Impact of Relationship Breakdown, Including Abuse and Negotiation of Co-Parenting Arrangements, on Fathers’ Mental Health, Help-Seeking, and Coping

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents an essential concern of fathers with FBSD。 The overall structure of the article is clear to read。 Here is my comment, and I hope the author will supplement it for the next step of publication。

For the literature review, I believe the previous study on the importance of Father Involvement (FI) towards a family and their children should be included。 The definition and dimensions of FI and how to apply them in the situation of FBSD should also be included。 Also, the cultural factor of the father in FBSD, what are the legal and policy concerns and how they influence their involvement, etc. 

For research methodology, the author adopts a mixed method study, which rarely sees the result and articulation of the quantitative part。 I believe the author plans to present this part in another academic paper, but the rationale for conducting a mixed method study in this research may not be very clear to the reader。 More explanation and show the articulation is needed。

For the research finding, more implication of social work and policy practice is required how the cultural context explains this phenomenon, and implications for further research on this topic。 The details of the limitation of this research are insufficient, especially, why the quantitative part is not presented in this journal。 

 

 

Author Response

 

For the literature review, I believe the previous study on the importance of Father Involvement (FI) towards a family and their children should be included。 The definition and dimensions of FI and how to apply them in the situation of FBSD should also be included。

 

You are right to point out that adding information about the importance of father involvement would strengthen our arguments greatly. This has now been added within the introduction.

 

For research methodology, the author adopts a mixed method study, which rarely sees the result and articulation of the quantitative part。 I believe the author plans to present this part in another academic paper, but the rationale for conducting a mixed method study in this research may not be very clear to the reader。 More explanation and show the articulation is needed。

 

This study was not mixed methods. It was purely a qualitative study, with data coming from both a survey and follow up interviews.

 

For the research finding, more implication of social work and policy practice is required how the cultural context explains this phenomenon, and implications for further research on this topic。

 

Thank you for prompting us to explore this further. We have now added more detail on the policy and practice implications of out findings.

 

The details of the limitation of this research are insufficient, especially, why the quantitative part is not presented in this journal

 

Thank you for this comment. We have now revised the limitations to include more extensive considerations.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article explores the experiences of men in contexts of FBSD and the effects of this on fathers’ mental health, help seeking and coping. Qualitative data from the study is reported on providing a rich picture of men’s experiences. The paper also forms a corpus of articles from the Lost Boys study. While the article includes some really interesting data, I have some concerns about some of the arguments and their framing, as well as the structure of the data and depth of analysis. I elaborate these points below.

I have some concerns about the framing of the literature review, which implicitly and sometimes explicitly suggests men experience post-separation worse than women. This is an unhelpful argument in my view because both men and women presumably experience post-separation in ways that impacts on their mental health, for some to a greater extent and others a lesser extent, regardless of gender. This approach is likely to alienate those who research with women in these contexts, not least because there isn’t strong enough evidence in the paper about how women experience post-separation contexts to confirm that this is case. What the evidence discussed in the paper does show is that men experience post-separation in gendered ways with different manifestations to women e.g. suicidal ideation/completion, a much more nuanced argument and one that is likely to convince and garner more interest among a wider set of scholars with interests in gender and gender inequalities.

By way of example, a statement is made that: ‘There are also several areas in which men appear to be at greater physiological risk after separation and divorce.’ I question here who they are at greater physiological risk of, and relative to whom? Presumably female ex-partners. If so, then the evidence presented doesn’t support this point. It highlights instead that men in different circumstances might engage in different coping behaviours, some of which are more risky than others.

Again, in the opening statement of the next paragraph the sentence says: Evans et al. (2016) discuss the potential reasons for explaining men’s higher susceptibility to mental health disturbances and increased risk for suicide following relationship breakdown.’ I think the authors are suggesting here that men are at higher risk of mental ill health than women in post-separation contexts, as later becomes apparent. However, there is no reference here to literatures about women and the mental health impacts for them to compare this too to support this point. A more nuanced argument might be that men are more likely than women to express their distress through suicidal ideation and/or completion. This avoids pitting women and men against each other by shifting focus away from who is more affected, to an argument about how the effects of separation are experienced in distinctively gendered ways. If there is a strong view that men are worse affected, then more discussion is needed of women’s’ experiences to compare.

Again: ‘Fathers can experience some of these losses more acutely.’ This argument is not evidenced by the points made that follow because there is no comparison with women. As above, you can make claims about what men experience that shape their mental health and well-being but the opening point needs to be more nuanced.

The concept of ‘alienated parents’ suddenly appears following these points and is treated uncritically on page 4 and without explanation of what this refers to and who it is relevant too. The paragraph begins with a focus on communication and coping and then this language is introduced twice and without context or discussion. This is a contested concept that needs unpacking or nuancing in the paper. I appreciate it is a lived experience for some people and men talk about it as part of explaining their experiences but for a journal article like this, this concept needs further explanation and nuance, not least because it implies that women’s behaviours are alienating and there are highly contested gendered politics in this regard that need acknowledgement.

When the author refers to services, what kinds of services do they refer to? Presumably those with a social and/or therapeutic offer? Some clarity about the difference between different systems would be helpful as there is discussion of legal systems and also social support. 

Before the methods section, the following point is made: They experience wide-ranging and severe mental health issues, fuelled by feelings of loss and grief, which are often exacerbated by legal proceedings to establish co-parenting arrangements (Hine et al., 2025a). Some men clearly do experience severe mental health issues but not all so it is important not to over generalise here. For some people divorce and separation may be emancipatory.  Again, some nuance is needed that some men will be more susceptible to more severe reactions and outcomes than others. The second half of the point about legal proceedings also appears with limited set up. There is some discussion of services and what works but legal systems are not discussed until this point. More citation of how and why the legal system might exacerbate the mental ill health of men would be useful here especially given this is a key theme of the data and analysis presented.

I wonder about the language of family breakdown in the article. Is it really about parent relationship breakdown that is being discussed here, especially in cases where men are able to continue to sustain relationships with their children across households? Related to this, there is limited overview of the sample demographics and/or their circumstances post-separation. This seems to me to be pertinent information in terms of how men are oriented to their situation. Clearly in the data, those who lose contact are more likely to experience distress so some insight about the sample characteristics would be useful.

The following point and quote do not align – the argument is made by the author(s) that an ex-partner was a barrier but the dad here is saying that fear of disclosing mental health challenges would be seen as a risk by professionals is the barrier. This needs a careful edit:

And some feared that their ex-partner would use it against them if they received professional help:

There was a big barrier because I was worried, that anything, if I expressed too much about any problems I was having mentally, that it would be turned and used against me. So, there was a big barrier. So, I couldn’t get the full support I wanted or needed at the time. I had to shoulder a lot of it. [...] I felt that any aspect of mental health could be seen as being a risk.” (P17)

It is stated that the reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) technique is applied but without much detail or evidence of this in the article, perhaps given how the data and analysis are presented. In the current structure of the article, for example, the data is presented separately from the discussion. This means that important opportunities to develop a more nuanced analysis of the comments made by the men are missed and not fully addressed. The first quote by P4, for example (which has also been used twice and so is repeated), focuses on how a father was paying his exes mortgage with limited analysis or context about why this was the case and what his motivations were either for continuing or withdrawing from this arrangement using his own agency. This quote feeds into the earlier concern about the tendencies to blame women in these contexts without looking at the fuller case and contextual picture.  Indeed, based on my reading of the data, there is much stronger evidence in theme 1 as a whole that systemic structures are a major factor in reinforcing the mental health challenges these men experience because of the systemic disregard for the important role of fathers' roles in their children’s lives. Research on father involvement is not cited here but also confirms why these structural issues reinforce this problem. I appreciate it will take work to integrate the data with the analysis but this might be managed by reducing some of the data shared and doing some more in-depth analysis of cases. 

Overall, my view is that a reframing of the paper is needed, as well as some more contextual information and critical engagement with the key concepts and ideas presented. I hope these comments help. The data is rich and compelling so these suggestions are made with the hope of enhancing the breadth of the contributions that might be possible from the article. 

Author Response

I have some concerns about the framing of the literature review, which implicitly and sometimes explicitly suggests men experience post-separation worse than women. This is an unhelpful argument in my view because both men and women presumably experience post-separation in ways that impacts on their mental health, for some to a greater extent and others a lesser extent, regardless of gender. This approach is likely to alienate those who research with women in these contexts, not least because there isn’t strong enough evidence in the paper about how women experience post-separation contexts to confirm that this is case. What the evidence discussed in the paper does show is that men experience post-separation in gendered ways with different manifestations to women e.g. suicidal ideation/completion, a much more nuanced argument and one that is likely to convince and garner more interest among a wider set of scholars with interests in gender and gender inequalities.

By way of example, a statement is made that: ‘There are also several areas in which men appear to be at greater physiological risk after separation and divorce.’ I question here who they are at greater physiological risk of, and relative to whom? Presumably female ex-partners. If so, then the evidence presented doesn’t support this point. It highlights instead that men in different circumstances might engage in different coping behaviours, some of which are more risky than others.

Again, in the opening statement of the next paragraph the sentence says: Evans et al. (2016) discuss the potential reasons for explaining men’s higher susceptibility to mental health disturbances and increased risk for suicide following relationship breakdown.’ I think the authors are suggesting here that men are at higher risk of mental ill health than women in post-separation contexts, as later becomes apparent. However, there is no reference here to literatures about women and the mental health impacts for them to compare this too to support this point. A more nuanced argument might be that men are more likely than women to express their distress through suicidal ideation and/or completion. This avoids pitting women and men against each other by shifting focus away from who is more affected, to an argument about how the effects of separation are experienced in distinctively gendered ways. If there is a strong view that men are worse affected, then more discussion is needed of women’s’ experiences to compare.

Again: ‘Fathers can experience some of these losses more acutely.’ This argument is not evidenced by the points made that follow because there is no comparison with women. As above, you can make claims about what men experience that shape their mental health and well-being but the opening point needs to be more nuanced.

 

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this framing, and we agree that this is misleading to the reader and does not represent the nuance of this area. As such as have engaged in a comprehensive review of the introduction to make it clear that whilst both men and women experience negative effects of FBSD, they both experience this is gendered ways, before then focusing on men as the focal point of this project.

 

The concept of ‘alienated parents’ suddenly appears following these points and is treated uncritically on page 4 and without explanation of what this refers to and who it is relevant too. The paragraph begins with a focus on communication and coping and then this language is introduced twice and without context or discussion. This is a contested concept that needs unpacking or nuancing in the paper. I appreciate it is a lived experience for some people and men talk about it as part of explaining their experiences but for a journal article like this, this concept needs further explanation and nuance, not least because it implies that women’s behaviours are alienating and there are highly contested gendered politics in this regard that need acknowledgement.

 

Thank you for pointing this out. As this paper builds on two papers directly contained within this article, the authors have sometimes relied too heavily on those previous articles being read and the information therein being used to support understanding in this paper. We have now added important context around alienating behaviours and their impact.

 

When the author refers to services, what kinds of services do they refer to? Presumably those with a social and/or therapeutic offer? Some clarity about the difference between different systems would be helpful as there is discussion of legal systems and also social support. 

 

We have clarified the nature and scope of services.

 

Before the methods section, the following point is made: They experience wide-ranging and severe mental health issues, fuelled by feelings of loss and grief, which are often exacerbated by legal proceedings to establish co-parenting arrangements (Hine et al., 2025a). Some men clearly do experience severe mental health issues but not all so it is important not to over generalise here. For some people divorce and separation may be emancipatory.  Again, some nuance is needed that some men will be more susceptible to more severe reactions and outcomes than others. The second half of the point about legal proceedings also appears with limited set up. There is some discussion of services and what works but legal systems are not discussed until this point. More citation of how and why the legal system might exacerbate the mental ill health of men would be useful here especially given this is a key theme of the data and analysis presented.

 

Thank you for these observations. We have now revisited this concept within the introduction to ensure that legal processes are more substantially explored to support the rationale for their impact on men’s experiences.

 

I wonder about the language of family breakdown in the article. Is it really about parent relationship breakdown that is being discussed here, especially in cases where men are able to continue to sustain relationships with their children across households? Related to this, there is limited overview of the sample demographics and/or their circumstances post-separation. This seems to me to be pertinent information in terms of how men are oriented to their situation. Clearly in the data, those who lose contact are more likely to experience distress so some insight about the sample characteristics would be useful.

 

We appreciate this comment and that this data would be important. Sadly, quantitative data on how many men still maintained a relationship with their children was not gathered, so we are unable to present this. However, we would be clear that based on the qualitative data, nearly all men in the sample had some kind of strain on their relationship with their children, at least initially, and so breakdown is the relevant terminology in this context.

 

The following point and quote do not align – the argument is made by the author(s) that an ex-partner was a barrier but the dad here is saying that fear of disclosing mental health challenges would be seen as a risk by professionals is the barrier. This needs a careful edit:

And some feared that their ex-partner would use it against them if they received professional help:

There was a big barrier because I was worried, that anything, if I expressed too much about any problems I was having mentally, that it would be turned and used against me. So, there was a big barrier. So, I couldn’t get the full support I wanted or needed at the time. I had to shoulder a lot of it. [...] I felt that any aspect of mental health could be seen as being a risk.” (P17)

 

We have revisited this data and changed the phrasing here to make it clear that it was both the partner and the systems at fault in this case.

 

It is stated that the reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) technique is applied but without much detail or evidence of this in the article, perhaps given how the data and analysis are presented. In the current structure of the article, for example, the data is presented separately from the discussion. This means that important opportunities to develop a more nuanced analysis of the comments made by the men are missed and not fully addressed. The first quote by P4, for example (which has also been used twice and so is repeated), focuses on how a father was paying his exes mortgage with limited analysis or context about why this was the case and what his motivations were either for continuing or withdrawing from this arrangement using his own agency. This quote feeds into the earlier concern about the tendencies to blame women in these contexts without looking at the fuller case and contextual picture.  Indeed, based on my reading of the data, there is much stronger evidence in theme 1 as a whole that systemic structures are a major factor in reinforcing the mental health challenges these men experience because of the systemic disregard for the important role of fathers' roles in their children’s lives. Research on father involvement is not cited here but also confirms why these structural issues reinforce this problem. I appreciate it will take work to integrate the data with the analysis but this might be managed by reducing some of the data shared and doing some more in-depth analysis of cases. 

 

We are grateful for this comment and we agree that the paper was structured in a way that limited the reflexive elements. As such, we have revised the entire results section, ensuring more contextual and critical reflection throughout to then support a more synthesised discussion section.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the author(s) for your careful engagement with my comments in the previous round of reviews. This reads much more coherently now and is an important contribution to research in this arena.