Fathers’ Experiences of Negotiating Co-Parenting Arrangements and Family Court
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author(s) report on a qualitative mixed-mode study of fathers' experiences following relationship breakdown - specifically focusing on post-separation experiences of abuse and parental alienating behaviors. These are two of a group of themes contained in a larger study data collection.
My disciplinary expertise is not family studies, so I cannot specifically attest to the originality of the study or to the authors' familiarity with the latest research in this field. So I comment as a fellow social scientist who understands and has conducted and supervised qualitative survey and interview research.
In general found the study both well-conceived and interesting to read. There is clearly a wealth of data that speaks to a likely under-studied group: divorced or otherwise separated fathers. The conclusions about the need for gender inclusive family services around divorce, parental rights, and intimate partner violence all seem to issue directly from the findings and align with cited literature.
My critical points refer to the methodology and results sections.
1) In the materials and methods section (p.3, lines 130-134), you begin by describing the sizes of the interview and survey samples. But no information is provided about the sample formation or selection process. On page 4 (176-77) we learn that the sample was formed via opt-in processes through social media and support/organizations for fathers. This information should be up front with the sample description so that it is clear that this is not a random sample.
2) On pages 3-4, characteristics of the survey sample are reported. These could be more effectively presented using a table. A second column could be added to compare the survey sample with the interview sample.
3) On page 4 (163-165) we learn that the interview sample comes mostly from the UK/Ireland. Did the survey sample come from the same places? This should be made clear, as laws/policies related to FBSD may vary by country and region.
4) On page 5-6, the larger data collection is mentioned, including reference to future manuscripts. The authors might consider providing a full list of themes from the larger data collection.
5) The biggest critical point to make is about the structure of Sections 3.1 (The FBSD event) and 3.2 (Domestic Violence and Abuse). Both of these sections had a very "choppy" flow with short direct statements from the author interspersed with quotes from interview participants. Some may have been survey responses, but this is not clear in the text. This choppy flow presented two issues for me as a reader:
5a) The author makes statements like "Many fathers reported..." and then follows with only one evidentiary quote. Examples can be found on pg. 10 (line 386, and line 400). So readers are left to take the authors at their word that many fathers felt the same way this one respondent felt. Consider adding statements of proportionality or frequency to support words like "many" or "a significant number".
5b) The choppy flow makes the text generally harder to read. It might be possible to aggregate, for example, all the different negative emotions in a single statement, and provide a few examples from quotes. This would improve the readability of the narrative.
By contrast, section 3.2.3 (PABs) begins by making proportional statements ("Approximately a third of participants), and places multiple quotes below the authors' claims. Earlier findings sub-sections could be modeled from this section and it would improve the overall flow.
6) The discussion section begins by saying "This study is the first to examine fathers' experiences of..."
I am not an expert in this field, so I cannot verify the accuracy of this claim. But whenever an author seeks to stake out new territory, its important to verify that it is indeed the first and to say what others have done before that is close to this but not exactly.
Two final and small substantive comment:
1) On page 2, 45-46, men's higher post-divorce suicide rates are mentioned. Men certainly have higher suicide rates in general, in the UK it looks like men have rates more than 3 times that of women (16.4 vs. 5.4). It might help to provide this context.
2) Page 2, 66-68, there is a statement about the low visibility of male victimization in IPV. Are there any statistics to cite that might be helpful to readers/
Author Response
We thank all reviewers for their deeply insightful and helpful comments that we believe, now addressed, have greatly strengthened the manuscript. Please find our detailed responses below.
Comment 1: In the materials and methods section (p.3, lines 130-134), you begin by describing the sizes of the interview and survey samples. But no information is provided about the sample formation or selection process. On page 4 (176-77) we learn that the sample was formed via opt-in processes through social media and support/organizations for fathers. This information should be up front with the sample description so that it is clear that this is not a random sample.
Response 1: We have now added a line on page 3 that indicates that these men were recruited via social media.
Comment 2: On pages 3-4, characteristics of the survey sample are reported. These could be more effectively presented using a table. A second column could be added to compare the survey sample with the interview sample.
Response 2: A table with this information has now been included on page 5, and these sections slimmed down as a result. However, some information on sub samples (i.e., those who said yes to being in a new relationship and then reporting on their living situation) has been left in the text as this would confuse the table by reporting whole sample versus sub sample percentages.
Comment 3: On page 4 (163-165) we learn that the interview sample comes mostly from the UK/Ireland. Did the survey sample come from the same places? This should be made clear, as laws/policies related to FBSD may vary by country and region.
Response 3: We have now added a line on page 4 specifying that all participants in the survey also came from the UK (however a breakdown of country is not available as this was simply captured in a participation eligibility question – do you reside in the UK).
Comment 4: On page 5-6, the larger data collection is mentioned, including reference to future manuscripts. The authors might consider providing a full list of themes from the larger data collection.
Response 4: A full list of themes has now been added on page 6.
Comment 5: The biggest critical point to make is about the structure of Sections 3.1 (The FBSD event) and 3.2 (Domestic Violence and Abuse). Both of these sections had a very "choppy" flow with short direct statements from the author interspersed with quotes from interview participants. Some may have been survey responses, but this is not clear in the text. This choppy flow presented two issues for me as a reader:
5a) The author makes statements like "Many fathers reported..." and then follows with only one evidentiary quote. Examples can be found on pg. 10 (line 386, and line 400). So readers are left to take the authors at their word that many fathers felt the same way this one respondent felt. Consider adding statements of proportionality or frequency to support words like "many" or "a significant number".
5b) The choppy flow makes the text generally harder to read. It might be possible to aggregate, for example, all the different negative emotions in a single statement, and provide a few examples from quotes. This would improve the readability of the narrative.
By contrast, section 3.2.3 (PABs) begins by making proportional statements ("Approximately a third of participants), and places multiple quotes below the authors' claims. Earlier findings sub-sections could be modeled from this section and it would improve the overall flow.
Response 5: We have reviewed this whole section, and ensured that we have added in relevant frequency markers and improved the flow of the section also.
Comment 6: The discussion section begins by saying "This study is the first to examine fathers' experiences of..."
I am not an expert in this field, so I cannot verify the accuracy of this claim. But whenever an author seeks to stake out new territory, its important to verify that it is indeed the first and to say what others have done before that is close to this but not exactly.
Response 6: We have now softened this statement.
Comment 7: On page 2, 45-46, men's higher post-divorce suicide rates are mentioned. Men certainly have higher suicide rates in general, in the UK it looks like men have rates more than 3 times that of women (16.4 vs. 5.4). It might help to provide this context.
Response 7: This has now been added on page 2.
Comment 8: Page 2, 66-68, there is a statement about the low visibility of male victimization in IPV. Are there any statistics to cite that might be helpful to readers/
Response 8: We have now added a supporting statistic for this statement on page 2.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a well written article overall about fathers' experiences of FBSD in pre-and post-separation/divorce contexts. A thoughtful literature review is provided and there is a clear overview of the method used. Extensive qualitative data is presented to offer insights into the experiences of this select population of men. I have a few relatively minor comments to suggest for developing the article.
Methodologically, the study is presented in a way that leaves little room for conceptual analysis or development. I personally prefer more depth analysis and interpretation of less qualitative data to enable more conceptual and theoretical development but I appreciate this is more of an empirical report on a fathers rather than a paper seeking to make significant conceptual advance. That said, this leads to me to think that there needs to be more caveating around representativeness and generalisability. There is a section on limitations later in the discussion re sample and representativeness but I think that this needs to be moved up to the methods section to provide some boundaries around and context to the presentation of the results and then the later discussion.
I am interested to understand more about how the authors, and the sample of fathers, are conceptualising abuse and violence. The evidence presented points to examples of this and perhaps this can be signposted to from the paragraph on page 2 of 18 where there is a discussion of literature about abuse/violence. Do the studies reported on provide examples of what equates to abuse and/or violence according to separating parents? I think this conceptual differentiation and information will help to guide the understanding of these experiences among fathers and strengthen the contributions from the research too.
In the methods section, I'd be interested to know what questions were posed in the survey that were influenced by the questionnaire. This is mentioned and then not elaborated further. A brief sentence or two on this will provide more context to how the responses of the fathers were orientated through the research.
I am unclear if all of the men in the sample reported violence and/or abuse. At times the script makes some broad statements that imply an inevitably to violence from ex-partners that might be tempered slightly, especially given the way the empirical data is presented, with less depth analysis through the data section. The quote by P8 is especially shocking for example e.g. “But the official kind of divorce [...] came when she attacked me with a knife in the 276 house.” (P8), but not necessarily representative of all men's experiences post-separation/divorce. The author might consider caveating something like: In one especially extreme case P8 reported....
Can you clarify the latter part of the following statement? Fathers reported that they, more than mothers had to “move out” (P20, P16, P27, 278 P28, P17) and “leave the family home” (P24, P17), although this difference was not drastic. What difference wasn't drastic here? Are you saying that a fairly large number of mothers also moved out?
In the section on mothers taking children away with them, it is apparent that we don't know the full stories here because we're lacking a multi-perspective view. We don't know the wishes of the children, for example, who may not want to see their fathers for whatever reason (and this view may not always be swayed entirely by their mum). Some more caveating/signposting about the sample at this point in the article (I recognise that this is raised at the end which is good) would be helpful to address potential critiques as readers are working through.
The article concludes with some comments about the need for gender sensitive services/systems but service involvement and legal processes are not touched upon in great detail in the presentation of result section. The focus is more on the processes of separation and the relationship with ex-partner. There is a quote bottom of page 11, top of page 12 about how court is used for the purposes of coercive control. It might be here that the author(s) mention how gendered legal systems become part of the process of exerting control around access to children.
Is it true that the men who participated in this study and are aggrieved by systems, are ‘hard to reach’? My feeling is that these are perhaps the most visible of men given that they are politically oriented to raising awareness of the violence of systems and separation contexts. As the author implicitly nods to, the language of hard to reach is also problematic and has been subject to substantial critique because it stigmatises individuals. Therefore, while this is stated in commas, the authors might also caveat here by saying, men in general are often problematically described as 'hard to reach' in s a service context where there are typically low levels of service engagement with fathers. The work of Philip, Perez-Vaisvidovsky, Neale and Tarrant may be useful here for nods to critiques of this in the father space.
Author Response
We thank all reviewers for their deeply insightful and helpful comments that we believe, now addressed, have greatly strengthened the manuscript. Please find our detailed responses below.
Comment 1: Methodologically, the study is presented in a way that leaves little room for conceptual analysis or development. I personally prefer more depth analysis and interpretation of less qualitative data to enable more conceptual and theoretical development but I appreciate this is more of an empirical report on a fathers rather than a paper seeking to make significant conceptual advance. That said, this leads to me to think that there needs to be more caveating around representativeness and generalisability. There is a section on limitations later in the discussion re sample and representativeness but I think that this needs to be moved up to the methods section to provide some boundaries around and context to the presentation of the results and then the later discussion.
Response 1: We have now added a sentence after we describe our samples on page 5 cautioning readers on generalisability.
Comment 2: I am interested to understand more about how the authors, and the sample of fathers, are conceptualising abuse and violence. The evidence presented points to examples of this and perhaps this can be signposted to from the paragraph on page 2 of 18 where there is a discussion of literature about abuse/violence. Do the studies reported on provide examples of what equates to abuse and/or violence according to separating parents? I think this conceptual differentiation and information will help to guide the understanding of these experiences among fathers and strengthen the contributions from the research too.
Response 2: We have now included a definition on page 2 that demonstrates out position on what we mean by domestic violence and abuse across the manuscript.
Comment 3: In the methods section, I'd be interested to know what questions were posed in the survey that were influenced by the questionnaire. This is mentioned and then not elaborated further. A brief sentence or two on this will provide more context to how the responses of the fathers were orientated through the research.
Response 3: Examples of questions have now been included in the manuscript on page 5.
Comment 4: I am unclear if all of the men in the sample reported violence and/or abuse. At times the script makes some broad statements that imply an inevitably to violence from ex-partners that might be tempered slightly, especially given the way the empirical data is presented, with less depth analysis through the data section. The quote by P8 is especially shocking for example e.g. “But the official kind of divorce [...] came when she attacked me with a knife in the 276 house.” (P8), but not necessarily representative of all men's experiences post-separation/divorce. The author might consider caveating something like: In one especially extreme case P8 reported....
Response 4: As part of our response to reviewer 1, quantities and prevalences have been added throughout the results section. And that particular example has been highlighted as extreme.
Comment 5: Can you clarify the latter part of the following statement? Fathers reported that they, more than mothers had to “move out” (P20, P16, P27, 278 P28, P17) and “leave the family home” (P24, P17), although this difference was not drastic. What difference wasn't drastic here? Are you saying that a fairly large number of mothers also moved out?
Response 5: We have provided a clarification on this issue on page 8.
Comment 6: In the section on mothers taking children away with them, it is apparent that we don't know the full stories here because we're lacking a multi-perspective view. We don't know the wishes of the children, for example, who may not want to see their fathers for whatever reason (and this view may not always be swayed entirely by their mum). Some more caveating/signposting about the sample at this point in the article (I recognise that this is raised at the end which is good) would be helpful to address potential critiques as readers are working through.
Response 6: We have added a footnote to ensure that readers are aware of the critical engagement they must employ as they read (page 8).
Comment 7: The article concludes with some comments about the need for gender sensitive services/systems but service involvement and legal processes are not touched upon in great detail in the presentation of result section. The focus is more on the processes of separation and the relationship with ex-partner. There is a quote bottom of page 11, top of page 12 about how court is used for the purposes of coercive control. It might be here that the author(s) mention how gendered legal systems become part of the process of exerting control around access to children.
Response 7: We have now reframed this implications section to place less focus on service involvement (which will be more of a focus in the second manuscript in this series) and pivot more towards mental health support for men.
Comment 8: Is it true that the men who participated in this study and are aggrieved by systems, are ‘hard to reach’? My feeling is that these are perhaps the most visible of men given that they are politically oriented to raising awareness of the violence of systems and separation contexts. As the author implicitly nods to, the language of hard to reach is also problematic and has been subject to substantial critique because it stigmatises individuals. Therefore, while this is stated in commas, the authors might also caveat here by saying, men in general are often problematically described as 'hard to reach' in s a service context where there are typically low levels of service engagement with fathers. The work of Philip, Perez-Vaisvidovsky, Neale and Tarrant may be useful here for nods to critiques of this in the father space.
Response 8: We have provided qualifications within this sentence, and have made it clear that hard to reach was actually in reference to men/fathers as abuse victims more generally.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have adequately addressed all of my comments and suggestions. I appreciate their attention to detail and recommend the manuscript for publication.
