Loose Ties? Determinants of Father–Child Contact After Separation in Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This article examines the determinants of father–child contact in Germany after divorce and separation, with a special emphasis on the role of legal child support. Background The contact separated fathers have with their children is a policy‐relevant issue that has been intensively addressed in previous research for the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. For continental Europe, there has been far less research on this topic. This article investigated how fathers' union status at childbirth, custody arrangements, and past and present partnership dynamics affect the level of contact they had with their first‐born child from a prior union. Method Data were used from Wave 2 (2009–2010) to Wave 8 (2015–2016) of the German Family Panel pairfam ( www.pairfam.de ). With a final sample size of 285 fathers, population average logistic models were estimated that examined nonresident fathers' probability of having frequent contact versus having little or no contact with their first‐born children. Results Whether a nonresident father shared legal custody with the mother was a decisive factor in whether he had regular contact with his minor child, particularly if he was not living with the mother of the child at the time of delivery. There were strong interaction effects between having joint legal custody and the time since the parental separation. Joint legal custody did not have an immediate impact on father–child contact around the time of separation, but as time elapsed, men without joint legal custody were more likely to lose contact with their children than men with joint legal custody. Conclusion Joint legal custody may provide an institutional arrangement for separated parents to exercise their responsibility for the well‐being of their children and thus be conducive to regular father–child contact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".