Dyadic Relationship and Coparenting Quality During the Transition to Parenthood for Couples With Childhood Maltreatment History

ABSTRACT

Becoming a parent is one of life's most significant transitions and can be a challenging period for many couples. One factor that may increase the difficulty couples experience in adjusting to parenthood is having a history of childhood maltreatment. This study explored whether a history of childhood maltreatment in either partner is associated with couples' relationship functioning as they adjust to parenthood. Structural equation modeling was used to examine the association of childhood maltreatment history with relationship and coparenting quality in both partners of 398 heterosexual couples in the United States having their first child. Relationship quality was assessed during pregnancy, and both relationship quality and coparenting quality were assessed twice during the postpartum period at 10–12 months and 2 years after birth. Father's history of childhood maltreatment was negatively associated with mother's reports of relationship quality at both time points after birth (p < 0.05), and father's maltreatment history was negatively associated with mother's reports of coparenting quality 2 years after birth (p = 0.01). Follow‐up analyses accounting for the interaction of both partners' maltreatment history revealed that a combination of maltreatment in both partners was associated with poorer relationship quality reported by mothers during pregnancy and 10–12 months after birth and with poorer coparenting quality ratings by mothers 2 years after birth (p < 0.05). Results suggest that a history of maltreatment in both parents can have negative impacts on relationship and coparenting quality during the transition to parenthood, with mothers appearing more sensitive to such effects than fathers. These findings highlight the importance of assessing both parents' histories of childhood maltreatment in postpartum clinical care to better identify families at risk and tailor supports that strengthen relationship and coparenting quality.

1. Introduction

Becoming parents is one of the most significant transitions many couples will experience, as it is a period of heightened stress, identity change, and lifestyle adjustment. While most couples experience declines in marital and relationship quality during the transition to parenthood (Doss et al. 2009; Reid et al. 2018), some couples experience no reported change, and a smaller percentage report modest increases in quality (Belsky and Kelly 1994; Belsky and Rovine 1990). More positive relationship quality during pregnancy has been connected to less relationship conflict up to 4 years postpartum (Kluwer and Johnson 2007), more positive coparenting (Le et al. 2016), and infants with better birth outcomes (Hohmann‐Marriott 2009), reinforcing the importance of this period. These differences in couples' adjustment to becoming parents suggest there may be certain risk and protective factors that make couples more or less vulnerable during this time (Wallace and Gotlib 1990).

One potential risk factor may be one or both parents' history of childhood maltreatment (i.e., experiences of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or physical or emotional neglect before the age of 18). Childhood maltreatment is prevalent in both clinical and non‐clinical populations (Stoltenborgh et al. 2015), meaning a significant number of couples who are becoming parents are likely to have at least one partner with a maltreatment history. Research has shown that couples in which at least one partner has a history of maltreatment experience a range of relationship‐related difficulties, including poorer communication (Zamir et al. 2025), lower sexual satisfaction (Vaillancourt‐Morel et al. 2021), lower marital trust and more partner aggression (DiLillo et al. 2009), and higher rates of divorce (Colman and Widom 2004), when compared to couples in which neither partner has a history of maltreatment. These relationship difficulties can be understood through a developmental psychopathology lens (Cicchetti and Rogosch 2002), which suggests that early adverse experiences like maltreatment can disrupt key developmental tasks, such as forming and maintaining secure adult relationships. Possible developmental tasks that are disrupted and may serve as mechanisms for one partner's history of childhood maltreatment influencing the other partner's perception of relationship quality include difficulties with emotion regulation, communication, stress‐reactivity, and responsiveness, all possibly related to the maltreated partner's trauma‐related symptoms (Vaillancourt‐Morel et al. 2023).

Beyond these general associations of maltreatment with relationship quality, existing relationship difficulties are exacerbated during stressful periods (Neff and Karney 2004). During the transition to parenthood, changes within the couple may occur in several domains. Even before birth, couples often adjust habits, schedules, and activities to support the pregnancy and prepare for the baby's arrival. In the postpartum period, couples' relationships must reorient to focus on the well‐being of the infant, and changes occur broadly across domains (e.g., schedules, work, social networks, sleep). These changes require greater coordination and may lead to increased stress and conflict. The vulnerability‐stress‐adaptation model (Karney and Bradbury 1995) offers a useful framework for understanding this dynamic, suggesting that enduring vulnerabilities (e.g., maltreatment histories) interact with stressful contexts (e.g., becoming a parent) to influence adaptation processes, or responses to those circumstances. Further, the developmental perspective of family life suggests that functioning at previous stages of life (e.g., when a couple is married or cohabitating but childless) plays a role in the adaptation and successful navigation to subsequent stages (e.g., pregnancy and postpartum; Duvall 1988). Therefore, couples' functioning before pregnancy, as well as how they adapt to this transition, can set the stage for the long‐term well‐being of the entire family system.

During the transition to parenthood, a new type of relationship is also formed between partners. The coparenting relationship, or the ways that parents support or undermine each other's parenting efforts (Margolin et al. 2001), represents a similar but distinct relationship, focused on the triad as the system rather than solely on the romantic dyad. Prenatal relationship quality for both mothers and fathers has been found to correlate with aspects of perceived coparenting by both parents up to 3 years postpartum, but these constructs are not isomorphic (Le et al. 2016). Indeed, coparenting has uniquely predicted outcomes like parental negativity above and beyond romantic relationship quality (Feinberg et al. 2007). Although family‐of‐origin characteristics affect relationship quality during this transition (Cowan et al. 1991; Belsky and Isabella 1985), maltreatment history's impact on coparenting quality has been overlooked. Understanding maltreatment's role in predicting the coparenting relationship during the perinatal period may help to explain the negative intergenerational effects found in families where parents have a history of maltreatment (see Plant et al. 2018 for review).

Despite the extensive research on childhood maltreatment and self‐reported relationship quality in adulthood, relatively few studies have examined this phenomenon in a dyadic context also to consider potential partner effects of childhood maltreatment (see Zamir 2022 for review). Because parents' histories of maltreatment can affect the wellbeing of future generations (Bosquet Enlow et al. 2018), it is essential to understand the impact of maltreatment on all caregivers in a family system. Dyadic studies provide a more ecologically valid understanding of the entire system and reveal how individuals without a maltreatment history may be impacted by their partners' experiences, which is more informative for creating interventions for families. The few studies that have examined maltreatment's dyadic effects on relationship quality have demonstrated that perceptions of relationship quality are related not only to one's own but also to one's partner's history of maltreatment (Nelson and Wampler 2000; Peterson et al. 2018; Riggs et al. 2011). Only one study has examined dyadic effects of maltreatment during the transition to parenthood (Liu et al. 2019), and none have done so longitudinally. Examining both partners' histories simultaneously also allows for an exploration of whether having shared experiences compounds risk (due to increased vulnerability across the couple) or buffers risk (potentially through greater empathy resulting from shared experiences), shedding light on how similarity in family‐of‐origin experiences shapes couple dynamics.

1.1. The Current Study

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate whether a personal history of childhood maltreatment is associated with worse relationship quality and worse coparenting quality in both members of a couple over time during the critical period of transition to parenthood. In this study, both romantic relationship quality and coparenting were examined dyadically and longitudinally. The dyadic approach allowed for analysis of the ways that maltreatment may affect not only the individuals who experienced it but also their partners, and the longitudinal data allowed us to capture the potentially differing nature of these effects at different developmental stages that have distinct demands of and stressors related to parenting (e.g., pregnancy vs. parenting an infant vs. parenting a toddler). The primary hypotheses were that the severity of one's own and one's partner's history of childhood maltreatment would be significantly associated with worse perceived relationship quality from pregnancy through 2 years after the child's birth and with worse perceived coparenting quality at 10 months postpartum and 2 years postpartum. A second exploratory aim of this study was to examine whether both partners having a maltreatment history had an additive or multiplicative negative effect or a buffering effect on relationship quality and/or coparenting quality during the transition to parenthood. Given the limited research on how childhood maltreatment relates to couple functioning during the transition to parenthood, this study takes an essential step in exploring these links, laying the groundwork for future research to identify underlying mechanisms.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Study participants were 398 male–female couples in which the mother was pregnant with her first child. Participants were recruited through childbirth education programs and OB/GYN clinics in three Mid‐Atlantic states and one southern state. Participants were required to be at least 18 years old and pregnant at the time of recruitment. At Wave 1, the mean age was 29.14 years (SD = 4.39) for expectant mothers and 31.09 years (SD = 5.37) for expectant fathers, and mothers were at an average of 22.26 weeks' gestation (SD = 5.56). The mean education level was 15.66 years (SD = 1.5) for mothers and 15.09 years (SD = 1.89) years for fathers. The median household income was $87,500. In the sample, 87% of couples were married and 81% of participants were non‐Hispanic White, 7% Hispanic, 6% Black, 4% Asian, and 2% multiracial. Couples on average knew each other for 7.76 years (SD = 4.80) and were married for an average of 3.20 years (SD = 2.65). The sample decreased from 398 couples at Wave 1 to 308 at Wave 2 and 309 at Wave 3. Participants who dropped out of the study after Wave 1 did not differ significantly from those who provided data later on either parent's age, child sex, Hispanic origin, childhood maltreatment scores, or relationship quality scores (all p's > 0.05), but these mothers and fathers were more likely to be Black (p = 0.004 for mothers; p = 0.039 for fathers) and less educated (p = 0.006 for mothers; p = 0.001 for fathers).

2.2. Procedure

The current study involved a secondary analysis of data from a study examining the effectiveness of the Family Foundations intervention on improving family domains, including couple relations, coparenting, stress, depression, and child adjustment (Feinberg et al. 2016). The parent study, a randomized controlled trial, assigned couples either to the intervention or control conditions. Intervention couples received a manualized nine‐session (five prenatal and four postnatal classes), psychoeducational program focused on coparent conflict resolution, problem solving, communication, and mutual support strategies delivered in small groups. Control couples were mailed written materials on selecting quality childcare and the stages of child development (Feinberg et al. 2016). All mothers and fathers completed online assessments at three timepoints: during pregnancy (Wave 1), 10–12 months after the birth of the first child (Wave 2), and 2 years after the birth of the first child (Wave 3). Participants provided demographic information and completed a self‐report measure of childhood maltreatment, the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ; Bernstein et al. 1994), at Wave 1. They completed a self‐report measure of relationship quality, the Quality of Marriage Index (QMI; Norton 1983), at Waves 1, 2, and 3. Finally, they completed a measure of coparenting quality, the Coparenting Relationship Scale (CRS; Feinberg et al. 2012), at Waves 2 and 3. All procedures were approved by the Pennsylvania State University's Institutional Review Board.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Childhood Maltreatment

Each member of the couple individually completed the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ; Bernstein et al. 1994) during pregnancy (Wave 1). The CTQ is a 28‐item, self‐report measure that contains five subscales (emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect, and physical neglect), each with 5 items, in addition to a Minimization/Denial subscale that includes 3 items. Respondents rate items on a 5‐point Likert scale from 1 (never true) to 5 (very often true). In this study, participants were only administered 15 items, representing emotional, physical, and sexual abuse subscales (e.g., “People in my family called me things like ‘stupid,’ ‘lazy,’ or ‘ugly’”; “People in my family hit me so hard it left me with bruises or marks”; “Someone tried to touch me in a sexual way, or tried to make me touch them”). For the purposes of this study, the experience of childhood maltreatment was operationalized as a total score of all 15 items, with greater scores representing greater amounts of overall maltreatment, following the original measure's scoring method for a total maltreatment severity score (Bernstein et al. 1994). Only participants with complete data were given a sum CTQ score (i.e., no mean imputation was performed for CTQ scores, and participants with missing CTQ data were retained in analyses via FIML). Three hundred and twenty‐six mothers and 326 fathers had complete CTQ scores.

2.3.2. Relationship Quality

Each member of the couple individually completed the Quality of Marriage Index (QMI; Norton 1983) at Waves 1, 2, and 3. The QMI is a 6‐item measure that assesses marital function and relationship quality (e.g., “My relationship with my partner is very stable”; “I really feel like part of a team with my partner”). Respondents rate items 1 through 5 on a 7‐point Likert scale from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree), and item 6 (“All things considered, what degree of happiness best describes your relationship?”) on a 10‐point Likert scale from 1 (unhappy) to 10 (perfectly happy). A total score was derived by taking the average of all item scores, where higher scores reflect higher relationship quality (Norton 1983). In this study, the wording was changed from “spouse” to “partner” and from “marriage” to “relationship”. All scales demonstrated excellent internal consistency, as evidenced by Cronbach's alpha coefficients exceeding the threshold of 0.90 (Mothers: Wave 1: α = 0.95; Wave 2: α = 0.96; Wave 3: α = 0.96; Fathers: Wave 1: α = 0.95; Wave 2: α = 0.96; Wave 3: α = 0.96; Nunnally and Bernstein 1994).

2.3.3. Coparenting Quality

Parents individually completed the CRS (Feinberg et al. 2012) at Waves 2 and 3. The CRS is a 35‐item measure with 7 subscales: coparenting agreement (4 items; e.g., “My partner and I have the same goals for our child”), coparenting closeness (5 items; e.g., “We often discuss the best way to meet our child's needs”), child exposure to conflict (5 items; e.g., How frequently you “argue with your partner about your child, in the child's presence”), coparenting support (6 items; e.g., “My partner tells me I am doing a good job or otherwise lets me know I am being a good parent”), coparenting undermining (6 items; e.g., “My partner undermines my parenting”), endorsement of partner's parenting (7 items; e.g., “My partner has a lot of patience with our child”), and division of labor (2 items). In this study, the 2‐item division of labor subscale was not administered, for a total of 33 items for the CRS. Respondents rate items on a 7‐point Likert scale either from 0 (not true of us) to 6 (very true of us) or from 0 (never) to 6 (very often; several times a day). A brief measure of coparenting relationship quality is represented by averaging 12 items with certain scale items reverse‐scored, where higher scores represent more positive coparenting quality (Feinberg et al. 2012). All scales demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency, as evidenced by Cronbach's alpha coefficients exceeding the threshold of 0.70 (Mothers: Wave 2: α = 0.88; Wave 3: α = 0.83; Fathers: Wave 2: α = 0.85; Wave 3: α = 0.78; Nunnally and Bernstein 1994).

2.4. Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were first run on all demographic and key variables to characterize the sample. Repeated measures MANOVAs using Pillai's Trace were run to test for the overall differences in relationship and coparenting quality for mothers and fathers at the distinct periods of assessment. When significant effects were found, paired‐sample t tests were conducted to determine which specific time points differed.

A series of structural regression analyses were conducted to test all hypotheses using Mplus Version 8.9. Item‐level missingness was minimal across measures, with the highest rate observed for fathers' coparenting scores at Wave 3 (just under 3%). When participants were missing fewer than 10% of items on a given scale, total scores were calculated by imputing the mean of the completed items. To handle missing data within the analyses themselves, full information maximum likelihood (FIML) was used. FIML retains all available data across variables and timepoints and estimates model parameters based on the full information present in the dataset, reducing bias and preserving power. Relationship quality was measured at three timepoints: during pregnancy (Wave 1), 10–12 months after the birth of the first child (Wave 2), and 2 years after the birth of the first child (Wave 3). Coparenting quality was only measured twice, at Waves 2 and 3. To test hypotheses 1 and 2, fathers' and mothers' maltreatment were entered as simultaneous predictors of relationship quality (or coparenting quality) at every timepoint but separated by mothers and fathers. Variables commonly linked to how couples navigate the transition to parenthood (duration of relationship, education level, age, and income; e.g., Carlson and Högnäs 2011; Schoppe‐Sullivan and Mangelsdorf 2013) were also included in each model as covariates.

Aim 2 was tested by incorporating both the main effects from Aim 1 and an interaction term between mothers' and fathers' maltreatment into each model to evaluate whether any interactive effect existed between both parents' maltreatment histories on relationship quality and coparenting quality.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptives

Demographic characteristics of the sample can be found in Table 1. Mothers and fathers reported a range of maltreatment experiences, around one‐third of the sample endorsed having experienced at least one or more forms of abuse (see Table 2). In 75 couples, only mothers had experienced maltreatment, in 56, only fathers had experienced maltreatment, and in 43, both partners reported maltreatment histories. As shown in Table 3, mothers' relationship quality (RQ) was significantly lower at Waves 2 and 3 compared to Wave 1, whereas fathers' RQ was significantly lower at Wave 3 compared to Waves 1 and 2. Coparenting quality (CP) was also significantly lower at Wave 3 than at Wave 2 for both mothers and fathers (see Table 3). Correlations between key variables can be found in Table 4.

TABLE 1.

Demographic characteristics (N = 398).

	n (%)/M (SD)
Father age (Wave 1)	31.09 (5.37)
Mother age (Wave 1)	29.14 (4.39)
Father race
White/Caucasian	330 (82.9)
Black/African American	25 (6.3)
American Indian/Eskimo/Aleut	1 (0.3)
Asian/Pacific Islander	11 (2.8)
2 or more races/ethnicities	12 (3.0)
Other ethnic/racial background	14 (3.5)
Mother race
White/Caucasian	332 (83.4)
Black/African American	20 (5.0)
American Indian/Eskimo/Aleut	1 (0.3)
Asian/Pacific Islander	13 (3.3)
2 or more races/ethnicities	16 (4.0)
Other ethnic/racial background	9 (2.3)
Father Hispanic	26 (6.6)
Mother Hispanic	27 (6.8)
Length of marriage	3.20 (2.65)
Length of years cohabitating	4.10 (2.84)
Household income	$87,295 (38,931)
Father years of education	15.09 (1.89)
Mother years of education	15.66 (1.54)

TABLE 2.

Endorsement of abuse as measured by the CTQ (N = 326).

	Father, n (%)	Mother, n (%)
Abuse type
Emotional only	15 (4.6)	40 (12.3)
Sexual only	7 (2.1)	15 (4.6)
Physical only	38 (11.7)	11 (3.4)
Emotional and physical	27 (8.3)	29 (8.9)
Emotional and sexual	4 (1.2)	11 (3.4)
Sexual and physical	5 (1.5)	2 (0.6)
Emotional, physical, sexual	2 (0.6)	10 (3.1)
Overall endorsement
Emotional abuse	48 (14.7)	90 (27.6)
Sexual abuse	18 (5.5)	38 (11.7)
Physical abuse	72 (22.1)	52 (16.0)

Abbreviation: CTQ, Childhood Trauma Questionnaire.

TABLE 3.

Scores for key variables across time points.

Variable	Mean (SD)			Change over time (Pillai's trace)
	Wave 1	Wave 2	Wave 3
Father CM	18.54 (5.12)	—	—	—
Mother CM	19.45 (7.65)	—	—	—
Father RQ	38.58 (8.49)	37.29 (7.84)	35.36 (9.43)	0.98***
Mother RQ	38.27 (9.05)	35.46 (9.74)	35.13 (9.88)	0.97***
Father CP	—	5.28 (0.69)	5.18 (0.77)	0.99***
Mother CP	—	5.20 (0.82)	5.13 (0.94)	0.98***

Abbreviations: CM, childhood maltreatment as measured by the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; CP, coparenting quality as measured via the Coparenting Relationship Scale; RQ, relationship quality as measured via the Quality of Marriage Index.

^*** p < 0.001.

TABLE 4.

Correlations between key variables.

	Mother CM	Father CM	Mother RQ 1	Mother RQ 2	Mother RQ 3	Father RQ 1	Father RQ 2	Father RQ 3	Mother CP 2	Mother CP 3	Father CP 2	Father CP 3
Mother CM	—
Father CM	0.152**	—
Mother RQ 1	−0.07	−0.073	—
Mother RQ 2	−0.044	−0.124*	0.283**	—
Mother RQ 3	−0.059	−0.226**	0.256**	0.498**	—
Father RQ 1	−0.035	0.002	0.222**	0.026	0.056	—
Father RQ 2	0.004	−0.086	0.275**	0.310**	0.306**	0.179**	—
Father RQ 3	−0.018	−0.042	0.272**	0.148*	0.332**	0.276**	0.368**	—
Mother CP 2	−0.119	−0.125*	0.218**	0.578**	0.460**	0.123*	0.442**	0.327**	—
Mother CP 3	−0.109	−0.123	0.248**	0.499**	0.633**	0.104	0.336**	0.435**	0.737**	—
Father CP 2	−0.06	−0.053	0.205**	0.305**	0.326**	0.173**	0.496**	0.390**	0.517**	0.476**	—
Father CP 3	−0.018	−0.106	0.250**	0.318**	0.457**	0.167**	0.334**	0.491**	0.540**	0.653**	0.663**	—

^* p < 0.05.

^** p < 0.01.

3.2. Relationship Quality Models

3.2.1. Mothers' Relationship Quality

At Wave 1, no predictors were significant in the main effects model, but the interaction between mother and father maltreatment history was significantly negative, such that mothers' relationship quality was lowest when both partners had relatively higher levels of maltreatment (Figure 1). As can be seen in the interaction plot, when only one partner reported relatively higher maltreatment, mothers' relationship quality was less affected.

FIGURE 1.

Significant interaction plots between mother and father childhood maltreatment history. +1 SD, one standard deviation above the mean; −1 SD, one standard deviation below the mean; CM, childhood maltreatment as measured via the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; CP, coparenting quality as measured via the Coparenting Relationship Scale; RQ, relationship quality as measured via the Quality of Marriage Index.

At Wave 2, greater father history of maltreatment was negatively associated with mother‐reported relationship quality when examined without the interaction (Table 5). In the regression with the interaction, this main effect became nonsignificant, but the interaction term was significant (Table 5), showing the same general pattern as for Wave 1 (Figure 1). This pattern suggests that accounting for the interaction of parents' history is key in fully understanding the effects.

TABLE 5.

Relationship quality regression models.

	No interaction		Interaction		No interaction		Interaction		No interaction		Interaction
	Mother RQ 1				Mother RQ 2				Mother RQ 3
	b	p	b	p	b	p	b	p	b	p	b	p
Father CM	−0.06	0.26	−0.26	0.65	−0.13*	0.04	−0.10	0.10	−0.23***	< 0.001	−0.21***	< 0.001
Mother CM	−0.05	0.37	−0.02	0.73	−0.01	0.91	0.019	0.77	−0.02	0.69	0.00	0.95
Father CM × Mother CM	—	—	−0.13*	0.03	—	—	−0.17*	0.04	—	—	−0.12	0.13
Duration of relationship	−0.07	0.21	−0.07	0.22	0.06	0.32	0.05	0.36	−0.05	0.43	−0.05	0.42
Mother education	0.07	0.28	0.07	0.22	0.07	0.29	0.09	0.20	0.09	0.21	0.10	0.16
Age	0.02	0.84	−0.01	0.91	−0.04	0.51	−0.06	0.34	−0.05	0.48	−0.06	0.36
Household income	0.00	0.97	0.00	0.96	0.08	0.26	0.07	0.28	0.11	0.11	0.10	0.12
Intervention	−0.04	0.47	−0.03	0.57	−0.13*	0.02	−0.12*	0.03	−0.12*	0.03	−0.11*	0.04

	No interaction		Interaction		No interaction		Interaction		No interaction		Interaction
	Father RQ 1				Father RQ 2				Father RQ 3
	b	p	b	p	b	p	b	p	b	p	b	p
Father CM	0.01	0.85	0.02	0.76	−0.07	0.23	0.03	0.24	−0.03	0.70	−0.02	0.74
Mother CM	−0.03	0.63	−0.02	0.70	0.04	0.48	0.05	0.48	0.00	0.98	0.00	0.95
Father CM x Mother CM	—	—	−0.03	0.67	—	—	0.00	0.97	—	—	−0.02	0.85
Duration of relationship	0.04	0.44	0.04	0.44	−0.03	0.65	−0.03	0.65	0.02	0.69	0.02	0.69
Father education	0.05	0.36	0.05	0.38	0.20**	< 0.01	−0.20**	< 0.01	0.19**	< 0.01	0.18**	< 0.01
Age	−0.11*	0.05	−0.11*	0.04	−0.05	0.47	−0.05	0.47	−0.11 †	0.06	−0.11 †	0.06
Household income	−0.01	0.83	−0.01	0.83	0.02	0.74	0.02	0.74	−0.00	0.98	0.00	0.98
Intervention	0.02	0.63	0.03	0.61	−0.05	0.40	−0.05	0.40	0.08	0.15	0.08	0.15

^† p < 0.10.

^* p < 0.05.

^** p < 0.01.

^*** p < 0.001.

At Wave 3, greater father history of maltreatment was again associated with poorer RQ in mothers, but the interaction was not statistically significant at this wave (Table 5).

Of note, we included five covariates in these three models. Of the 15 resultant tests of significance, only two (intervention status at Waves 2 and 3) were significant (see Table 5).

3.2.2. Fathers' Relationship Quality

No significant main effects or interaction effects were found for maltreatment variables in predicting father‐reported relationship quality at any wave (Table 5). Regarding covariates, of the 15 resultant tests of significance, three were significant (age on Wave 1 and education on Waves 2 and 3; see Table 5).

3.3. Coparenting Quality Models

3.3.1. Mothers' Coparenting Quality

At Wave 2, greater father‐reported childhood maltreatment was marginally associated with lower mother‐reported coparenting quality when the interaction was not included, but no maltreatment variables were significant when the interaction was included (Table 6). At Wave 3, father‐reported childhood maltreatment history was associated with lower mother‐reported coparenting quality both without and with the interaction; moreover, the interaction between both parents' maltreatment was also significant when added (Table 6). Similar to the findings for mothers' RQ, the nature of the interaction suggested that mothers reported the lowest coparenting quality when both partners reported relatively high levels of childhood maltreatment (Figure 1).

TABLE 6.

Coparenting quality regression models.

	No interaction		Interaction		No interaction		Interaction
	Mother CP 2				Mother CP 3
	b	p	b	p	b	p	b	p
Father CM	−0.12 †	0.05	−0.10	0.09	−0.14*	0.01	−0.12*	0.04
Mother CM	−0.07	0.25	−0.05 a	0.37	−0.06	0.32	−0.03	0.59
Father CM × Mother CM	—	—	−0.12	0.16	—	—	−0.18*	0.03
Duration of relationship	0.09	0.13	−0.09	0.13	−0.03	0.61	−0.03	0.60
Mother education	0.10	0.14	0.11	0.09	0.13*	0.05	0.14*	0.03
Age	−0.03	0.63	−0.04	0.50	−0.05	0.47	−0.06	0.33
Household income	0.17**	< 0.01	0.16*	0.01	0.19**	< 0.01	0.19**	< 0.01
Intervention	−0.01	0.91	−0.01	0.99	−0.10 †	0.08	−0.09	0.10

	Father CP 2				Father CP 3
	b	p	b	p	b	p	b	p
Father CM	−0.03	0.60	−0.03	0.65	−0.08	0.22	−0.08	0.21
Mother CM	0.02	0.82	−0.02	0.79	0.05	0.44	0.05	0.46
Father CM x Mother CM	—	—	−0.04	0.68	—	—	0.02	0.88
Duration of relationship	0.06	0.35	0.05	0.36	0.04	0.51	0.04	0.51
Father education	0.17**	< 0.01	0.17**	< 0.01	0.17**	< 0.01	0.17**	< 0.01
Age	−0.09	0.13	−0.09	0.13	−0.02	0.73	−0.02	0.72
Household income	0.07	0.28	0.07	0.28	0.08	0.23	0.08	0.23
Intervention	−0.05	0.38	−0.05	0.38	−0.04	0.53	−0.04	0.53

^a Sensitivity analysis using only cases with full data produced results comparable to those obtained in the primary FIML‐based analyses. There were no changes in patterns of full statistical significance, with only one change with regard to marginal significance (the path from mothers' CM → mother CP 2 became marginally significant, rather than nonsignificant).

^† p < 0.10.

^* p < 0.05.

^** p < 0.01.

Of note, we included five covariates in these two models. Of the 10 resultant tests of significance, three were significant (household income at Waves 2 and 3 and education at Wave 3; see Table 6).

3.3.2. Fathers' Coparenting Quality

Neither parent maltreatment variable, nor their interaction, were significantly associated with father‐reported coparenting quality at Wave 2 or Wave 3 (Table 6). Of the covariates, only higher education was associated with father coparenting quality at Waves 2 and 3 (Table 6).

4. Discussion

The goal of the present study was to explore the connection between a history of childhood maltreatment in both mothers and fathers and adjustment to parenthood for first‐time parents, particularly regarding relationship quality and coparenting quality. The longitudinal data allowed us to examine patterns in relationship and coparenting quality at different stages of this major life transition. Consistent with prior literature (e.g., Doss et al. 2009), both relationship and coparenting quality declined over time, highlighting the importance of studying couples during this transition and the need for targeted interventions aimed at preserving and enhancing relationship quality and coparenting dynamics among new parents.

In the models examining relationship quality, the hypothesis that maltreatment history would predict lower relationship quality was partially confirmed. Maltreatment only influenced mother's ratings of relationship quality during the postpartum period; moreover, this main effect was only observed for fathers' history of maltreatment, not mothers' own maltreatment history. Several studies have found a similar pattern of men's maltreatment history having a more negative impact than women's maltreatment history on interpersonal functioning or relationship outcomes as rated by both partners (DiLillo et al. 2009; Paradis and Boucher 2010). It is possible that the impact of childhood maltreatment on women manifest in ways that are less detrimental to relationship quality, whereas for men, the impact of maltreatment changes behaviors more directly critical to relationship satisfaction. Past research supports this explanation, showing that men's maltreatment was associated with providing less emotional support to romantic partners (Fitzgerald et al. 2020), whereas women's maltreatment was associated with overcompensating in future caregiving roles (Wuest et al. 2010). These studies help demonstrate the differing behavioral manifestations that can occur as part of the sequelae of maltreatment and may explain differences in the experience of partners of those who were maltreated during childhood. Women may also be more likely to report dissatisfaction or hold higher expectations during the postpartum period, which could explain their steeper declines in relationship satisfaction (Doss et al. 2009).

The most robust finding was an interaction between mothers' and fathers' maltreatment histories in predicting mothers' outcomes. Specifically, mothers with a greater maltreatment history reported lower relationship satisfaction (at two of three waves) and lower coparenting quality (at one of two waves) when their partners also had a greater maltreatment history. This set of findings implies that neither partner's maltreatment history alone can explain variations in relationship and coparenting quality. Rather, the impact of childhood maltreatment emerges only in the context of a similarly affected partner. Shared maltreatment histories may compound the challenges faced by new parents, possibly due to reduced emotional availability, increased conflict, or mutual difficulty navigating relational stress. If fathers are struggling with their own maltreatment histories, they may be less likely to provide emotional support to their partners, which might lead to their partners feeling less content in the relationship. Further, mothers having an average or severe maltreatment history may be more sensitive to feeling relationship dissatisfaction in response to their partner's maltreatment history and subsequent behavioral and emotional changes. Furthermore, the nature of the interactions detected suggested that maternal maltreatment history actually trended toward being positively associated with outcomes when paternal maltreatment was at a relatively low level. While counterintuitive, if fathers with relatively low maltreatment history are potentially more emotionally or behaviorally responsive, mothers with a maltreatment history may feel particularly supported or validated, especially during the challenges of new parenthood. Although this interpretation is speculative, the findings do suggest that mothers' maltreatment history is not universally predictive of poorer relationship outcomes. In fact, partner characteristics may shape how prior experiences influence perceptions of relational functioning.

Similarly, it is noteworthy that only fathers' maltreatment histories had a main effect on coparenting quality ratings by mothers at 2 years postpartum. This pattern may reflect a growing influence of trauma‐related dynamics on coparenting as parenting becomes more complex. Fathers' maltreatment history may lead to avoidance of coparenting roles or reduced emotional and communicative support, undermining effective coparenting. The pattern of only mothers' reports being impacted by either parent's maltreatment history is consistent with the relationship quality models, possibly due to women being more likely to notice and report difficulties, or having higher expectations than men do for relationship and coparenting quality.

The overall pattern for relationship quality and coparenting quality were similar, yet the effects for coparenting showed up at 2 years postpartum, whereas results for relationship quality manifested during pregnancy and 10 to 12 months postpartum. This differential pattern may indicate that the impacts of maltreatment on coparenting quality emerge as parenting demands become more complex, and differences in parenting approaches are more likely to surface in the day‐to‐day dynamics of raising a toddler. By age two, early caregiving memories may become more salient, leading to a greater impact in shaping parents' coparenting behaviors.

Interestingly, the intervention was associated with lower maternal ratings of relationship quality across the postpartum period, suggesting potential unintended effects. Although the intervention was designed to support couples' coparenting, it did not specifically address trauma or maltreatment histories, which may be particularly relevant in this sample. The intervention may have raised mothers' expectations without equipping couples with trauma histories with the tools to meet them. In this way, participation in the intervention may have heightened mothers' awareness of relational shortcomings, leading to more critical evaluations of their relationships. These findings underscore the importance of carefully tailoring interventions to be trauma‐informed, particularly during the perinatal period.

There are several limitations to the current study. One was the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the sample—this sample was wholly comprised of male–female couples, predominantly non‐Hispanic White (81% of participants). The participants who provided longitudinal data may have also been less diverse than the overall sample, as more of them were White and tended to have more years of education than those who only provided data at the first timepoint. In addition, the sample had a considerable distribution of history of maltreatment to run the analyses, comparable with other community samples (MacDonald et al. 2016). Further, the data only included forms of childhood abuse (emotional, physical, sexual) and not experiences of childhood neglect. Although the data lack information on experiences of neglect, much of the literature thus far has focused on the negative impacts of abuse and experiences of abuse and neglect often are comorbid (Ney et al. 1994), suggesting that data on abuse experiences alone may be sufficient to yield significant findings. Further, the data, particularly the childhood maltreatment data, are retrospective self‐report, which may include unintentional bias due to memory, perception, or emotional state when reporting. These limitations notwithstanding, the sample contained dyadic data collected over multiple time points during the transition to parenthood, a period that is difficult to capture.

Further research is needed to understand better how childhood maltreatment may differentially affect mothers and fathers during the transition to parenthood. This study serves as an initial step toward examining the understudied associations between one partner's maltreatment history and the other's perceptions of relationship and coparenting quality. However, these associations are not interpreted as direct effects. Future work should explore potential mechanisms through which maltreatment shapes new parents' adjustment, which may help clarify how these experiences manifest differently across parents and influence relational dynamics during this critical period. Further, researchers should explore how different types of maltreatment affect parenting, though their frequent co‐occurrence may make this challenging. Finally, future research examining these impacts as children get older is important, as children may begin to behave in ways that newly trigger maltreatment memories.

These findings confirm that maltreatment histories can impact how couples adjust to parenthood and have important implications for clinical interventions. The field is moving toward focusing on the perinatal period as a critical point for mental health support, but even in this budding effort, the emphasis is often on mothers alone. Our findings suggest that fathers' histories are critical to consider when implementing supports for new families. Rather than assuming uniform effects of trauma on the couple, clinicians should consider how a partner's history may amplify or buffer the impact of maltreatment on the other partner. Practically, this means not only screening for both partners' maltreatment histories, but offering anticipatory support and psychoeducation on how trauma histories may lead to difficulties during this stressful transition due to trauma‐related symptoms, such as avoidance of parenting responsibilities, withdrawal, communication difficulties, and emotional regulation difficulties. If the mother is the primary patient, clinicians may consider referring to couple‐based or dyadic interventions to address the compounding effects of maltreatment on family dynamics. Further, it is important that all referred and provided interventions during this sensitive period are trauma‐informed, ideally not only bringing awareness to issues within families but also providing guidance on how to work through trauma‐related difficulties as relevant. Generally, providers during the perinatal period should endeavor to take a systems approach to mental healthcare, as both partners' unique histories can play a role in how the couple adjusts to parenthood.

Disclosure

Dr. Mark E. Feinberg created the Family Foundations program and is the owner of a private company, Family Gold, which disseminates the Family Foundations program. Dr. Feinberg's financial interest has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board and the Conflict‐of‐Interest Committee at The Pennsylvania State University.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Martin, L. N. , Renshaw K. D., Curby T. W., and Feinberg M. E.. 2025. “Dyadic Relationship and Coparenting Quality During the Transition to Parenthood for Couples With Childhood Maltreatment History.” Family Process 64, no. 4: e70078. 10.1111/famp.70078.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.