Snapshots of = families with adolescents - Publications - Australian Institute of = Family Studies

Snapshots of family relationships

by Lixia Qu and Ruth = Weston

Australian Institute of Family Studies, May = 2008.
ISBN 978 1=20 921414 04 6.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies has prepared this Snapshot = of=20 Family Relationships report to support the 2008 National Families = Week.

The report is also available in PDF format for printing - Snapshots of family relationships (1.6 MB) *

Foreword=20
Key=20 trends=20
Executive=20 summary=20
1.=20 Trends in partnering and childbearing=20
2.=20 Relationships between partners=20
3.=20 Relationships between parents and children=20
4.=20 Post-separation parenting=20
5.=20 Relationships between grandparents and grandchildren=20
References=20
Appendix=20
Endnotes=20

Foreword

Our sense of wellbeing is closely linked with how happy we are with = our=20 relationships with other people, especially those that are most = important to us.=20 Of these, relationships within families loom large, affecting all = members, the=20 family as a whole, and the community. If relationships in the family are = supportive and enjoyable, then the challenges we face both within and = outside=20 the family can seem less daunting than otherwise. The souring of family=20 relationships, on the other hand, can be a devastating experience in = which our=20 "refuge" can become a "minefield".

Clearly, it is in the community's interests that we continue to = monitor=20 family relationships, and keep a close watch on the broad range of = factors that=20 may enhance or threaten the wellbeing of Australia's most precious = resource -=20 its families.

To celebrate National Families Week in 2008, the Australian Institute = of=20 Family Studies prepared this Snapshot of Family Relationships. This = report,=20 which was commissioned by the Australian Government Department of = Families,=20 Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA), provides a = brief=20 outline of the following issues:

trends in couple formation, dissolution and family size;=20
the personal satisfaction teenagers and adults derive from their = family=20 relationships (including step-relationships) and parents' views about = the=20 closeness of relationships between their own parents and children;=20
parents' opinions about various issues, such as the ease or = difficulty=20 most parents have in raising children;=20
the sources of professional support that parents expect they would = use if=20 they were separating from their partner or had difficulties in = handling their=20 children's behaviour, and any professional support that they have = used; and=20
post-separation patterns of parenting.

I would like to thank FaHCSIA not only for commissioning this report, = but=20 also for providing a great deal of encouragement from its inception to=20 finalisation. This has indeed been an excellent relationship! Lixia Qu = and Ruth=20 Weston are to be congratulated on this excellent piece of work that = provides a=20 valuable and accessible picture of Australian family relationships.

Professor Alan Hayes
Director
Australian = Institute of=20 Family Studies

Key trends

The analysis outlined in this snapshot of family relationships = suggests the=20 following five key trends:

First, dramatic changes have occurred in patterns of couple = formation and=20 dissolution, family size and the incidence of ex-nuptial births. = Marriage=20 rates have declined and, although cohabitation rates have increased, = overall=20 partnership rates have declined. The total fertility rate has fallen = overall,=20 while there has been an increase in the proportion of babies born = outside=20 marriage. The proportion of women who have three or more children has = fallen,=20 while there have been increases in the proportions who remain = childless or end=20 up having only one or two children, with two children being the most = common=20 outcome.=20
Second, consistent with the trends on partnership dissolution, = nearly half=20 the parents with a child under 18 years acknowledge that it is not = easy to=20 maintain good relationships nowadays. In addition, more than half = reject the=20 view that relationship or parenting skills come naturally to most = people.=20
Third, in the context of high separation and divorce rates, most = family=20 relationships tend to be evaluated positively by family members. = Nevertheless,=20 a substantial minority of partnered parents with a child under 18 = years report=20 that they have experienced difficulties in their relationship with = their=20 partner, with most believing that these difficulties had been = resolved.=20
Fourth, distant or negative relationships are relatively common = between=20 separated parents, and between step-parents and step-children = (especially for=20 young step-mothers and teenage girls), while distant relationships = seem also=20 to be common between children and their grandparents on their = non-resident=20 fathers' side.¹=20
Finally, although most parents acknowledge that, after parental=20 separation, children are usually better off if both parents remain = involved in=20 their lives, a substantial proportion of children rarely/never see or = stay=20 overnight with their non-resident parent.

These results provide a positive picture of family relationships in = general,=20 while also highlighting some areas of concern. Regarding the latter, the = negative repercussions of the breakdown in the relationship between = parents can=20 be long-lasting, increasing the risks that children will have little if = any=20 contact with their non-resident father and will experience a more = distant=20 relationship with their paternal grandparents. Should re-partnering = occur, then=20 relationships between step-parents and step-children can be problematic. = on the=20 other hand, the vast majority of partners and of parents and children = describe=20 their relationships with each other in a favourable light, and even = though=20 relationships between partners are not always rosy, their problems can = often be=20 overcome. Such findings suggest a great deal of resilience in = families.

Executive summary

Trends in couple partnering and childbearing

Marriage rates have fallen in recent decades, while cohabitation = rates=20 have increased.=20
The crude divorce rate has remained at a high plateau over the = past=20 decade, while the proportion of cohabiting couples who separate has = increased=20 progressively.=20
These trends have contributed to the decline in the proportion of=20 Australian adults of all ages who are living with a partner.=20
The total fertility rate fell almost continuously between 1961 and = 2001=20 and has since increased slightly.=20
The overall decline in the total fertility rate has resulted from = an=20 increase in the proportion of women who remain childless or who end up = having=20 only one or two children, and a decrease in the proportions who have = had three=20 or more children (especially four or more children).=20
The proportion of children born outside marriage has increased=20 dramatically since the 1960s.

Relationships between partners

Most partnered men and women reported high satisfaction with their = relationship with their partner, with those aged 65 years and over = being the=20 most likely to indicate this, and all those aged 35-44 and women aged = 45-54=20 being the least likely to do so.=20
Around one-third of mothers and fathers (with a child under 18 = years)=20 indicated that they had experienced difficulties with their current=20 relationship. Of these, close to 20% indicated that they had separated = for a=20 time, and most indicated that they were "over" these difficulties. =

Opinions about developing and maintaining good relationships with a=20 partner

Nearly half the parents with a child under 18 believed that it = "it's hard=20 for couples to maintain a good relationship in today's society".=20
Just over half rejected the notion that "the skills needed to = maintain a=20 good relationship with their partner come naturally to most people".=20
A cautious outlook (that it is difficult to maintain good = relationships=20 and that good relationship skills do not come naturally to most = people) was=20 more apparent among mothers than fathers and among older than younger = age=20 groups.

Help-seeking if separating from a partner

Before prompting, parents most commonly indicated that they would = consult=20 lawyers/legal services and counsellors or similar professionals if = they and=20 their partner were separating, with a substantial minority indicating = that=20 they did not know where they would go for such advice or information.=20
Those who had not already mentioned certain services were asked = whether=20 they would use them. When pre- and post-prompted answers were = combined,=20 counsellors or similar professionals represented the most "popular" = source,=20 followed by lawyers/legal services, then general health professionals. =
Mothers were more inclined than fathers to expect that they would = use the=20 above-mentioned sources.=20
Just under half the fathers and mothers who had experienced = separation=20 indicated that they had sought professional help at the time of their=20 separation or divorce. Counsellors or similar professionals were most = commonly=20 mentioned for advice or information, followed by a lawyer or legal = service.=20

Relationships between parents and children

Most parents reported high satisfaction with their relationships = with=20 their biological children, and only around one in ten indicated low=20 satisfaction.=20
Although just under half the male and female respondents (aged 15 = years=20 and over) with a living parent expressed high satisfaction with their=20 relationship with their biological parents, such positive appraisals=20 represented the most common view.=20
Relationships between step-parents and step-children tended to be = viewed=20 less favourably than those between parents and their biological = children.=20
The oldest groups in each generation (biological parents. = biological=20 children, step-parents, and step-children) were the most likely to = report high=20 satisfaction.=20
Of all the age groups of parents and children (biological and = step), there=20 were only two in which the majority expressed low satisfaction: = step-mothers=20 in the youngest group represented (aged 25-34 years) and teenage=20 step-daughters.

Opinions about the ease or difficulty of attaining parenting = skills

Parents (with a child under 18 years old) were more likely to = reject than=20 accept the statement that the skills required to be a good parent come = naturally to most people, especially mothers and older respondents.=20
Mothers under 25 years old represented the only group in which the = majority believed that good parenting skills come naturally to most = people.²

Help-seeking for handling children's behavioural problems

Most parents indicated that they would seek professional help = should they=20 experience difficulties in handling their children's behaviour, with=20 counsellors or similar professionals being the most commonly nominated = resources.=20
However, one in three fathers and one in six mothers indicated = that they=20 did not know where they would go for help.=20
A substantial minority of parents indicated that they had sought=20 professional help, with a higher proportion of mothers than fathers = stating=20 this.=20
Parents who had sought help were most likely to indicate that they = had=20 consulted counsellors or similar professionals, followed by general = health=20 professionals.

Post-separation parenting

While a great deal of evidence suggests that amicable = relationships=20 between separated parents are beneficial for their children, only = around half=20 the separated mothers and fathers indicated that their relationship = with the=20 child's other parent was "friendly" or "cooperative".=20
Around one-quarter said that they did not talk to their former = partner at=20 all about the children.=20
Most mothers and fathers (living together or apart) agreed that = "children=20 generally do best after separation when both parents remain involved = in their=20 lives". However, this general viewpoint is not consistent with the = overall=20 patterns of contact between children and non-resident parents.=20
Reports of resident parents suggest that, among children aged = under 18=20 years who had a natural parent living elsewhere, about one in four = rarely or=20 never saw their non-resident parent.=20
According to resident parents, around half the children never (or = no=20 longer) stayed overnight with their non-resident parent.=20
Only 6% of the children spent at least 110 nights with their = non-resident=20 parent (i.e., at least 30% of nights per year).=20
Of three groups (resident mothers and fathers, and non-resident = fathers),=20 non-resident fathers were the most likely to report paying child = support=20 (applying to the majority), while resident fathers were the least = likely to do=20 so (applying to a minority).³

Relationships between grandparents and grandchildren

Most mothers and fathers described the relationship between their = children=20 and their maternal and paternal grandparents (particularly the former) = as=20 "close" or "very close", with relationships with maternal grandparents = being=20 more likely than those with paternal grandparents to be portrayed as = "very=20 close".=20
Respondents' perceived relationships between their own parents and = children differed according to whether: (a) they had separated from = their=20 children's other parent, and (b) they were living with the children:=20
"Very close" relationships between the respondents' own parents = and their=20 children were most likely to be described by mothers who were not = separated,=20 followed by separated resident fathers, and separated resident = mothers.=20
On the other hand, "very close" relationships were least likely to = be=20 reported by non-resident fathers (only one in five).⁴=20
At least half the separated fathers and mothers maintained that = the=20 relationship between their own parents and the children had not = changed since=20 they and their partner had separated.=20
However, non-resident fathers were more likely to suggest that=20 relationships between their own parents and children had become more = distant=20 than closer, while the reverse applied to resident fathers and = resident=20 mothers.

1. Trends in partnering and=20 childbearing

In Australia, as elsewhere, family structures, relationships, and = lifestyles=20 have changed profoundly over the last few decades - changes that reflect = the way=20 we respond to economic and social pressures and opportunities that arise = within=20 and beyond our families. In turn, family transitions themselves = represent=20 societal trends that affect economic and social pressures and = opportunities,=20 including those linked with changing social values.⁵ This chapter describes some key trends = in couple=20 formation and dissolution as well as childbearing.

Forming partnerships

Figure 1.1 depicts the crude marriage rates that were apparent = between 1901=20 and 2006.⁶

Over the last 100 years or so, the crude marriage rate has fluctuated = considerably:

The rate declined in the 1920s (reaching a trough in 1931), then = increased=20 in the 1930s, and has mostly fallen since the 1970s. In recent years, = the rate=20 appears to have levelled out at around 5.4.=20
The highest crude marriage rate was 12.0 (in 1942) and the lowest = was 5.3=20 (in 2001).

While the crude marriage rate has declined in the last few decades,=20 cohabitation has become more prevalent. The proportion of couples who = cohabit=20 rather than marry has increased progressively in the last two decades, = from 6%=20 in 1986 to 15% in 2006. Nevertheless, most couples who are living = together are=20 married to each other.

Figure 1.2 shows that cohabitation is more common among younger than = older=20 people.

Although most men and women under 25 years old are neither married = nor=20 cohabiting, those of this age who were living with a partner were far = more=20 likely to be cohabiting than married.=20
Marriage is more common than cohabitation for older age groups, = with the=20 dominance of marriage increasing with advancing age.

It is also worth noting that cohabitation has become the common = pathway to=20 marriage. The proportion of marriages taking place that were preceded by = cohabitation was 16% in 1975, 45% in 1990, and 76% in 2006.

Figure 1.1 Crude marriage rate, 1901-2006

3D"Figure

Sources: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) = (1996, 2002a,=20 2007a)

Figure 1.2 Men and women living with a partner, 2006, by = partnership=20 status and age

3D"Figure

Source: ABS (2007b)

Dissolving partnerships

The increase in the divorce rate represents one of the most = spectacular=20 family-related trends of the 20th century. Figure 1.3 depicts the crude = divorce=20 rates⁷ between 1901 and 2006 and the number of = children=20 aged under 18 whose parents divorced between 1996 and 2006.

Divorce was rare prior to the Second World War. The crude divorce = rate=20 rose slightly from the 1920s to the mid-1940s and peaked at 1.1 in = 1947. The=20 rate then declined slightly until the 1960s, when it began to rise=20 substantially.=20
The rate soared to a peak of 4.6 divorces when the Family Law Act = 1975=20 came into operation in 1976.⁸=20
Since the early 1980s, the crude divorce rate has fluctuated = between 2.5=20 and 3.0, with a trough occurring in the mid-1980s. In recent years, = the=20 divorce rate has declined slightly (from 2.9 to 2.5 between 1996 and = 2006).=20
From 1966 to 2006 the number of children under 18 years whose = parents=20 divorced increased from 12,950 to 48,396, although it is important to = note=20 that the proportion of all divorces involving parents of children of = this age=20 fell from 65% to 50%.

Given that some people cohabit, trends in divorce do not provide an = accurate=20 picture regarding the incidence of relationship separation, especially = among=20 younger couples. Table 1.1 shows that cohabiting relationships are far = more=20 likely to dissolve than marriages.

Regardless of the period in which cohabitation or marriage began, = the=20 likelihood of a cohabiting relationship ending in separation within = five years=20 was at least three times the likelihood of a marriage ending in = divorce within=20 five years (25-38% vs 7-9%).=20
The proportion of marriages that ended in divorce within five = years=20 increased slightly over the period shown (from 7% of marriages = starting in=20 1975-76 to 9% of marriages starting in 1994-95). Similarly, the = proportion of=20 cohabiting relationships that ended in separation increased over the = period=20 shown (from 25% of cohabitating unions that began in 1970-74 to 38% = that began=20 in 1990-94).=20
However, for the entire period covered in Table 1.1 (approximately = 20=20 years), the rate of separation among cohabiting couples increased to a = greater=20 extent than the rate of divorce among married couples. Of course, some = couples=20 would have separated but not divorced during this period.

Figure 1.3 Crude divorce rate, 1901-2006, and number of = children=20 (under 18 years old) whose parents divorced, 1996-2006

3D"Figure

Sources: ABS (various years) Marriages and Divorces = Australia; ABS (various years) Divorces Australia

Table 1.1 Cohabitation separations and divorces, by period in = which=20 cohabitation or marriage began

Cohabitation^(a)	Marriage
Year began = living=20 together	Separations within=20 five years (%)	Year of=20 marriage	Divorces = within five=20 years (%)
1970-74	24.9	1975-76	6.9
1975-79	30.9	1985-86	7.5
1980-84	33.4	1987-88	7.9
1985-89	33.3	1989-90	8.6
1990-94	38.2	1994-95	8.8

Note: (a) Cohabiting relationships refer to first = unions for=20 one or both partners (based on the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics = in=20 Australia (HILDA) survey Wave 1 data); the separation rate does not take = into=20 account couples who went on to marry and then divorced subsequently.

Sources: ABS (2000); Australian Institute of Family = Studies=20 (AIFS) (2004)

Partnered individuals

The above trends indicate that marriage rates have fallen while = divorce rates=20 have remained at a high plateau in recent years. On the other hand, = cohabitation=20 rates have increased while the chance of cohabitation ending in = separation has=20 also increased. Together, these trends affect the overall proportions of = adults=20 who are partnered or unpartnered.

Figures 1.4 and 1.5 show the proportions of men and women of = different ages=20 who were living with a partner in 1996 and 2006, and the proportions who = were=20 married in 1976. Given that very few couples cohabited in 1976, these=20 percentages are a reasonable (slightly conservative) indicator of = partnership=20 rates in this period.

From 1976 to 1996, the partnership rate fell dramatically for all = age=20 groups of men and women, especially for the two age groups under 30 = years:=20
- For men, the partnership rate declined from 32% to 15% for those = aged=20 20-24 and from 72% to 42% for those aged 25-29 years during the two = decades.=20
- Likewise, the partnership rate for women in these two age groups = fell=20 considerably (20-24 years: 59% to 27%; 25-29 years: 84% to 57%). =
In the most recent decade (from 1996 to 2006), the partnership = rate=20 continued to fall for most age groups.

Figure 1.4 Men married in 1976 and living with a partner in = 1996 and=20 2006, by age

3D"Figure

Note: Based on place of usual residence for 1996 = and 2006.=20 Almost all couples were married in 1976.

Source: ABS (2000, 2007b)

Figure 1.5 Women married in 1976 and living with a partner in = 1996=20 and 2006, by age

3D"Figure

Note: Based on place of usual residence for 1996 = and 2006.=20 Almost all couples were married in 1976.

Source: ABS (2000, 2007b)

Childbearing

The decrease in partnership rates and increase in the fragility of=20 relationships have combined with a range of other factors, such as an = increasing=20 age at marriage, to influence the number of children women have (see = McDonald,=20 2006; Weston, 2004). In addition, the increase in cohabitation rates and = shifting attitudes about family formation, have affected the proportion = of all=20 children who are born outside marriage.

Total fertility rate

The total fertility rate⁹ has declined markedly since the 1960s. = It peaked=20 in 1961 (3.55) and fell almost continuously through the next few = decades. It=20 reached its lowest level in 2001 (1.73). In 2006 the rate was 1.81.

Number of children

The total fertility rate provides an average estimate of the number = of=20 children a woman is likely to bear, but offers little information about = how=20 family size has changed. Figure 1.6 shows the number of children that = women aged=20 40-44 years have ever had, across different Census periods.

From 1981 to 2006, the proportion of women who had two children = increased=20 substantially (from 29% to 38%), while the proportion of women who had = three=20 or more children fell (from 55% to 33%), with the greatest fall = occurring for=20 those who had four or more children (from 28% to 11%).=20
The proportion of women who had one child and who had no children = also=20 increased during the two decades (from 8% to 13% and 9% to 16% = respectively).=20

Figure 1.6 Number of children ever born to women aged 40-44,=20 1981-2006

3D"Figure

Sources: ABS (2002a, 2006)

Ex-nuptial births

While the total fertility rates over the last decade have been the = lowest on=20 record, the proportion of children born outside of marriage has = increased=20 progressively, from around 4-6% in the early 1960s to 33% in 2006.

Although it is not clear how many of these children were born to = cohabiting=20 couples, the increase in the ex-nuptial birth rate corresponds with the=20 increasing number of cohabiting couples and with the increasing = proportion of=20 babies whose birth certificates contain the father's name. The = proportion of=20 birth certificates containing the father's name increased from 58% in = 1980 to=20 90% in 2006 (ABS, 2001, 2007c).

2. Relationships between = partners

The quality of intimate relationships is a pivotal factor affecting = personal=20 wellbeing (see, for instance, Brown, 2000; Dolan, Peasgood, & White, = 2006;=20 Haller & Hadler, 2006; McCabe, Cummins, & Romeo, 1996; Tweng = & King,=20 2005). These relationships include those between partners and between = children=20 and their parents, especially before the children reach maturity. = Relationships=20 between other people whom we love can also affect our personal = wellbeing. This=20 particularly applies to children, where the quality and stability of the = relationship between their parents is of critical importance to their = wellbeing=20 (Amato & Booth, 2000; Pryor & Rodgers, 2001; Smyth & = Wolcott,=20 2004).

This chapter focuses on: (a) men's and women's satisfaction with = their=20 relationship with their partner, (b) parents' previous experience of=20 relationship difficulties with their current partner, (c) opinions of = parents=20 about the ease or difficulty with which couples maintain a good = relationship,=20 and (d) parents' expectations about where they would go to obtain advice = or=20 information if they were separating from their partner, along with = actual use of=20 professional help by those who have experienced separation or = divorce.

Satisfaction with relationship with partner

In each wave of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in = Australia=20 (HILDA) survey,¹⁰ respondents (all of whom are aged 15 = years and=20 over) are asked to rate their satisfaction with their relationship with = various=20 people, including their current partner (where relevant). Ratings range = from 0,=20 "completely dissatisfied", to 10, "completely satisfied". The following = analysis=20 concerning relationship satisfaction is based on data from Wave 4 of the = survey,=20 conducted in 2004.

A favourable picture of relationships was revealed:

More than half the men and women (56-61%) indicated high = satisfaction=20 (ratings of 9 or 10) with their relationship with their partner.=20
Only 10-15% reported low satisfaction (ratings 0 to 6). Moderate=20 satisfaction (ratings 7 or 8) was reported by 29% of men and women = separately.=20
Men were slightly more likely than women to express high = satisfaction with=20 their relationship (61% vs 56%).

Figure 2.1 shows the proportion of men and women in different age = groups who=20 were highly satisfied (ratings of 9 or 10) with their relationship with = their=20 current partner.¹¹

Those least likely to report high satisfaction were men and women = aged=20 35-44 years (53% of men; 47% of women) and women aged 45-54 years = (49%).=20
For older age groups, the proportions expressing high relationship = satisfaction increased progressively with age:=20
Men aged 65 years and older were the most likely of all male = groups to=20 indicate high satisfaction (75%), followed by men aged 55-64 years = (70%).=20
Women aged 65 years and older were marginally more likely than = those under=20 25 years old to express high satisfaction (71% and 67% respectively).=20
Among those under 25 years old, a higher proportion of women than = men=20 indicated high satisfaction (67% vs 59%), while for other age groups, = the=20 proportion of men expressing high relationship satisfaction was at = least=20 marginally greater than that of women.

Figure 2.1 Reports of high satisfaction with relationship = with=20 current partner, by age and gender

Note: High satisfaction refers to ratings of 9 or = 10 on a=20 scale ranging from 0, "completely satisfied" to 10, "completely = satisfied".

Source: HILDA 2004

Previous experience of relationship difficulties among parents

In the General Population of Parents Survey (GPPS) conducted in = 2006,¹² parents who were living with a = partner were=20 asked: "At any stage, have you thought your relationship might be in = real=20 trouble?" Those who answered in the affirmative were then asked whether = they=20 were "over these problems now", whether they had ever separated from = their=20 partner and if they had, for how long they had separated.

Around one-third (32-33%) of mothers and fathers indicated that = they had=20 experienced difficulties in their current relationship.=20
Among parents who indicated that they had experienced difficulties = in=20 their current relationship:=20
- most of the fathers and mothers (87% and 83% respectively) = reported that=20 they were "over" these difficulties at the time of the survey;¹³=20
- only 18% of fathers and 20% of mothers indicated that they and = their=20 partner had resorted to a period of separation; and=20
- of those who experienced separation from their current partner, = about=20 half (58% of fathers; 45% of mothers) reported that the separation = lasted=20 three months or less, while 15% of fathers and 25% of mothers = reported that=20 the separation lasted for more than 12 months.

Selected opinions about couple relationships

In the GPPS 2006, parents were asked to indicate their level of = agreement or=20 disagreement with the statements: "The skills needed to maintain a good=20 relationship with their partner come naturally to most people", and = "It's hard=20 for couples to maintain a good relationship in today's society".¹⁴

Most parents had an opinion on the two issues. The statements = (taken=20 separately) generated mixed feelings or uncertainty in only 9-10% of = fathers=20 and 10-13% of mothers.=20
Parents were more likely to disagree than agree with the statement = that=20 "the skills needed to maintain a good relationship with their partner = come=20 naturally to most people" (fathers: 51% disagreed and 38% agreed; = mothers: 55%=20 and 32%).=20
Parents seemed to be more evenly divided regarding the notion that = "it's=20 hard for couples to maintain a good relationship in today's society" = (fathers:=20 45% agreed and 45% disagreed; mothers: 50% and 40%).

In general, then, both fathers and mothers (but especially mothers) = were more=20 inclined to indicate a cautious rather than confident outlook.¹⁵

Figures 2.2 and 2.3 show the proportions of mothers and fathers in = different=20 age groups who agreed (either strongly or moderately) with these two=20 statements.

Regarding the statement that "the skills needed to maintain a good = relationship with their partner come naturally to most people", = fathers' and=20 mothers' tendency to endorse the statement declined with age, = suggesting a=20 more cautious outlook among older than younger groups. For example, = 53% of=20 mothers aged under 25 years agreed with the statement, compared with = 39% of=20 mothers aged 25-34 years and 27% of mothers aged 45-54 years.=20
Concerning the statement that "it's hard for couples to maintain a = good=20 relationship in today's society", fathers' tendency to endorse the = statement=20 increased with age, suggesting a greater caution among older than = younger=20 fathers. However, mother's opinions varied only slightly with age. =

Figure 2.2 Strong agreement/agreement with the statement "The = skills=20 needed to maintain a good relationship with their partner come naturally = to most=20 people", by age and gender

3D'Figure

Note: Results for fathers who were under 25 years = old and for=20 mothers aged 55 years or over are not provided owing to the small number = of=20 respondents in these groups.

Source: GPPS 2006

Figure 2.3 Strong agreement/agreement with the statement = "It's hard=20 for couples to maintain a good relationship in today's society", by age = and=20 gender

3D"Figure

Note: Results for fathers who were under 25 years = old and for=20 mothers aged 55 years or over are not provided owing to the small number = of=20 respondents in this group.

Source: GPPS 2006

Sources of advice or information regarding separation

Where do people expect they would go for advice or information (other = than=20 family or friends) if they were separating from their partner? This = question was=20 asked of respondents (all of whom were parents of at least one child = under 18=20 years) in the GPPS 2006, regardless of whether they were single or = living with a=20 partner. In addition, parents were specifically asked whether they would = seek=20 advice or information from the following sources if they had not already = nominated these sources: counsellors or similar professionals; = doctors/general=20 practitioners; community health centres; lawyers or legal services; and = priests,=20 religious leaders or elders. Those who had divorced or who had separated = from a=20 partner with whom they had lived for at least three months were also = asked=20 whether they had sought professional help at the time of separation or=20 divorce.

Table 2.1 shows the most common responses provided by the parents = regarding=20 the sources of help they would use if they were separating from a = partner. The=20 results in the columns entitled "Before prompting" refer to the = percentages of=20 respondents who volunteered that they would use the different sources of = help=20 listed before any source was suggested to them, while the results in the = columns=20 entitled "After prompting" refer to the total proportion of respondents = who=20 either indicated that they would use the services at the outset (i.e., = before=20 prompting) or after each type of service had been suggested to them.

Table 2.1 Expected sources of help that would be used by = parents if=20 separating from their partner, by gender

	Before=20 prompting	After=20 prompting
Fathers (%)	Mothers (%)	Fathers (%)	Mothers (%)
Counsellors or similar professionals (e.g., = psychologist,=20 psychiatrist, social worker, or teachers)	29.9	30.4	57.5	64.5
Lawyer/legal services	28.6	32.9	40.8	51.0
General health professionals	8.5	13.8	34.3	44.9
Priests, religious leaders/elders	5.4	4.1	22.4	18.6
Don't know	23.7	19.5	-	-
Would not use any service	7.7	5.5	-	-
Number of observations	2,237	2,744	2,237	2,744

Source: GPPS 2006

Pattern of results before prompting

Before prompting, the most commonly mentioned sources for advice = or=20 information were lawyers/legal services (29-33%), and counsellors or = similar=20 professionals (30%), followed by general health professionals (9-14%). =
Each of the other sources was mentioned by less than 7% of fathers = or=20 mothers (the range of sources is not shown in Table 2.1).=20
Around 20-24% of mothers and fathers reported that they did not = know where=20 they would go for advice or information if they and their partner were = separating.

Pattern of results after prompting

Not surprisingly, when asked whether they would use specific = services,=20 some parents responded in the affirmative, leading to an overall = increase in=20 the proportions of parents who indicated that they would use these = services=20 (either before or after prompting).=20
The most "popular" sources for advice or information were = counsellors or=20 similar professionals (58-65%), followed by lawyers/legal services = (41-51%),=20 then general health professionals (34-45%).=20
The proportions of parents who indicated that they would go to a = priest,=20 religious leader or elder increased from 4-5% before prompting to = 19-22% after=20 prompting.=20
Except for the consultations with a priest, religious leader or = elder,=20 mothers were more inclined than fathers to indicate after being = prompted that=20 they would use the services.

Use of professional help at the time of separation or divorce

Just under half the fathers and mothers indicated that they had = sought=20 professional help at the time of their separation or divorce.=20
Mothers and fathers who said that they had sought help at the time = of=20 separation or divorce were most likely to indicate that they had = turned to a=20 counsellor or similar professional (69%), followed by a lawyer or = legal=20 service (mothers: 40%; fathers 33%). General health professionals = represented=20 the third most commonly reported service used (mentioned by 15-19%). =

3. Relationships between = parents and=20 children

The previous chapter focused on relationships between parents or = between=20 partners in general. While research suggests that such relationships are = critical to the wellbeing of the partners themselves, there is also = evidence=20 supporting the common-sense notion that children are particularly likely = to=20 thrive if they live with both biological parents who care deeply for = them as=20 well as for each other (see Amato, 2005; Ambert, 1997). Furthermore, it = appears=20 that the quality of parent-child relationships can have a profound = impact on=20 other relationships within the family, including those between the = parents=20 (Sanders, Nicholson, & Floyd, 1997). Less is known about the quality = of=20 relationships between adults and their parents or step-parents.

This chapter focuses on three issues: (a) the quality of = relationships=20 between parents and children (whatever their age) - both biological and = step (as=20 measured by ratings of satisfaction), (b) parents' opinions about = whether=20 parenting skills come naturally to most people, and (c) parents' = expectations=20 about the sources of help they would use if they experienced parenting=20 difficulties, and any they had used.

Satisfaction with relationships between parents and biological = children

Figure 3.1 shows the levels of satisfaction with relationships = between=20 parents and biological children reported by all parents (including those = with=20 adult offspring) and all children aged 15 years and older (including = adults) who=20 participated in Wave 4 of the HILDA survey (conducted in 2004).

Most parents (58-61%) indicated high satisfaction (ratings of 9 or = 10)=20 with their relationship with their children and few (10-13%) reported = low=20 satisfaction (ratings of 0-6). About 29% of both fathers and mothers = expressed=20 moderate satisfaction (ratings of 7 or 8).=20
Likewise, sons and daughters most commonly expressed high = satisfaction,=20 followed by moderate satisfaction. However:=20
- a lower proportion of children than parents expressed high = satisfaction=20 (just under half the children, compared with around 60% of parents); = and=20
- a higher proportion of children than parents expressed low = satisfaction=20 (20-22% vs 10-13%).

Figure 3.1 Ratings of satisfaction with relationship with = biological=20 children (reported by parents) and with biological parents (reported by = children=20 aged 15 or more years)

3D"Figure

Note: High satisfaction refers to ratings of 9 or = 10 on a=20 scale ranging from 0, "completely satisfied" to 10, "completely = satisfied".

Source: HILDA 2004

Figures 3.2 and 3.3 present the proportion of parents in different = age groups=20 who reported high satisfaction (ratings of 9 or 10) with their = relationship with=20 their biological children and the proportion of children in different = age groups=20 who indicated high satisfaction with their relationship with their = biological=20 parents.

Figure 3.2 Parents who reported high satisfaction with their=20 relationship with their biological children, by parents' = age

3D"Figure

Note: High satisfaction refers to ratings of 9 or = 10 on a=20 scale ranging from 0, "completely satisfied" to 10, "completely = satisfied".=20 Results for fathers under 25 years old are not presented owing to the = small=20 number of respondents in this group.

Source: HILDA 2004

Figure 3.3 Children who reported high satisfaction with their = relationship with their biological parents, by children's = age

3D"Figure

Note: High satisfaction refers to ratings of 9 or = 10 on a=20 scale ranging from 0, "completely satisfied" to 10, "completely = satisfied".

Source: HILDA 2004

Parents

For both fathers and mothers, the proportion reporting high = satisfaction=20 first declined with age, then increased, reflecting a "U-shaped" = relationship=20 between high satisfaction and age.

The oldest fathers and mothers (65 years or more) were the most = likely to=20 report high satisfaction (fathers: 69%; mothers: 73%), followed by the = youngest groups (fathers aged 25-34 years: 64%; mothers aged less than = 25=20 years: 67%).=20
Those who were least likely to report high satisfaction were = fathers aged=20 35-44 years and 45-54 years (49-51%) and mothers aged 45-54 years = (53%).=20

Children aged 15 years and older

The oldest sons and daughters (aged 55 or more years) were the = most likely=20 to express high satisfaction (62% and 64% respectively), followed by = the=20 second oldest sons and daughters (aged 45-54 years) (53% each).=20
Sons aged 35-44 years were the least likely of all sons to express = high=20 satisfaction (41% vs 46-62%), while teenage girls were least likely of = all=20 daughters to report high satisfaction (40% vs 48-64%).

Satisfaction with relationships between step-parents and = step-children

Figure 3.4 shows the patterns of satisfaction ratings provided by = relevant=20 respondents aged 15 years and older regarding their relationship with = their=20 step-parents and/or step-children.

Each of the three levels of satisfaction (high, moderate or low) = was=20 indicated by no more than two-fifths of the step-parents.=20
Parents' satisfaction with their relationships with their = step-children=20 was considerably lower than that reported for relationships with = biological=20 children. Whereas around 60% of parents indicated high satisfaction = with their=20 relationship with their biological children, high satisfaction with=20 relationships with step-children was expressed by only 31-39% of = step-parents.=20

Figure 3.4 Ratings of satisfaction with relationships with=20 step-children (reported by step-parents) and with step-parents (reported = by=20 step-children aged 15 or more years)

3D"Figure

Note: High satisfaction refers to ratings of 9 or = 10 on a=20 scale ranging from 0, "completely satisfied" to 10, "completely = satisfied".

Source: HILDA 2004

Likewise, children's satisfaction with their relationship with = their=20 step-parents was lower than that reported for relationships with = biological=20 parents. Whereas nearly half the sons and daughters expressed high=20 satisfaction with their relationships with their biological parents, = only=20 30-34% of step-sons and step-daughters provided such favourable views = about=20 their relationship with their step-parents.=20
Compared with step-fathers, step-mothers were less likely to = report high=20 satisfaction (31% vs 39%) and more likely report low satisfaction (41% = vs=20 30%).=20
Step-daughters were more likely than step-sons to indicate low=20 satisfaction (44% vs 34%).

Figures 3.5 and 3.6 show the extent to which step-parents and = step-children=20 of different ages were highly satisfied with their relationship with = each=20 other.

Figure 3.5 Respondents who reported high satisfaction with = their=20 relationship with their step-children, by step-parents' age

3D"Figure

Note: High satisfaction refers to ratings of 9 or = 10 on a=20 scale ranging from 0, "completely satisfied" to 10, "completely = satisfied".

Source: HILDA 2004

Figure 3.6 Respondents who reported high satisfaction with = their=20 relationship with their step-parent, by step-children's age

3D"Figure

Note: High satisfaction refers to ratings of 9 or = 10 on a=20 scale ranging from 0, "completely satisfied" to 10, "completely = satisfied".=20 Results for step-daughters aged 55 or over are not provided owing to the = small=20 number of respondents in this group.

Source: HILDA 2004

Step-parents

With the exception of step-fathers in the youngest group (25-34 = years),=20 the proportion of step-parents who were highly satisfied with their=20 relationship with their step-children increased with age, with 56-60% = in the=20 oldest age group (65 years or more) expressing high satisfaction.=20
Of the step-mothers, the youngest group (25-34 years) were the = least=20 likely to report high satisfaction with their relationship with their=20 step-children (14%) while for step-fathers, high satisfaction was = least likely=20 to be reported by those aged 35-44 years (24%).=20
Step-mothers in the three youngest groups were more likely to = report low=20 satisfaction than high satisfaction, with the pattern strongest among = the=20 youngest group (aged 25-34 years) (67% vs 14%) (data not shown for low = satisfaction).

Step-children aged 15 years and older

For both sexes, the oldest groups (step-sons and step-daughters = aged 45-54=20 years and step-sons aged 55 or more years) were the most likely of all = groups=20 to indicate high satisfaction with their relationship with their = step-parents=20 (45-47%).=20
Teenage girls were the least likely of all step-daughters to = report high=20 satisfaction with their relationship with their step-parents (18%), = whereas=20 there was little difference across the four younger groups of = step-sons in=20 their tendency to report high satisfaction.=20
With the exception of the oldest group (aged 45-55 years), = step-daughters=20 were more likely to report low than high satisfaction - a trend that = was=20 particularly marked for teenage girls (64% expressed low satisfaction; = 18%=20 expressed high satisfaction) (data for low satisfaction not shown). =

Opinions about whether parenting skills come naturally to most = people

In the GPPS 2006, parents were asked to indicate the extent to which = they=20 agreed or disagreed with the statement "The skills needed to be a good = parent=20 come naturally to most people".

Both mothers and fathers were more likely to disagree than agree with = the=20 statement: 53% of all mothers and 56% of all fathers disagreed with the=20 statement, while 33% of mothers and 38% of fathers agreed. In other = words,=20 parents generally rejected the notion that parenting skills come = naturally to=20 most people.

Figure 3.7 shows the extent to which fathers and mothers in different = age=20 groups strongly agreed or agreed with the statement.

For both fathers and mothers, the tendency to endorse the = statement=20 declined with age. Agreement was expressed by:=20
- 58% of mothers in the youngest group (under 25 years) and only = 27% of=20 mothers in the oldest group (45-54 years); and=20
- 44% of fathers in the youngest group (25-34 years) and 31% of = fathers in=20 the oldest group (55+ years).

Figure 3.7 Strong agreement/agreement that the skills needed = to be a=20 good parent come naturally to most people, by age

3D"Figure

Source: GPPS (2006)

Help-seeking regarding parenting difficulties

As shown above, parents were more likely to reject than to accept the = statement that good parenting and relationship skills come naturally to = most=20 people.¹⁶ This suggests that they believed that = such=20 skills are developed over time through experience or with the help of = other=20 people, or that the achievement of such skills is difficult for most = people. The=20 extent to which parents believed that people could rely on "on-the-job"=20 experience or on advice from informal networks, written material or more = formal=20 programs was not ascertained. To explore their propensity to seek advice = about=20 parenting difficulties from formal sources, parents in the GPPS 2006 = were asked=20 "If you were to become aware of any difficulties in handling your = child(ren)'s=20 behaviour, apart from family or friends, where would you go for help?" = In=20 addition, parents were specifically asked whether they would use the = following=20 services if they had not already nominated them: counsellors or similar=20 professionals; doctors/general practitioners; community health centres; = and=20 priests, religious leaders or elders.

Table 3.1 shows the common responses provided by the parents.

Both before any prompting and after prompting¹⁷, the most common sources of = assistance=20 nominated by both fathers and mothers were counsellors or similar = professionals,=20 and general health professionals.

Table 3.1 Expected sources of help that would be used by = parents=20 should difficulties in handling children's behaviour arise

	Before=20 prompting	After=20 prompting
Fathers (%)	Mothers (%)	Fathers (%)	Mothers (%)
Counsellors or similar professionals (e.g., = psychologist,=20 psychiatrist, social worker or teachers)	34.4	42.7	84.5	90.6
General health professionals	23.0	45.9	74.5	87.4
Self-help (TV, books, magazine, Internet, = etc.)	5.8	5.8	-	-
Priests, religious leaders/elders	6.7	4.8	34.5	30.5
Telephone services (e.g., Lifeline)	4.0	8.0	-	-
Don't know	32.1	15.5	-	-
Would not use any service	5.2	2.8	-	-
Number of observations	2250	2749	2250	2749

Source: GPPS (2006)

Pattern of results before prompting

Between 34% and 43% of parents nominated counsellors or similar=20 professionals, while 23-46% nominated general health professionals, = with=20 mothers being more likely than fathers to nominate each of these = sources of=20 help (counsellors or similar: 43% vs 34%; general health = professionals: 46% vs=20 23%).=20
A wide range of other services was mentioned, although each of = these other=20 services was nominated by less than 10% of parents (the range of = sources is=20 not shown in Table 3.1).=20
About 32% of fathers and only 16% of mothers indicated they did = not know=20 where they would go for help.=20
Not surprisingly, the proportions of parents who indicated that = they would=20 seek help from each of the services subsequently mentioned by = interviewers=20 increased substantially.

Pattern of results after prompting

Most parents indicated that they would consult with counsellors or = similar=20 professionals (85-91%) or general health professionals (75-87%) if = they had=20 difficulties in handling their children's behaviour.=20
Consistent with the "pre-prompted trends", mothers were slightly = more=20 likely than fathers to report that they would use these services = (counsellors=20 or similar: 91% vs 85%; general health professionals: 87% vs 75%). =

Sources of professional help sought with handling children's = behaviour

Parents were also asked whether they had ever sought help from any = source=20 (other than family or friends) about difficulties in handling their = children's=20 behaviour.

Only a minority of parents reported that they had done so, with a = higher=20 proportion of mothers than fathers indicating this (37% vs 26%).=20
Parents who had sought help were most likely to indicate that they = had=20 consulted counsellors or similar professionals (63-70%), followed by = general=20 health professionals (39-52%).

4. Post-separation = parenting

This chapter focuses on the following aspects of post-separation = parenting=20 arrangements:

the views of parents with a child under 18 years about whether = children of=20 separated parents generally "do best" when both parents remain = involved in the=20 children's lives; and=20
separated parents' reports about selected aspects of their = post-separation=20 parenting:=20
- the quality of the co-parental relationship;=20
- patterns of face-to-face contact between the non-resident parent = and=20 children and distance between residences; and=20
- child support payments.

Opinions about post-separation parental involvement

In the GPPS 2006, parents were asked to indicate their level of = agreement or=20 disagreement with the statement "Children generally do best after = separation=20 when both parents stay involved in their lives".

Most parents agreed that the involvement of both parents is = beneficial for=20 children and there was little difference in the patterns of results = for=20 mothers and fathers: 75-79% agreed, 9-11% disagreed, and 13-15% = expressed=20 mixed feelings or uncertainty.=20
Opinions of fathers and mothers varied little with their age. =

Co-parental relationships

There is ample evidence that amicable (i.e., friendly, agreeable)=20 relationships between separated parents are beneficial for the children = and=20 encourage cooperative parenting, while acrimonious relationships tend to = be=20 detrimental to all concerned and may encourage parents to undermine each = other's=20 parenting roles (Pryor & Rodgers 2001).

In the GPPS 2006, separated parents were asked to describe the = quality of=20 their relationship with their former partner and to indicate how often = they=20 communicated with their former partner about their children. Figure 4.1=20 summarises the views of separated parents about the nature of their = relationship=20 with their children's other parent.¹⁸

About half the separated fathers and mothers reported that their=20 relationship with their former partner was either "friendly" or = "cooperative"=20 (49-54%), with 30% describing the relationship as "friendly".=20
About one-quarter of separated parents described their = relationship as=20 "distant" (24-25%).=20
A relationship characterised by "lots of conflict" was reported by = 17-19%=20 of separated fathers and mothers.=20
A small proportion of parents reported that their relationship = with the=20 former partner was "fearful", with mothers being more likely than = fathers to=20 indicate this (11% vs 2%).

Figure 4.1 Self-reported nature of separated parents' current = relationship with their former partners, by gender

3D"Figure

Source: GPPS (2006)

Figure 4.2 shows the frequency of inter-parental communication about = the=20 children reported by separated fathers and mothers.

Just over one-third of separated fathers and mothers indicated = that they=20 talked to the other parent about their children at least once a week, = 21-24%=20 said that they talked to each other on a monthly basis, and 17-18% of = the=20 separated fathers and mothers reported that such discussions occurred = less=20 than once a month.=20
About a quarter of separated parents (23-27%) indicated that they = never=20 communicated with their former partner about matters relating to their = children.

Figure 4.2 Frequency of communication between separated = parents about=20 children, by gender

3D"Figure

Source: GPPS 2006

Face-to-face contact between non-resident parents and children

While parents may believe that children benefit from the continuing=20 involvement of both parents in their lives, such involvement may be = difficult to=20 achieve in practice, particularly when parents re-partner, the distance = between=20 residences increases, and children develop greater autonomy and interest = in=20 being with their friends.

In the Family Characteristics Survey (FCS) conducted by ABS in 2003, = resident=20 parents were asked how often each child aged under 18 years old usually = saw his=20 or her parent who lived elsewhere (mostly the father), how often he or = she=20 stayed overnight with the non-resident parent, and how many nights were = involved=20 in each period of stay. Figure 4.3 summarises responses on frequency of=20 face-to-face contact between children and their non-resident parent.¹⁹

Figure 4.3 Frequency of face-to-face contact by children aged = under=20 18 years with non-resident parent, as reported by resident = parents

Source: ABS (2004)

According to reports of resident parents, the most common patterns = were those=20 at the extremes of frequency:

One-third of children saw their non-resident parent on a daily or = weekly=20 basis, while around one-quarter saw their children less than once a = year or=20 not at all.=20
Another 18% saw their parent only once every 3-12 months, while=20 fortnightly and monthly face-to-face contact occurred for 17% and 6% = of=20 children respectively.

Resident parents' reports about face-to-face contact between children = and=20 their non-resident parent suggest that younger children had more = frequent=20 contact than older children (Table 4.1).

According to resident parents' reports, daily or weekly contact = declined=20 with the increasing age of children (applying to 53% of children aged = under 3=20 years and only 26% of children aged 15-17 years).=20
Correspondingly, face-to-face contact that occurred only once = every 3-12=20 months appeared to increase progressively with the increasing age of = children=20 (ranging from 8% for those under 3 years to 23% for those aged 15-17 = years).=20
The experience of less than yearly or no contact also appeared to = increase=20 with increasing age (applying to 21% of children under 3 years old and = 30% of=20 children aged 15-17 years).

Table 4.1 Frequency of face-to-face contact by children aged = under 18=20 years with non-resident parent, by children's age, as reported by = resident=20 parents

	Children's=20 age (years)
0-2 (%)	3-4 (%)	5-11 (%)	12-14 (%)	15-17=20 (%)
Daily/weekly	52.6	44.6	32.7	26.8	26.2
Fortnightly	13.1	16.2	18.9	19.1	12.1
Monthly	5.9*	3.6*	5.7	5.2	8.5
Once every 3-12 months	7.5*	12.8	16.9	21.7	22.7
Less than once a year/never	20.9	22.9	25.8	27.2	30.4
Total	100.0	100.1	100.0	100.0	99.9

Note: * These estimates are subject to high = standard error=20 (25-50%), as indicated by the ABS.

Source: FCS 2003, unpublished customised tables =

The pattern of overnight stays is depicted in Figure 4.4. The = percentages=20 provided refer to the proportions of children aged under 18 years who, = according=20 to their resident parent, experienced different ranges of overnight = stays (from=20 0 to 182+ nights).

Figure 4.4 Overnight stays per year with = non-resident=20 parent by children aged under 18 years, as reported by resident=20 parents

3D"Figure

Source: ABS (2004). These data are based on the = reports of=20 resident parents.

The reports of resident parents suggest the following patterns in = 2003:

half the children experienced no overnight stays (i.e., they = either had=20 daytime-only face-to-face contact or never saw their non-resident = parent);=20
38% spent up to 72 nights (i.e., 10 weeks, representing 20% of = nights per=20 year) with their non-resident parent, with 21% experiencing 1-35 = nights (i.e.,=20 up to 5 weeks, representing up to 10% of nights per year);=20
10% spent 73-181 nights with their non-resident parent (i.e., = 10-26 weeks,=20 representing 20-50% of nights per year); and=20
4% spent 110-181 nights (i.e., 16-26 weeks or 3.6-6 months, = representing=20 30-50% of nights per year) and 2% spent 182 nights or more (i.e., 6 = months or=20 more).

Table 4.2 shows the pattern of overnight stays experienced by = children in=20 five different age groups, as reported by their resident parents.

Table 4.2 Overnight stays per year with non-resident parent = by=20 children under 18 years, by children's age, as reported by resident=20 parents

	Children's=20 age (years)
0-2 (%)	3-4 (%)	5-11 (%)	12-14 (%)	15-17 = (%)
0 nights	66.7	51.9	44.2	45.7	57.1
1-35 nights	11.9	12.3	21.7	22.7	24.7
36-72 nights	13.1	21.7	21.0	17.6	11.0
73-109 nights	5.1*	7.8	6.4	6.7	3.1*
110-181 nights	3.3*	5.7*	4.2	4.7	2.6*
182+ nights	0.0	0.6*	2.4	2.6*	1.5*
Total	100.1	100.0	99.9	100.0	100.0

Note: * These estimates are subject to high = standard error=20 (25-50%), as indicated by the ABS.

Source: FCS 2003, unpublished customised tables =

Most children aged under 3 years old (67%) or 15-17 years old = (57%) did=20 not have any overnight stays with their non-resident parents.=20
The proportion experiencing overnight stays increased = progressively with=20 children's age for those of pre-school or primary school age (from 33% = for=20 those aged 0-2 years to 56% for those for those aged 5-11 years), = while the=20 proportions of older children staying overnight fell from 54% for = those aged=20 12-14 years to 43% for those aged 15-17 years.=20
Only 7-14% in each group spent more than 72 nights (or 10 weeks) = with=20 their non-resident parent.=20
Less than 10% in each age group spent at least 110 nights (30% of = nights)=20 in a year with their non-resident parent.

Distance between children and non-resident parents would obviously = affect the=20 frequency of face-to-face contact experienced. The greater the distance = between=20 the child and his or her non-resident parent, the greater would be the = travel=20 costs, while mode of transport would affect travel time (car vs = aeroplane).=20 However, a short distance does not necessarily mean that children would = have=20 frequent contact with their non-resident parent. Figure 4.5 shows the = distance=20 between children aged under 18 years and their non-resident parent, as = reported=20 by resident and non-resident parents combined. These results are based = on the=20 HILDA survey (Wave 4, conducted in 2004).

Over one-third of the children (37%) were living within 20 = kilometres from=20 their non-resident parent, while much the same proportion (34%) were = living at=20 least 100 kilometres apart, with nearly one quarter (22%) of children = either=20 living at least 500 kilometres away from their non-resident parent or = having a=20 non-resident parent who lived overseas.=20
Only a small proportion of separated parents (5%) did not know the = whereabouts of their children's other parent.

Figure 4.5 Distance between children and non-resident = parents, as=20 reported by parents

3D"Figure

Source: HILDA 2004

Payment or receipt of child support

The Child Support Scheme, introduced in 1989-1991, is based on the = principle=20 that parents have the responsibility for the ongoing support of their = children,=20 regardless of whether they live with them. The scheme makes payments by = parents=20 who do not usually live with the child compulsory, at rates that are = designed to=20 reflect parents' capacity to pay. These rates, and the factors that are = taken=20 into account in determining them, have been recently revised and will = come into=20 effect on 1 July 2008.

This section focuses on the apparent incidence of child support = payment=20 transfers from one parent to the other, according to the reports of = resident=20 mothers, resident fathers and non-resident fathers in the FCS 2003, = HILDA 2004=20 and the GPPS 2006:²⁰

Of the three groups, child support transfers were the most likely = to be=20 reported by non-resident fathers (who were payers) and the least = likely to be=20 reported by resident fathers (who were payees).=20
Of non-resident fathers, 76-77% reported paying child support (in = the GPPS=20 and HILDA).=20
Receipt of child support was reported by 62-66% of resident = mothers in the=20 FCS and GPPS, and by only 49% of resident mothers in HILDA.=20
Of resident fathers, 18% in HILDA, 23% in the FCS, and 46% in the = GPPS=20 reported that they received child support.

The results from the datasets are more consistent in relation to the = reports=20 of non-resident fathers than reports of resident parents, although it = should be=20 noted that information from non-resident fathers about payment of child = support=20 was not derived in the FCS 2003. These differences may be partly = explained by=20 the different questions asked in each survey. The focus of the question=20 (youngest child or all children) also varied across the surveys.²¹

The difference in the reports of resident mothers and fathers is = likely to be=20 linked with systematic differences between their former partners = regarding their=20 financial capacity to pay child support. The FCS 2003 showed that, = compared with=20 non-resident mothers, non-resident fathers had greater attachment to = paid work,=20 were more likely to live alone and less likely to be single parents = (i.e.,=20 unpartnered and living with at least one child).²²

5. Relationships between = grandparents and=20 grandchildren

Grandparents can play many important roles in children's lives. They = can be=20 loving companions, caregivers, mentors, historians and sources of = various other=20 forms of support. In some cases, they also can become surrogate = parents.²³

While many grandparents appear to welcome the opportunity to commit = to=20 frequent, regular and lengthy periods with their grandchildren, others = prefer to=20 pose heavy restrictions on the time they spend with them. Still others = live too=20 far away from their grandchildren to see them frequently, if at all (see = Ochiltree, 2006). And, like all relationships, those between = grandparents and=20 grandchildren evolve and are not always beneficial to one or both = parties. The=20 relationships would tend to change in response to the grandchildren's = increasing=20 maturity and the ageing of their grandparents, and other changing = circumstances,=20 such as parental separation and/or residential relocation.

This chapter explores the closeness of relationships between = grandchildren=20 and their paternal and maternal grandparents, as well as the impact of=20 separation on these relationships, as perceived by the children's = parents. These=20 results are based on the GPPS 2006.

Current relationship between grandchildren and grandparents

Respondents who had at least one living parent were asked to indicate = whether=20 the relationship between their own parents and children was "very = close",=20 "close", "not close" or "non-existent". Reports that the relationship = varies=20 were recorded, although this response option was not suggested to = respondents.=20 Respondents were also asked the same questions about the relationship = between=20 their children and grandparents on their other side. It is worth noting = that no=20 distinction was made between specific children in the family, nor = between=20 grandmothers and grandfathers. For simplicity, the discussion below = refers to=20 "maternal grandparents", "paternal grandparents" and "children" or=20 "grandchildren" (i.e., plural terms are used). Figure 5.1 summarises the = patterns of answers provided by fathers and mothers.

Most mothers and fathers described the relationship between their = children=20 and their maternal and paternal grandparents as "close" or "very = close"=20 (67-85%).=20
Both mothers and fathers were more likely to consider that their = children=20 had a "very close" relationship with their maternal grandparents than = with=20 their paternal grandparents (mothers: 56% vs 32%; fathers: 46% vs = 39%).=20
However, views appeared to be influenced by whether the = grandparents were=20 on the respondents' side or their partner's side. Specifically:=20
- mothers were more likely than fathers to describe relationships = between=20 the children and their maternal grandparents as "very close" (56% vs = 46%)=20
- similarly, fathers were slightly more likely than mothers to = report=20 "very close" relationships between the children and their paternal=20 grandparents (39% vs 32%).

Figure 5.1 Perceived current relationship between = grandchildren and=20 their grandparents, by gender of parent, as reported by = parents

3D"Figure

Source: GPPS 2006

Figure 5.2 summarises the views of separated and non-separated = parents=20 regarding the closeness of the relationship between their own parents = and=20 children. The separated parents are divided into three groups: resident = and=20 non-resident fathers, and resident mothers.²⁴

Of the five groups of parents, "very close" relationships between = their=20 own parents and children were most likely to be reported by mothers = who were=20 not separated (58%), followed by resident fathers and resident mothers = (51-55%), then fathers who were not separated (41%).=20
Patterns of responses of resident fathers and mothers were very = similar:=20 51-55% of resident fathers and mothers described the relationship = between=20 their children and their parents as "very close", while 13-18% = described it as=20 "not close", "non-existent" or "varies".=20
Of all groups, non-resident fathers were the least likely to = report that=20 the relationship was "very close" (19% vs 41-58%) and the most likely = to=20 describe the relationship as either "not close" or "non-existent", or = one that=20 "varies" (41% vs 13-20%).

Figure 5.2 Perceived current relationship between own parents = and=20 children, by separation and residence status, as reported by=20 parents

3D"Figure

Note: * There were too few separated mothers who = were not=20 living with any of their children (i.e., non-resident mothers, n=3D12) = to provide=20 results for this group.

Source: GPPS 2006

Perceived impact of separation on relationship between grandchildren = and=20 grandparents

Separated parents were asked to indicate whether they believed that = the=20 relationship between their own parents and children had become closer or = more=20 distant, or whether the relationship had not changed since their = separation.=20 Figure 5.3 shows the pattern of answers of separated fathers and mothers = to this=20 question, according to their residence status.

Both fathers and mothers most commonly maintained that the = relationships=20 between their own parents and children had not changed since = separation=20 (51-58%).=20
However, perceived changes in the relationship between their own = parents=20 and children varied according to parents' residence status. = Specifically:=20
- Resident fathers and mothers were more likely to maintain that = this=20 relationship had become closer rather than more distant (closer: = 36%; more=20 distant: 6-8%), while the reverse applied to non-resident fathers = (closer=20 13%; more distant 36%).

Figure 5.3 Perceived changes in relationship between own = parents and=20 children, by residence status, as reported by separated = parents

3D"Figure

Source: GPPS 2006

The closeness of a relationship does not necessarily reflect how = beneficial=20 that relationship is for each party. Nevertheless, most parents who = believed=20 that relationships had become closer also believed that such a change = had=20 beneficial effects on the children (66%). On the other hand, of those = parents=20 who considered that the children's relationship had become more distant, = 58%=20 described the impact as being minimal or mixed, while 34% considered the = impact=20 to be negative.

References

Amato, P. R. (2005). The impact of family formation = change on=20 the cognitive, social and emotional wellbeing of the next generation. = The=20 Future of Children, 15(2), 75-96.

Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (2000). A = generation at=20 risk: Growing up in an era of family upheaval. Cambridge, MA: = Harvard=20 University Press.

Ambert, A. M. (1997). Parents, children, and = adolescents:=20 Interactive relationships and development in context. New York: = Haworth=20 Press.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (various years).=20 Divorces Australia. Canberra: Author.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1996). = Marriages and=20 divorces Australia 1995 (Cat. No. 3310.0). Canberra: Author.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2000). = Marriages and=20 divorces Australia 1999 (Cat. No. 3310.0). Canberra: Author.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2001). Births = Australia=20 2000 (Cat. No. 3301.0). Canberra: Author.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2002a). = Marriages and=20 divorces Australia 2001 (Cat. No. 3310.0). Canberra: Author.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2002b). = Births=20 Australia 2001 (Cat. No. 3301.0). Canberra: Author.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004). Family = characteristics Australia (Cat. no. 4442.0). Canberra: Author.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007a). = Marriages=20 Australia 2006 (Cat. No. 3306.0.55.001). Canberra: Author.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007b). 2006 = Census=20 tables (Cat. No. 2068.0). Canberra: Author.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007c). = Births=20 Australia 2006 (Cat. No. 3301.0). Canberra: Author.

Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2004) = Family=20 facts & figures. Melbourne: Author. Retrieved 8 April 2008, = from http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/info/charts/cohabitation/outcome= s.html

Brown, S. L. (2000). The effect of union type of=20 psychological well-being: Depression among cohabitors versus marrieds.=20 Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 12-24.

de Vaus, D. (1997). Family Values in the Nineties = Gender gap=20 or generation gap? Family Matters, 48, 5-10.

Dolan, P. D., Peasgood, T., & While, M. (2006). = Review of research on the influences on personal well-being and = application=20 to policy making. London: Department of Environment, Food and Rural = Affairs.

Haller. M., & Hadler, M. (2006). How social = relations and=20 structures can produce happiness and unhappiness: An international = comparative=20 analysis. Social Indicators Research, 74, 169-216.

Hugo, G. (2007). Recent trends in Australian = fertility. O=20 & G, 9(2), 11-13.

McCabe, M. P., Cummins, R. A., & Romeo, Y. = (1996).=20 Relationship status, relationship quality, and health. Journal of = Family=20 Studies, 2(2), 109-120.

McDonald, P. (2006). Low fertility and the state: = The=20 efficacy of policy. Population and Development Review, = 32(3),=20 485-510.

Ochiltree, G. (2006). Grandparents, = grandchildren and the=20 generation in between. Melbourne: ACER.

Parkinson, P., & Smyth, B. (2003). When the = difference is night & day: Some empirical insights into patterns of=20 parent-child contact after separation. Paper presented at the 8th=20 Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne.

Pryor, J., & Rodgers, B. (2001). Children = in changing=20 families: Life after parental separation. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sanders, M. R., Nicholson, J. M., & Floyd, F. = J. (1997).=20 Couples' relationships and children. In W. K. Halford & H. J. = Markman=20 (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marriage and couples intervention = (pp.=20 225-253). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

Smyth, B., & Wolcott, I. (2004). Food and = family=20 transitions: Cooking in the aftermath of divorce. Journal of the = Home=20 Economics Institute of Australia, 11(3), 2-8.

Tweng, J. M., & King, L. A. (2004). A good life = is a=20 personal life: Relationship fulfilment and work fulfilment in judgements = of life=20 quality. Journal of Research in Personality, 39(3),=20 336-353.

Watson, N., & Wooden, M. (2002). The = Households,=20 Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey: Wave 1 survey=20 methodology (HILDA Project Technical Paper Series No. 1/02). = Melbourne:=20 Melbourne Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research. Retrieved = 8 April=20 2008, from ht= tp://www.melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/hdps/hdps-techn01.pdf

Weston, R. (2004), Having children or not. = Family=20 Matters, 69, 4-9.

Appendix

In addition to statistics published by the Australian Government = Australian=20 Bureau of Statistics (e.g., on marriages and divorces), this snapshot = has drawn=20 on data from following surveys:

The General Population of Parents Survey (GPPS 2006) - a telephone = survey=20 of a nationally representative sample of 5,000 parents (with a child = under 18=20 years old) living in private dwellings. This survey was conducted in = June/July=20 2006 and was funded by the Australian Government Attorney-General's = Department=20 and the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and = Indigenous=20 Affairs (FaHCSIA).=20
The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) = survey=20 (Wave 4, undertaken in 2004) - a national panel survey that commenced = in 2001,=20 is conducted annually and involves both face-to-face interviews and=20 self-completed questionnaires (see Watson & Wooden, 2002, for = details of=20 the survey methodology). HILDA is funded by the Australian Government, = through=20 FaHCSIA, and is managed by a consortium led by the Melbourne Institute = of=20 Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne. The = information=20 in Wave 4 was derived from approximately 12,400 persons aged 15 years = and=20 over, from around 7,000 households.=20
The 2003 ABS Family Characteristics Survey (FCS 2003) - a national = (mostly=20 telephone) survey conducted as part of the ABS monthly Labour Force = Survey=20 (LFS). The dataset contains records of 24,498 households and 61,859 = persons.=20

Endnotes

1. Relationships between grandchildren and grandparents = on the=20 non-resident mothers=92 side could not be ascertained.

2. The views of fathers of this age were not assessed = owing to=20 the small number of respondents in this group.

3. Reports of non-resident mothers were not assessed = owing to the=20 small number of respondents in this group.

4. Results for non-resident mothers were not assessed = owing to=20 the small number of respondents in this group.

5. As de Vaus (1997) noted, changes in family patterns = have=20 challenged and often led to greater tolerance of new ways of living and=20 represent societal trends that affect the size and age structure of the=20 population, the environment, the economy and legislation.

6. The crude marriage rate refers to the annual number = of=20 registered marriages per 1,000 members of the resident population.

7. The crude divorce rate refers to the annual number = of divorces=20 per 1,000 members of the resident population.

8. The Act allowed divorce on only one ground - = "irretrievable=20 breakdown" - as measured by at least 12 months of separation. It led to = the=20 formalisation of some long-term separations and the bringing forward of = some=20 divorces that had been filed in the previous years but had not been=20 finalised.

9. The total fertility rate is a synthetic measure that = refers to=20 the number of babies a woman can expect to have in her lifetime, given = the=20 age-specific birth rates prevailing at the time. It is affected by = trends in=20 accuracy of birth registration data, including the tendency to register = a birth=20 and the timing of registration. According to Hugo (2007), delays in = birth=20 registrations contributed to the apparent decline in the fertility rate = after=20 1992, while improvements in the accuracy of birth registration data have = contributed to the apparent increase after 2001.

10. See the appendix for information about this = survey.

11. It is interesting to note that similar patterns = have been=20 observed for subjective wellbeing (see Dolan et al., 2006).

12. See the appendix for information about this = survey.

13. This is not surprising given that questions only = focused on=20 those who were currently living with a partner, not those who were = currently=20 separated or divorced.

14. Through probing, parents indicated whether they = "strongly=20 agreed", "agreed", held "mixed feelings", "disagreed" or "strongly = disagreed"=20 with each statement. Some parents volunteered that they were uncertain = about the=20 matter.

15. Here, a cautious outlook is suggested by the = opinions that=20 skills do not come naturally to most people and that it is difficult to = maintain=20 good relationships, while a confident outlook is suggested by the = opinions that=20 skills come naturally and that it is not difficult to maintain good=20 relationships.

16. Opinions about relationship skills are discussed = in Chapter=20 2.

17. The results in the columns entitled "After = prompting" refer=20 to the proportion of all fathers and mothers who indicated that they = would use=20 the services listed - either before or after the interviewer suggested = these=20 services to them.

18. It is important to note that relationships that = are=20 "friendly" would also seem likely to be "cooperative", while = "cooperative"=20 relationships may well occur in the absence of friendliness. Therefore, = for some=20 but not all parents, the choice between these alternatives may be = arbitrary.=20 Similarly, "fearful" seems likely to suggest a relationship involving = "lots of=20 conflict" (whether overt or covert), while the reverse would not = necessarily=20 apply.

19. It is important to note that parents=92 reports on = contact=20 patterns and levels of child support tend to differ according to their = residence=20 status. Compared with non-resident parents, resident parents tend to = report more=20 limited contact (Parkinson & Smyth, 2003).

20. While information about child support transfers in = the FCS=20 2003 was derived from resident parents only, such information was = derived from=20 both parents in HILDA 2004 and the GPPS 2006.

21. In the HILDA survey, resident parents were asked: = "Do you=20 receive any financial support from, or pay any financial support to = [youngest=20 child=92s] other parent to help meet general everyday expenses of = [youngest=20 child]. For instance, any weekly, fortnightly or monthly child support. = Exclude=20 any payments to cover one-off or periodic expenses such as school fees = or=20 medical bills". A parallel question was asked of non-resident parents. = The FCS=20 asked resident parents to indicate the usual amount of child support or=20 maintenance received each month for the children. This is closest to the = question asked in the HILDA survey, although it is possible that some = parents=20 included other forms of financial support. In both HILDA and the FCS, = parents=20 were asked subsequently about these other forms of support. The GPPS = asked: "Do=20 you currently pay (or receive) any regular financial support for the=20 child(ren)?"

22. In other words, although these mothers and fathers = were=20 non-resident parents to one or more of their children, the mothers were = more=20 likely than the fathers to also have at least one of their children = living with=20 them. These children may have been full or half siblings of the children = living=20 elsewhere.

23. According to the ABS (2004), around 1% of all = Australian=20 families with children under 18 years are headed by grandparents who are = raising=20 their grandchildren.

24. Results for non-resident mothers are not presented = owing to=20 the small number of respondents in this group.

* you will need an Acrobat Reader which is free from = the Adobe=20 Systems Web site: http://www.= adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html=20

Top

Snapshots of family relationships

Contents

Foreword

Key trends

Executive summary

Trends in couple partnering and childbearing

Relationships between partners

Opinions about developing and maintaining good relationships with a=20 partner

Help-seeking if separating from a partner

Relationships between parents and children

Opinions about the ease or difficulty of attaining parenting = skills

Help-seeking for handling children's behavioural problems

Post-separation parenting

Relationships between grandparents and grandchildren

1. Trends in partnering and=20 childbearing

Forming partnerships

Dissolving partnerships

Partnered individuals

Childbearing

Total fertility rate

Number of children

Ex-nuptial births

2. Relationships between = partners

Satisfaction with relationship with partner

Previous experience of relationship difficulties among parents

Selected opinions about couple relationships

Sources of advice or information regarding separation

Pattern of results before prompting

Pattern of results after prompting

Use of professional help at the time of separation or divorce

3. Relationships between = parents and=20 children

Satisfaction with relationships between parents and biological = children

Parents

Children aged 15 years and older

Satisfaction with relationships between step-parents and = step-children

Step-parents

Step-children aged 15 years and older

Opinions about whether parenting skills come naturally to most = people

Help-seeking regarding parenting difficulties

Pattern of results before prompting

Pattern of results after prompting

Sources of professional help sought with handling children's = behaviour

4. Post-separation = parenting

Opinions about post-separation parental involvement

Co-parental relationships

Face-to-face contact between non-resident parents and children

Payment or receipt of child support

5. Relationships between = grandparents and=20 grandchildren

Current relationship between grandchildren and grandparents

Perceived impact of separation on relationship between grandchildren = and=20 grandparents

References

Appendix

Endnotes