Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jun 3.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1997 Jan;67(1):70–79. doi: 10.1037/h0080212

ALCOHOL ABUSE AND PSYCHOPATHIC DEVIANCE IN NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS AS PREDICTORS OF CHILD-SUPPORT PAYMENT AND VISITATION

M Robin Dion 1, Sanford L Braver 1, Sharlene A Wolchik 1, Irwin N Sandler 1
PMCID: PMC8173715  NIHMSID: NIHMS1703893  PMID: 9034023

Abstract

In a three-stage study, noncustodial parents psychopathic deviance and alcohol use accounted for significant variance in custodial parents’ reports of child support and visitation. In noncustodial parents’ reports, compliance with child support, but not frequency of visitation, was related to measures of deviance. Implications for policy, research, and psychoeducational interventions are discussed.

Divorce rates have reached disturbing proportions. According to Martin and Bumpass (1989), two-thirds of first marriages that took place in the late 1980s will end in divorce. There is considerable evidence that divorce can have significant negative effects on the well-being of children and that the high divorce rate may put a generation of children at risk for negative developmental outcomes (Amato & Keith, 1991).

Two aspects of the postdivorce situation that have particular importance for the impact of divorce on children are ongoing contact with the noncustodial parent and the economic support provided by that parent. Frequent visitation has been shown to be significantly associated with better social, academic, and emotional adjustment in children (Cole & McPherson, 1993; Guidibaldi, Cleminshaw, Perry, & McLoughlin, 1983; Hess & Camara, 1979; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1978; Thomas & Forehand, 1993). Similarly, several researchers have shown that the deleterious effects of divorce on children are related to the economic status of the mother-child family (Brandwein, Brown, & Fox, 1974; Colletta, 1979; Desimone-Luis, O’Mahoney, & Hunt, 1979; Duncan, 1994; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Weitzman, 1985).

The extent of noncompliance with court-ordered payment and loss of contact between the noncustodial parent and child has become a matter of recent debate. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (1987), for instance, only half of all noncustodial parents pay the full amount of support ordered by the courts, with another 25% of this population paying nothing at all (Peterson & Nord, 1990; Sorenson & MacDonald, 1983). Similarly, studies have shown that, although most noncustodial parents initially declare a high level of interest in contact with their children (Kruk, 1992), this contact and the quality of the relationship diminish greatly over time in many families (Depner & Bray, 1993; Furstenberg, 1990; Furstenberg, Morgan, & Allison, 1987; Furstenberg, Nord, Peterson, & Zill, 1983; Hetherington et al., 1978; Kelly & Wallerstein, 1977). For example, Furstenberg et al. (1987) reported that 23% of noncustodial fathers had no contact with their children during the previous five years.

Recent data have indicated that this bleak picture emerging from the research is at least partly due to methodological problems. Many investigators have relied exclusively on the reports of the custodial parent to assess child-support payment and noncustodial parents’ contact with their children. When both parents have been queried, noncustodial parents have reported significantly more visits with their children and greater payment of child support than have been described by custodial parents (Braver, Fitzpatrick, & Bay, 1991; Braver, Wolchik, Sandler, Fogas, & Zvetina, 1991).

Regardless of the true extent of reduction in economic support and contact by non-custodial parents, there is little debate that the children’s psychological adjustment may be substantially affected by both forms of withdrawal. Thus, the investigation of predictors of child-support compliance and visitation is important and potentially useful to both policy makers and researchers.

Researchers have demonstrated that a number of demographic, economic, and legal factors, such as the noncustodial parent’s employment status, income, sex, and legal custody status predict child-support payments and visitation (Arditti, 1992; Arditti & Keith, 1993; Braver et al., 1993; Pearson & Thoennes, 1990; Wolchik, Braver, & Sandler, 1985). Braver et al.’s (1993) test of a social-exchange model suggested that noncustodial parents’ psychological rewards, less their psychological costs of maintaining a relationship (referred to as psychological net profit), were stronger predictors of their postdivorce contact with their children and their payment of child support than were demographic factors such as those noted above. The strongest psychological predictor of visitation and child-support compliance identified by Braver et al. (1993) (correlating from .29 to .59) was the noncustodial parent’s perceived control over the divorce settlement and the child’s upbringing.

Increasingly in recent times, the media have portrayed noncustodial parents as “Deadbeat Dads” (Waldman, 1992) who discontinue financial and emotional support because of “weak attachment” or “weak biological ties” to their children (Furstenberg & Nord, 1985) or because of their own shortcomings of character and responsibility, such as alcohol abuse. To date, however, there is no empirical support for the proposition that noncustodial parents’ cessation of payments for or contact with their children is the result of weak character or weak bonds. Some indirect evidence, however, suggests that certain psychological tendencies predict cessation of support and that such withdrawal is mediated by a sense of responsibility and moral “conscience.”

In a study of 55 families, Wallerstein and Huntington (1983) reported that “psychological intactness” of the noncustodial parent correlated highly with payment of child support, and that many noncustodial parents who provided no support or only erratic support over five years displayed psychological problems, including a high incidence of impulsiveness, irresponsibility, or severe alcoholism. Although these findings are suggestive, the study has significant limitations. First, the sample, which consisted of volunteers in an intervention program, was small and unrepresentative. Secondly, the measures were weak; for example, the construct of “psychological intactness” was a clinical judgment made by a staff member, and data on reliability of the assessments were not provided. Finally, the study was cross-sectional.

The present study sought to assess, by means of a more adequate methodology than has been used in the past, the relation between visitation and child support on the one hand, and the noncustodial parent’s level of alcohol abuse and psychopathic deviance on the other. Psychopathic deviance was conceptualized in terms of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) subscale designed to detect psychopathic personality disorders thought to be evident in amoral and asocial persons (Dahlstrom, Welsh, & Dahlstrom, 1960). This personality pattern features a repeated and flagrant disregard for social customs and mores, an inability to profit from punishing experiences as shown by repeated difficulties of the same kind, and an emotional shallowness in relating to others. It was hypothesized that both alcohol abuse and psychopathic deviance would account for a significant proportion of the variance in child support and visitation, over and above that predicted by demographic factors (i.e., gender, race, education, and age of the target child) and the noncustodial parent’s report of “psychological net profit.”

METHOD

Subjects

For the Study of Separating Families data set, which serves as the sample for this report, a random subset of families was selected from among couples who filed for divorce in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, during 1986 and who had at least one minor child. Efforts made to contact the randomly targeted parents through the mail, telephone calls, home visits, and by investigating their whereabouts through neighbors, employers, and attorneys were largely successful, resulting in a substantially higher interview rate than that of most other studies on divorcing families (Kitson et al., 1982). For example, 74% of the fathers who were randomly targeted were located and contacted. Of these, 23% were ineligible (usually due to a reconciliation and subsequent withdrawal of the divorce petition), and 23% refused to participate. Response rates for mothers were slightly higher. Participating respondents were compared on 57 demographic variables to those who refused or were not located and the three groups were found to be highly similar. Thus, the participants well represented the divorcing population in this geographic area rather than being highly self-selected. A fuller description of this analysis is available elsewhere (Braver & Bay. 1992).

The first wave of interviews took place within 2½ months of respondents’ filing of a petition for dissolution of the marriage. The Wave I sample consisted of 321 noncustodial parents, 90% of whom were fathers, and 256 custodial parents, 87% of whom were mothers. Both the custodial parent and the ex-spouse (the noncustodial parent) were interviewed in 60% of the families.

The second-wave interview was conducted at the one-year anniversary of the first interview. The Wave 2 sample consisted of 278 noncustodial parents, 89% of whom were fathers, and 249 custodial parents, 85% of whom were mothers. Attrition from Wave 1 to Wave 2 was 13.4% for noncustodial parents and 2.7% for custodial parents. Included in this attrition figure are participants who were excluded because they had reconciled or remarried the original spouse (7% of the Wave 1 sample).

The third-wave interview was conducted at the three-year anniversary of the first interview. The Wave 3 sample consisted of 244 noncustodial parents, 85% of whom were fathers, and 231 custodial parents, 80% of whom were mothers. Attrition from Wave 2 to Wave 3 was 12.2% for noncustodial parents and 7.23% for custodial parents. Due to missing data resulting from a lack of response to certain questionnaire items, the number of participants responding to each scale varies, ranging from 321 at Wave 1 to 203 at Wave 3 for noncustodial parents, and from 256 at Wave 1 to 177 at Wave 3 for custodial parents.

Procedure

Parents were individually interviewed by a same-sex adult interviewer, typically in their homes. When the parent lived outside the Phoenix metropolitan area, interviews were conducted by telephone. Interviews required 1½−2½ hours to complete. The demographic, child-support, and visitation questions were included in the oral portion of the interview battery. Measures of alcohol abuse and psychopathic deviance were embedded in the self-report (paper and pencil questionnaire) portion of the battery.

Measures

Demographic predictors.

Participants provided information about their ethnicity (self-described), education, and the target child’s age at the time of the divorce petition.* Ethnicity was recoded by the experimenter as a dichotomous variable, Caucasian (i.e., white) or non-Caucasian (i.e., Hispanic, black, Native American, Asian or Pacific Islander). Responses to the question about educational background ranged from one (grade school) to seven (graduate school).

Psychological net profit.

Scales were constructed to measure the six dimensions of psychological costs and rewards specified by the social-exchange model. The six subscales include three reward and three cost constructs (affectional, material, and symbolic). The development and reliability of each of the measures have been discussed elsewhere (Braver et al., 1993). Category summary scores were constructed by computing the mean of the standardized scale scores in each category. A total or composite “net profit” score was then constructed by adding the three summary reward variables and subtracting the three summary cost variables.

Psychopathic deviance.

Psychopathic deviance (Pd) was assessed using Kincannon’s (1968) abbreviated form of the MMPI, the Mini-Mult, which consists of 18 true-false items. Reliability and validity of this scale have been reported by numerous researchers (Faschingbauer & Newmark, 1978). Kincannon (1968) reported a test-retest reliability of .88 and a validity coefficient of .90 (correlation of the full-scale MMPI administered to male and female psychiatric patients with the Mini-Mult items). Other researchers’ estimates of validity coefficients vary from .57 (neurology patients) to .89 (parents of emotionally disturbed children) (Fasching-bauer & Newmark, 1978).

Kincannon’s (1968) Mini-Mult version of the K scale was administered also. This 15-item scale was designed as a correction for the tendency of individuals to present themselves in a more socially desirable way. The use of the K correction is generally recommended for evaluating the Pd as well as other MMPI subscales (Wooten, 1984). Accordingly, noncustodial parents’ Pd scores were K-scale corrected using the recommended procedures. Reliability and validity of the Mini-Mult K scale have been demonstrated (Faschingbauer & Newmark, 1978). The Pd and K scales were administered only at Wave 1 since the Pd scale is considered a stable measure of traits relatively unrelated to time or conditions of measurement (Dahlstrom, Welsh, & Dahlstrom, 1975).

Alcohol abuse.

Alcohol abuse was reported by noncustodial parents only and was represented by their reports about the frequency of being intoxicated. Subjects reported how many times they had been drunk in the last month, using an eight-point scale ranging from “every day” to “never drunk in the last month.” The validity of self-reports of alcohol use and abuse has been established (Hurt, Morse, & Swenson, 1980; Sobell & Sobell, 1975; Swenson & Morse, 1975) by comparing self-reports to objective data such as medical records, arrest reports, motor vehicle records, and hospitalizations. Moreover, alcoholics and their spouses have been found to agree on drinking behavior and provide valid self-reports of drinking behavior (David & Morse, 1987).

Visitation frequency.

Both custodial and noncustodial parents reported on frequency of visitation and payment of child support, using identical items. Visitation frequency for a typical month was assessed via six items: a) percent of time the child spent with the noncustodial parent, b) hours of face-to-face contact between noncustodial parent and child, c) number of visits with the child, d) number of days the noncustodial parent spent with the child, e) number of times the child slept over, and f) highest number of days the noncustodial parent went without seeing or speaking by phone with the child. The visitation frequency measure was calculated as the mean of the standardized responses to these six items. The coefficient alpha for this scale exceeded .85 for both parents for all waves (Braver, Wolchik et al., 1991).

Child-support compliance.

Compliance was assessed as the amount of child support paid during the previous 12 months, according to custodial and noncustodial parents’ reports, divided by the amount the same parents reported was “supposed to have been paid,” truncated at 1.00. Child support compliance was not assessed at Wave 1 since divorce decrees had not yet been completed, and the amount of child support owed was generally not established.

RESULTS

Means for all measures are presented in Table 1. As was noted in a previous study of this data set (Braver, Fitzpatrick, & Bay, 1991), custodial parents reported substantially (about 20%) less child-support compliance, on average, than did noncustodial parents, although each rater’s estimate appears to remain stable over time.

Table 1.

MEANS (M) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) FOR STUDY MEASURES AT WAVE 1 (W1), WAVE 2 (W2), AND WAVE 3 (W3), BY NONCUSTODIAL AND CUSTODIAL PARENT REPORTS

NONCUSTODIAL PARENT CUSTODIAL PARENT
MEASURE W1 W2 W3 W1 W2 W3
Psychopathic Deviance (Pd)
 M 8.96
 SD (2.62)
Alcohol Abusea
 M 2.14 1.75 1.63
 SD (1.68) (1.28) (1.18)
Child Supportb
 M .82 .82 .65 .62
 SD (0.30) (0.32) (0.41) (0.44)
Visitationc
 SD (4.58) (4.90) (5.06) (4.31) (4.81) (5.01)
Open in a new tab
a

Responses to measure of alcohol abuse were made on an 8-point scale (1=Every Day/8=Never). Scores were then reverse-coded so that higher scores indicate more frequent alcohol use.

b

Child support was measured as each parents’ report of the amount the noncustodial parent had paid in the last 12 months, divided by the amount the noncustodial parent was supposed to pay, truncated at 1.

c

A description of visitation frequency items can be found in the text. Responses to each item were made on a different scale; item responses were standardized before combining into a scale score. Hence, means for these items are zero.

The primary hypothesis was that psychopathic deviance and alcohol abuse would account for a significant, unique proportion of the variance in child support and visitation, beyond that predicted by demographic factors (i.e., parent’s gender, ethnicity, education; age of the target child) and the psychological net profit of involvement** reported by the noncustodial parent. A simultaneous multiple regression that controlled for the demographic and psychological-net-profit variables was used to examine the unique effects of the Pd measure and another was used to explore the unique effects of the alcohol-abuse measure.*** All analyses involving the alcohol-abuse predictor were restricted to contemporaneous measures (for example, alcohol abuse at Wave 2 was used to predict only Wave 2 child support and visitation, controlling for the Wave 2 net profit and demographics). Table 2 presents the unstandardized regression coefficients (the β weights) for the unique effects of Pd and alcohol abuse on child support and visitation, after partialling the demographic factors and the psychological-net-profit score reported by the noncustodial parent. Results are presented separately for reports of child support and visitation by each parent.

Table 2.

UNIQUE EFFECTS OF PSYCHOPATHIC DEVIANCE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE ON CHILD SUPPORT AND VISITATION, PARTIALLING OUT NONCUSTODIAL PARENT’ S DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION AND PSYCHOLOGICAL NET PROFIT

CUSTODIAL PARENT NONCUSTODIAL PARENT
CHILD SUPPORT VISITATION CHILD SUPPORT VISITATION
MEASURE β p β p β p β p
Psychopathic Deviance
 Wave 1 — — 0.05 NS — — −0.03 NS
 Wave 2 −0.03 0.01 0.00 NS −0.01 0.20 0.02 NS
 Wave 3 −0.05 0.00 −0.09 NS −0.02 0.05 −0.02 NS
Alcohol Abuse
 Wave 1 — — −0.25 0.14 — — 0.06 NS
 Wave 2 0.07 0.00 0.21 NS 0.02 0.09 0.13 NS
 Wave 3 0.06 0.05 0.14 NS 0.02 0.21 −0.01 NS
Open in a new tab

Note Unstandardized beta coefficients are reported. Child-support compliance was not measured at Wave 1 Psychopathic deviance was measured only at Wave 1.

Both hypothesized predictors uniquely accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in reports of child support made by custodial parents at Waves 2 and 3. For reports of child support made by noncustodial parents, unique effects of Pd were significant at Wave 3, while unique effects of alcohol abuse approached significance at Wave 2. However, no significant unique effects for alcohol abuse or Pd were found for either parent’s report of visitation frequency.

DISCUSSION

Although the reasons for failure to provide child support are undoubtedly complex, the present results suggest that lack of compliance is in part accounted for by the noncustodial parent’s psychological problems. Significant relations occurred between child-support compliance and both alcohol abuse and the tendency toward social irresponsibility as measured by the MMPI Pd scale. The findings show that noncustodial parents who have high psychopathic deviance scores or who abuse alcohol are less likely to provide financial support for their children.

The present results serve to flesh out the portrait that had begun to emerge from earlier reports in this research program, which indicated that noncustodial parents were highly involved and responsible so long as they perceived themselves as having high levels of control over the child’s upbringing. When noncustodial parents felt that they exerted influence over aspects of their children’s upbringing, such as educational and medical decisions and discipline, they were more likely to stay involved with the children.

Consideration of this finding raises the question of the relation between perceptions of control on the part of noncustodial and custodial parents. In this data set, the noncustodial and custodial parents’ perceptions of control were signigicantly positively (r=.31, p<.001) correlated (Bay & Braver, 1990), suggesting that the noncustodial parent’s sense of control need not come at the expense of the custodial parent’s feelings of empowerment. Apparently, power struggles typically detract from the feelings of control of both parents. A limiting condition to our past finding is apparent in the present analysis. Those noncustodial parents who abuse alcohol or have high psychopathic deviance may not fully meet their parental obligations regardless of their level of perceived control.

One seemingly plausible explanation for the relations found between child-support compliance and alcohol abuse and psychopathic deviance is that these problems lead to difficulties in maintaining employment, and that this practical difficulty, in turn, accounts for the reduction in financial support for the child. To assess this possibility, relations between a measure of employment status, taken at all three waves, and reports of child-support compliance by both parents were examined. Although child support was correlated significantly (r=.26–46) with noncustodial parents’ employment status, employment status was not significantly correlated with either alcohol use at any of the three waves, or with psychopathic deviance. Thus, employment status cannot mediate the relations between either of these variables and child-support compliance. This finding is consistent with Wallerstein and Huntington’s (1983) report that the alcoholic fathers in their study drank primarily after hours and were able to “sober up for work.”

While child-support compliance was found to be significantly related to alcohol use and psychopathic deviance, visitation frequency was not significantly related to these factors. Since visitation and child support are two manifestations of involvement, they are moderately related in this data set (r=.34-.24, all at p<.001, depending on reporter and wave), as they have been in most prior investigations (Furstenberg & Nord, 1985; Pearson & Thoennes, 1988; Peterson & Nord, 1990; Seltzer, 1992; Seltzer, Schaeffer, & Charng, 1989; Wallerstein & Huntington, 1983). The finding that child support and visitation are not predicted by the same factors is thus somewhat puzzling. One possible explanation is that, whereas visitation may involve personal costs (such as forgoing alternative pleasures), it may also provide personal rewards (such as an affectionate relationship with one’s child). In contrast, only the tangible costs of child-support payments, and not any offsetting rewards, are apt to be visible to the noncustodial parent. The more abstract and symbolic rewards that accrue from behaving as a responsible parent by meeting one’s financial obligations are likely to be even less meaningful to those noncustodial parents who have tendencies toward irresponsibility or alcohol abuse than they are to other noncustodial parents.

The stronger associations of predictors found in this study for the custodial parents’ reports of child support and visitation than for the noncustodial parents’ reports also represent an unusual pattern. Generally, within-reporter relations (both predictor and criterion variables reported by the same individual) are stronger than cross-reporter effects. Perhaps the same personality characteristics that lead to irresponsible behavior in the noncustodial parents may also lead to distortions in their reports of visitation and child support.

There are some limitations of the present study that warrant discussion. First, alcohol use was assessed by self-report. Also, other types of substance use, such as marijuana and cocaine, were not assessed. Future studies should include self and ex-spouse reports of both alcohol and drug use. It is also important to note that the Pd scale was administered only at the first wave. Future research with this population might examine whether this measure fluctuates in response to divorce-related experiences, such as intense and prolonged court proceedings. Finally, this study did not examine the mechanisms by which former spouses come to exert control (e.g., mutual control, partner violence, control that undermines the other parent’s ability to raise the children) nor the interactive relations among such control, psychopathic deviance, alcohol abuse, child-support compliance, and visitation. It is also important to note that the present study did not address the rate of extreme level of alcohol use and psychopathic deviance among noncustodial parents. To do so would require a cut-point for defining extreme levels. From the purposes of this research, alcohol use and psychopathic deviance are more appropriately viewed as continuous rather than dichotomous constructs.

The present results have obvious practical implications. They suggest that, for some portion of the noncustodial parent population, dereliction of child support may be accounted for by psychological and/or alcohol problems. It appears that some form of intervention is needed if this group of parents is to continue to support their children financially. Clearly, the implementation of programs such as wage garnishment would improve compliance among this group of noncustodial parents. These individuals may benefit as well from psychoeducational interventions that include attention to alcohol use and social responsibility.

Currently, an increasing number of courts throughout the United States are mandating that divorced parents participate in parent-education programs (Lehner, 1994; Petersen & Steinman. 1994; Roeder-Esser, 1994). The present findings suggest that child-support compliance might be enhanced if such programs can highlight the abstract benefits of providing child support and counter the effects of alcohol abuse by teaching alternative means of stress reduction and problem solving. These findings also indicate, however, that such interventions are likely to be insufficient for some noncustodial parents who may require referral for more intensive clinical interventions.

Acknowledgments

Research was supported by grant HDl9383 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Footnotes

*

In families with more than one child age 15 or younger, a “target” child was randomly selected to ensure independence of responses. The age of 15 was chosen so that the child would still be a minor at the last assessment.

**

As noted above, noncustodial parent’s perceived control was found to be the strongest psychological predictor in the social-exchange model (Braver et al, 1993), and was thus included in additional analyses in place of psychological net profit. Results were similar to those reported.

***

Since alcohol abuse and Pd were correlated (r=.23), a more stringent analysis including both simultaneously was conducted, with results similar to those reported above. For custodial parents, Pd remained significantly predictive of child support compliance at Wave 2 after controlling for alcohol abuse and for control variables (demographics and net profit). Alcohol abuse remained a significant predictor at Wave 2 when Pd, demographics, and net profit were controlled. At Wave 3, results were similar to those reported above, except that the unique effects of alcohol abuse only approaches significance (p=. 09). For noncustodial parents’ reports, neither Pd nor alcohol abuse uniquely predicted child support at Wave 2. Unique effects for Pd were significant (p<.05) at Wave 3, while unique effects for alcohol abuse were not.

Based on a paper presented at the Western/Rocky Mountain Psychological Association conference, Phoenix, May 1993.

REFERENCES

  1. Amato PR, & Keith B (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arditti JA (1992). Differences between fathers with joint custody and noncustodial fathers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 186–195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arditti JA, & Keith TZ, (1993), Visiting, paying, and the father-child relationship postdivorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 699–712. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baron RM, & Kenny DA (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51. 1173–1182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bay RC, & Braver SL (1990). Perceived control of divorce settlement process and interparental conflict. Family Relations, 39, 382–387. [Google Scholar]
  6. Brandwein RB, Brown CA, & Fox EM (1974). Women and children last: The social situation of divorced mothers and their families. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 36, 498–514. [Google Scholar]
  7. Braver SL, & Bay RC (1992). Assessing and compensating for self-selection bias (nonrepresentativeness) of the family research sample. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 925–939. [Google Scholar]
  8. Braver SL, Fitzpatrick P, & Bay R (1991). Non-custodial parents’ report of child support payments. Family Relations, 40, 180–185. [Google Scholar]
  9. Braver SL, Wolchik SA, Sandler IN, Fogas BS, & Zvetina D (1991) Frequency of visitation by divorced fathers: Differences in reports by fathers and mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 61, 448–454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Braver SL, Wolchik SA, Sandler IN, Sheets VL, Fogas BS, & Bay RC (1993). A longitudinal study of non-custodial parents: Parents without children. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 9–23. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cassety J (1983). The parental child-support obligation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cole DA, & McPherson AE (1993). Relation of family subsystems to adolescent depression: Implementing a new family assessment strategy. Journal of Family Psychology. 7, 119–133. [Google Scholar]
  13. Colletta ND (1979). The impact of divorce: Father absence or poverty? Journal of Divorce, 3, 27–35. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dahlstrom WG, Welsh GS, & Dahlstrom LE (1960). An MMPI Handbook. Vol. l. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota-Lund Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dahlstrom WG, Welsh GS, & Dahlstrom LE (1975). An MMPI handbook, Vol. II: Research applications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. David L, & Morse R (1987). Patient-spouse agreement on the drinking behaviors of alcoholics. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 62, 689–694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Depner CE, & Bray JH (Eds). (1993). Nonresidential parenting: New vistas in family living. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  18. Desimone-Luis J, O’Mahoney K, & Hunt D (1979). Children of separation and divorce: Factors influencing adjustment. Journal of Divorce. 3, 37–42. [Google Scholar]
  19. Duncan SW (1994). Economic impact of divorce on children’s development: Current findings and policy implications. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 444–457. [Google Scholar]
  20. Faschingbauer TR, & Newmark CS (1978). Short forms of the MMPI. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. [Google Scholar]
  21. Furstenberg FF (1990). Divorce and the American family. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 379–403. [Google Scholar]
  22. Furstenberg FF, Morgan SP, & Allison PD (1987). Paternal participation and children’s well being after marital dissolution. American Sociological Review, 52, 695–701. [Google Scholar]
  23. Furstenberg FF, & Nord CW (1985). Parenting apart: Patterns of child-rearing after divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 893–904. [Google Scholar]
  24. Furstenberg FF, Nord CW, Peterson JL, & Zill N (1983). The life course of children of divorce: Marital disruption and parental contact. American Sociological Review, 48, 656–668. [Google Scholar]
  25. Guidibaldi J, Cleminshaw HK, Perry JD, & McLoughlin CS (1983). The impact of parental divorce on children: Report of the nationwide NASP study. School Psychology Review, 12, 300–323. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hess R, & Camara K (1979). Post-divorce family relationships as mediating factors in the consequences of divorce for children. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 79–96. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hetherington EM, Cox M, & Cox R (1978). The aftermath of divorce. In Stevens JH & Matthews M (Eds.), Mother/child, father-child relationships (pp. 110–155). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hurt R, Morse R, & Swenson W (1980). Diagnosis of alcoholism with a self-administered alcoholism screening test. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 55, 365–370. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Jessor R, Collins M, & Jessor S (1972). On becoming a drinker: Social-psychological aspects of an adolescent transition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 197, 199–213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kelly JB, & Wallerstein JS (1977). Part-time parent, part-time child: Visiting after divorce. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 6, 51–54. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kincannon JC (1967). An investigation of the feasibility of adapting a personality inventory for use in the mental status exam (Doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1967). Dissertation Abstracts International. 28, 2625B. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kincannon JC (1968). Prediction of the standard MMPI scale scores from 71 items: The Mini-Mult. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 319–325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kitson GC, Sussman MB, Williams GK, Zee-handier RB, Schickmaster BK, & Steinberger JL (1982). Sampling issues in family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 965–981. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kruk E (1992). Psychological and structural factors contributing to the disengagement of noncustodial fathers after divorce. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 30, 81–101. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lachar D (1974). The MMPI: Clinical assessment and automated interpretation. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lehner L (1994). Education for parents divorcing in California. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 32, 50–54. [Google Scholar]
  37. Marks PW, Seeman W, & Haller DL (1974). The actuarial use of the MMPI with adolescents and adults. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. [Google Scholar]
  38. Martin TC, & Bumpass LL (1989). Recent trends in marital disruption. Demography, 26, 37–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. McLanahan SS, & Sandefur GD (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts and what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  40. Pearson J, & Thoennes N (1988). The denial of visitation rights: A preliminary look at its incidence, correlates, antecedents and consequences. Law and Policy, 10, 363–380. [Google Scholar]
  41. Pearson J, & Thoennes N (1990). Custody after divorce: Demographic and attitudinal patterns. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60,233–249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Petersen V, & Steinman SB (1994). Helping children succeed after divorce. A court-mandated educational program for divorcing parents. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 32, 10–26. [Google Scholar]
  43. Peterson JL, & Nord CW (1990). The regular receipt of child support: A multistep process. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 539–551 [Google Scholar]
  44. Roeder-Esser C (1994). Families in transition: A divorce workshop. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 32, 40–49. [Google Scholar]
  45. Seltzer JA (1992). Custody and visiting after divorce: The other side of child support. In Garfinkel I, McLanahan SS, & Roberts PK (Eds), Child support assurance (pp. 113–135). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. [Google Scholar]
  46. Seltzer JA, Schaeffer NC, & Charng H (1989). Family ties after divorce: The relationship between visiting and paying child support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 1013–1031. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sobell L, & Sobell M (1975). Outpatient alcoholics give valid self-reports. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 161, 32–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Sorenson A, & McDonald M (1983). An analysis of child support transfers. In Cassety J (Ed.), The parental child support obligation (pp. 35–58). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. [Google Scholar]
  49. Swenson W, & Morse R (1975). The use of a self-administered alcoholism screening test (SAAST) in a medical center. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 50, 204–208. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Thomas AM, & Forehand R (1993). The role of paternal variables in divorced and married families: Predictabilityof adolescent adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 63. 126–135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1987). Child support and alimony: 1985. Current Population Reports (Series P-23, No. 152). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. [Google Scholar]
  52. Waldman S (1992. May 4). Deadbeat dads. Newsweek, pp. 46–52.10117064 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wallcrstein JS, & Huntington DS (1983). Bread and roses: Nonfinancial issues related to fathers’ economic support of their children following divorce. In Cassety J (Ed.), The parental child support obligation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. [Google Scholar]
  54. Weitzman LJ (1985). The divorce revolution: The unexpected social and economic consequences for women and children in America. New York: free Press. [Google Scholar]
  55. Wolchik SA, Braver SL, & Sandler IN (1985). Maternal versus joint custody: Children’s postseparation experiences and adjustment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 14, 5–10. [Google Scholar]
  56. Wooten AJ (1984). Effectiveness of the K correction in the detection of psychopathology and its impact on profile height and configuration among young adult men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 52, 460–473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES