open-minded and give nonresidential fathers chances to prove themselves to be adequate caregivers for their children in the child welfare system; (2) build on the strengths of the father; (3) be aware of what nonresidential fathers might expect when they are contacted about their children in foster care; and (4) set goals that both parties (i.e., child welfare system and nonresidential fathers) can agree upon and provide necessary services for fathers. Fathers may need as much support as possible not only from other family members but also from child welfare professionals, who intentionally or unintentionally become gatekeepers against fathers. If the system wants to pursue children’s permanency and safe care, nonresidential fathers should no longer be ignored, but be considered a resource with its full potential.