Non-Resident Fathers and Child Maltreatment: A Scoping Review of Risk and Protective Pathways

Background and Purpose: Fathers and their involvement are well-documented protective factors in preventing and mitigating the effects of child maltreatment (CM) (Younas & Gutman, 2023). However, non-resident (NR) fathers have been underrepresented in the literature, often depicted through deficit-based perspectives when included. This scoping review systematically maps the research on the roles of NR fathers in CM/CM risk. The current study aims to identify the risk and protective factors associated with NR fathers, explore their behaviors and characteristics that contribute to or mitigate CM/CM risk, and fill the knowledge gap regarding the impact of NR on child maltreatment.

Methods: A comprehensive systematic search was conducted across six databases (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Family Studies Abstracts, PsychINFO, Social Work Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts). Studies were included based on the following criteria: (1) peer-reviewed publications, (2) U.S.-based samples, (3) examination of CM/CM risk outcomes, (4) inclusion of ≥70% NR fathers or NR father-specific data, (5) NR father-specific findings if <70% of the sample comprised NR fathers, and (6) quantitative methodological design. Using Covidence, two independent reviewers screened 8,857 titles/abstracts, with 419 advancing to full-text review. The same process was done for the full-text review. Rater disagreements were resolved through consensus between the reviewers.

Results: A total of 23 studies were included out of the 8,857 studies screened. Analysis of the association between NR fathers and CM/CM risk outcomes revealed that studies primarily assessed residence status and involvement measures (e.g., contact frequency and financial contribution). Findings indicated that NR fathers constituted risk factors for adverse outcomes—including increased likelihood of out-of-home placements, substantiated maltreatment reports, and maternal depression—when they were absent, inconsistently involved, or presented with specific risk characteristics (e.g., personal trauma history, maternal household with new male partners). Conversely, several studies demonstrated protective effects associated with NR father presence, including reduced maternal depression and decreased household food insecurity. Protective factors specifically included frequent/recent father-child contact, consistent financial support, and high maternal satisfaction with paternal involvement. Notably, three studies reported neutral findings, indicating no significant differences between resident and NR fathers regarding CM/CM risk outcomes.

Conclusions and Implications: Findings from this scoping review reveal that NR fathers are not uniform risk or protective factors but rather represent a diverse group whose influence on CM/CM risk depends on a range of behavioral, relational, and contextual factors. The evidence challenges the overly simplistic or deficit-based portrayals of NR fathers in CM research and practice, revealing both risk and protective mechanisms depending on specific involvement patterns and contextual factors. These findings necessitate a paradigm shift toward more nuanced, strengths-based approaches in child welfare practices and policies. Social work professionals must recognize how structural factors—incarceration, economic hardship, and family instability—disproportionately affect NR fathers, particularly within racially and economically disadvantaged communities. Future research and intervention development should address these intersecting contexts to enhance CM prevention strategies and support family resilience. This review underscores the importance of re-examining assumptions and attending to intersecting contexts about NR fathers to more effectively prevent CM and support families.