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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".