Physical Custody Arrangements, Children’s Age, and Children’s Mental Health: A Comparison of Germany and Norway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated potential differences in mental health among children living in sole physical custody (SPC), asymmetric joint physical custody (JPC), and symmetric JPC; and it tested whether children’s age moderated the association between physical custody arrangements and children’s mental health. Using data from the Family Models in Germany (FAMOD) and Norwegian Dynamics of Family Conflict (FAMC) studies, we estimated OLS regression models for children aged 2 to 14. In the German sample, children in asymmetric JPC had fewer mental health problems than children in SPC. However, this difference disappeared when controlling for various background variables, including the quality of parent-child relationships. Additionally, children’s age moderated the association between physical custody arrangements and children’s mental health problems, with increasing age being related to fewer mental health problems in asymmetric JPC. This association remained even after controlling for the background variables. In the Norwegian sample, no differences were found in children’s mental health across physical custody arrangements; nor did children’s age moderate the association. The results of this study emphasize that there may be cultural differences in how children’s mental health is related to their physical custody arrangements. Furthermore, there are modest indications that asymmetric JPC may be related to better mental health among older children in Germany.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".