Abdication of Responsibility for Father–Child Contact in a Group of Black South African Non-resident Father Families: A Systems Perspective

Abstract

Much of what is known about non-resident fathers is based on studies conducted in North America and Europe, and on the accounts of only one family member. This article draws from a study which utilised a family systems perspective and obtained the views of four members of ten Black South African non-resident father families (N = 40) with infrequent father–child contact. The aim was to investigate if and how non-resident fathers’ contact with adolescent children was influenced by relationships with various family members. Individual interviews were conducted with each of the family member and thematically analysed. Here, we engage with one of the master themes that shows the circular dynamic in families in which various family members held implicit assumptions about who was responsible for father–child contact and, subsequently, did not view the responsibility to be theirs. Infrequent or lack of non-resident father–child contact should therefore be addressed as a family systems issue.

Introduction

Research indicates that constructive father involvement has the potential to greatly contribute to family and child well-being (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013). International and South African studies found that children with constructively engaged fathers achieve better at school, have higher self-esteem, and less externalising problems (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Richter et al., 2011). This impact is especially marked among disadvantaged children such as those living in low-income contexts (Mathwasa & Okeke, 2016). Many South African fathers and children, however, are not benefiting from daily or regular father–child contact, particularly in Black ¹ South African communities (Madhaven et al., 2016; Chalabi, 2013). Black children, more often than children from other population groups, do not live with both their biological parents. They are more likely to live with their mother or with neither of their biological parents (Hatch & Posel, 2018). Hatch and Posel (2018) found that more than 30% of Black children with non-resident fathers who were not considered household members did not see their father during the year. The high number of Black South African non-residential fathers is ascribed to factors such as that half of Black children are born to unmarried parents who are often not co-habiting (Posel et al., 2011), delayed marriage due to inability to pay customary bridewealth (Posel & Rudwick, 2014), high poverty rates of 27.7% (Peyper, 2017), and rural to urban migration resulting in fathers working away from their children’s primary place of residence (Richter et al., 2012).

Although the quality of the father–child relationship rather than the frequency of father–child contact determines fathers’ impact on children (Carlson, 2006), research conducted in North America indicates that regular and stable contact provides a critical foundation for the fostering and maintenance of good quality father–child relationships that benefit child well-being (Amato et al., 2009; Pruett & DiFonzo, 2014). This does not necessarily have to be in-person contact. Non-resident fathers who live far away from their children could still have regular contact and contribute substantially to their children’s upbringing through other means of contact (Makusha et al., 2012). Non-resident fathers’ access to and contact with their children, however, are importantly influenced by their relationships with the mothers of their children and extended family members such as grandparents (Clark et al., 2015). Extended family members tend to play a significant role in father–child contact in Black South African communities (Clark et al., 2015; Makusha & Richter, 2016) where most households have an extended kin family structure (Madhaven et al., 2016). The non-resident father’s relationships with the mother of his child and her family members are often strained if he is unwilling or unable to meet financial expectations related to fatherhood, which impacts negatively on father–child contact (Lesch & Kelapile, 2016).

Although a few local studies have explored the reasons for, and experiences of, no or infrequent father–child contact, these studies relied on the individual perspectives of either the mother (e.g. Makofane, 2015), father (e.g. Mavungu, 2013), or child (e.g. Nduna & Sikweyiya, 2015). Clark et al. (2015) highlight that the non-resident father as a member of a larger family system in which the fathers’ relationships with family members play an important role in his access to children and involvement in childcare has been neglected in South African family research (Clark et al., 2015). This is a limitation as there is widespread acknowledgement that the father–child relationship is embedded in the context of the family system and the various relationships therein (Palkovitz, 2019). Arditti et al. (2019) contend that researchers’ neglect of multiple relationships and kin networks have contributed to a lack of understanding of the factors that inform non-resident father–child relationships. It is argued, therefore, that perspectives form multiple family members are needed to provide a more accurate and comprehensive representation of such issues (Vogl et al., 2018) and deepen understandings of families’ practices and cultures (Harden et al., 2010). Moreover, Sarkadi et al. (2023) highlight that the inclusion of the voices of children in family research has been increasingly advocated since the United Nations’ adoption of The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1989. The latter emphasises children’s right to express and have their perspectives incorporated in matters that affect them. Therefore, children should be supported in both forming and expressing their perspectives (Lundy & McEvoy, 2012).

Although the inclusion of multiple perspectives has increased in family studies, such studies have mostly been quantitative (e.g. Deković and Buist, 2005; Harden et al., 2010) and various authors advocate for more qualitative studies to better capture the complexities of family dynamics (e.g. Nixon & Hadfield, 2018). Therefore, the study on which this article is based used a qualitative research design anchored in a family systems perspective and obtained the views of multiple members of non-resident father families to investigate if and how Black non-resident fathers’ contact with biological adolescent children is influenced by relationships with various family members. This article focuses on one of the master themes identified in this study which highlights the circular dynamic in families in which various family members held implicit assumptions about who was responsible for the initiation of father–child contact and, subsequently, did not view the responsibility to be theirs.

Non-resident Father–Child Contact and Family Relationships: A Brief Literature Review

Research on non-resident fathers is often outcome studies conducted in North American and European contexts that investigate consequences of father engagement or absence for mothers and children and is mostly quantitative studies that utilise questionnaires (e.g. Cryer-Coupet et al., 2020; Fagan, 2021; Tsuchiya et al., 2020). Given that the current qualitative study foregrounds the contribution of qualitative research, the following literature review provides a brief overview of qualitative studies that provide insights into non-resident father–child contact and how it may be influenced by the various relationships in the broader family system.

The Co-Parental Relationship

The co-parental relationship is often foregrounded in non-resident father studies and is well-known to have a direct influence on father–child contact. A common finding is that the degree to which non-resident fathers experience cooperation, support, and open communication from and with the child’s mother influences both father involvement and the quality of father–child and father–biological mother relationships (Fagan & Cherson, 2017; Madhavan et al., 2016). Most of these studies, however, have been done from the mothers’ perspectives (Makofane, 2015; Mercer et al., 2018).

Conflicts about parental responsibility and involvement often strain the mother–non-resident father relationship and lead to increasing father disengagement (Hofferth et al., 2010). Mothers frequently report that they carry the burden of negotiating the contact process between child and father, protecting children from potentially distressing father–child contact (i.e. substance dependent or violent fathers), or helping children understand when they are disappointed with limited contact from the father (Arditti et al., 2019). Mothers may also feel resentment towards the father about the challenges faced as a single mother (Makusha & Richter, 2016). These factors often result in maternal gatekeeping and restriction of father–child involvement (Austin et al., 2013; Madhavan et al., 2016). Such gatekeeping may leave non-resident fathers feeling marginalised and disenfranchised with little input in parenting decisions regarding their child’s post-separation living arrangements, the amount of child maintenance they pay, how the maintenance is spent, and restricted participation in their children’s schooling (Flood, 2012; Hawthorne & Lennings, 2008). Makusha and Richter (2016) found in their study on gatekeeping and its impact on father involvement among Black South Africans that non-resident fathers may, consequently, withhold financial support of their children. Moreover, non-resident fathers may experience a break in trust with their children when they reject or distance from him based on the actions or verbal criticisms of the mother (Appleby & Palkovitz, 2007).

Moore (2020) argues that effective co-parenting post-separation requires of parents to be rational and transcend their own interests and feelings of animosity for the benefit of the child. Parents, however, often fail to do this and Moore (2020), therefore, advocates for the acknowledgement of personal emotions and supporting parents to manage these so that they can effectively co-parent.

Children’s Perspectives and Experiences of Non-resident Fathering

Recent studies have highlighted that children want their perspectives to be invited and heard about parental separation matters that impact them (Carson et al., 2018; Quigley & Cyr, 2018). However, psychological research tends to focus on the consequences of parental separation for children, rather than obtaining children’s qualitative experiences of post-separation family relationships and processes (Halpenny et al., 2008). Below, we engage with a number of qualitative studies that did incorporate children’s perspectives about relationships with their non-resident fathers.

In Smith et al.’s (2014) study with 184 stepfamilies in the United Kingdom, children were interviewed about their contact with non-resident fathers and their reports indicated that most had good relationships with their fathers. However, approximately 28% did not feel part of their fathers’ lives and that he had time for them, or they no longer felt as close to and could talk to their fathers as before. Similarly, Nixon et al. (2012) found in their study of Irish children of non-resident fathers that most of the children felt disconnected to fathers and that ‘a sense of familiarity with each other was missing’ (p. 385).

Johnsen et al. (2018) interviewed preadolescent and adolescent children with divorced parents in Norway and found that the children were vulnerable to tension and loyalty conflicts between arguing parents and appreciated collaboration between parents. Similarly, the Korean children in Kang et al.’s (2017) study experienced loyalty conflicts and subsequent psychological distress if parents did not monitor what they disclose about the other parent. In Johnsen et al.’s (2018) study, the children in families with high conflict attempted to diffuse and reduce parental conflict by being a bridge builder between their parents and showed increased sensitivity towards each household’s emotional atmosphere (Johnsen et al., 2018).

In an earlier study that involved case studies of pre- and adolescent American children, Wineburgh (2000) found that children may idealise the absent non-resident father and blame the mother for his absence which often manifests as anger, aggression, and disappointment in the mother–child relationship. South African research on family communication in Black families with absent fathers indicates that mothers and children find it difficult to discuss issues related to absent fathers. Moreover, obedience and respect for parents and older people often discourage children from sharing their concerns or distress related to absent fathers with mothers. Children, therefore, frequently use silence as a strategy to navigate and contain such concerns or distress to show appreciation for their mothers or to avoid causing their mothers distress (Nduna & Sikweyiya, 2015).

Extended Family Members

Most research in Western societies that consider extended kin in non-resident father families focuses on the potential break in grandparent–child contact and the consequential undesirable outcomes for children (e.g. Albertini & Tosi, 2018; Attar-Schwartz & Fuller-Thomson, 2017). The grandparent’s geographical distance from the parent, financial capacity, pre- and post-separation relationships, moral judgements of right and wrong, commitment to the parenting and grandparenting role, and the capacity to see the separation from the perspective of all parties in the family contribute to post-separation relationships with the parent and grandchild (Deblaquiere et al., 2012). However, grandparents often feel the need to support their own adult child which leads to strained relationships with their child’s former partner (O’Dwyer et al., 2012). Separated parents, therefore, tend to have higher levels of contact and emotional closeness with their own extended family members rather than their former spouse’s family (Gürmen et al., 2021).

As grandchildren usually reside with mothers after parental separation, maternal grandparents are often faced with the burden of providing various kinds of support to their daughters to help them cope with raising the children. Paternal grandparents, in turn, are most likely to be affected by loss of contact with their grandchildren (O’Dwyer et al., 2012). Doyle et al. (2010), however, found that paternal grandparents in Ireland endeavoured to support and remain involved in the lives of their grandchildren after parental separation. They did this by compensating for the perceived parenting limitations of the non-resident father, affirming their grandchild’s position in the paternal kin network, and acting as a mediator between the separated couple to ensure continued contact with grandchildren and contact between father and child (Doyle et al., 2010).

In South Africa, paternal grandparents in Black families are considered an important part of negotiations that are expected to be made between families when babies are conceived outside of marriage (Madhavan et al., 2013). Grandparents and other extended kin (i.e. uncles and aunts) assist in the negotiation and payment of intlawulo, a payment to the mother’s family that is expected in many South African cultures when the father does not intend to marry the child’s mother but wishes to acknowledge or claim paternity (Clark et al., 2015). Maternal kin plays an essential role in decision making about how children are raised and by whom (Clark et al., 2015). Maternal kin also often acts as important gatekeepers and may not acknowledge fathers or allow them access to children if intlawulo has not been paid (Swartz et al., 2013). These cultural traditions are often the main barrier for non-resident fathers and the paternal family to overcome in order to gain access to their biological offspring (Ratele, 2018).

Father–Child Contact Approached from a Systems Perspective

Family systems theory is an umbrella name for a group of theoretical perspectives that, although diverse in some respects, share the perspective that interrelationships within the family affect the entire family system, structure, patterns, and reciprocal transactions (Galvin et al., 2006). According to this theory, the family system is a complex web of interactions, where the whole is more than the sum of its parts due to the interaction between these parts (Flaskas, 2011). Family systems theory highlights that interpersonal relationships within family systems (i.e. families with non-resident fathers as is the focus of this study) influence the dynamics (e.g. non-resident father–child contact) and other relationships within the same family system (Shapiro & Stewart, 2011).

Non-resident fathers are part of a larger family system that is organised into numerous interpersonal subsystems (e.g. non-residential father–biological mother, biological mother–new partner/stepparent, non-residential father–new partner/stepparent, parent–child, and parent–grandparent) with more or less permeable boundaries and varying in openness to feedback and adjusting to change (Galvin et al., 2006). These multiple interconnected subsystems are interdependent with individuals in various roles managing boundaries with the likelihood that different patterns of interactions might occur within a specific family system (Jensen & Weller, 2019). Conflicts between dyads are often a function of (a) renegotiating power and intimacy boundaries between ex-partners, (b) balancing a pre-existing parent–child relationship with a new partnership, and (c) managing the ambiguities surrounding the roles of non-resident parents within the system (Schrodt, 2011). With mothers often gaining primary residency in South Africa, the non-resident Black South African father is at a risk of being the outgroup member of this family system, with alliances and loyalties that may form in the primary residence. In these conflicts, family members may often blame each other. However, the family systems principle of circular causality steers away from assigning individual blame. It suggests that a phenomenon like infrequent father–child contact is better understood by studying the relationships between family member dyads and subsystems of the non-resident father family, and how these interact with and influence each other to maintain infrequent father–child contact (Hilpert & Marchand, 2018).

In line with a family systems approach and against the backdrop of the need for qualitative studies to explore family processes and relationships in which non-resident father–child contact occurs, the current study explored if and how family relationships within the larger non-resident family system maintain infrequent father–child contact.

Method

Research Design

We used a qualitative research design and obtained the perspectives and experiences of multiple family members about their relationships with each other (Hilpert & Marchand, 2018). We selected a qualitative design because most available research relies on quantitative methods (Nixon & Hadfield, 2018). The latter does not offer qualitative methods’ capacity to provide rich and compelling insights into the worlds, perspectives, and experiences of participants that makes it possible to capture the complexities of social phenomena (Braun & Clarke, 2014). It also enables the identification of values and views of different actors in a system, whilst exploring and analysing key themes of these values and views (Denzin & Lincoln, 2012).

Participant Recruitment and Sample

We sought to recruit families that consisted of a non-resident biological father who had limited contact with his adolescent child (once a month or less), the adolescent child (aged 14–18 years), the biological mother or guardian of the adolescent child, and one extended family member who was identified by both the mother and father as having significant influence regarding decisions about father–child contact (e.g. an aunt, uncle, stepmother/father, and maternal/paternal grandparent). We elected to focus on families with adolescent children 14 years and older as this age group is better able to verbally express themselves in interviews than younger children.

Most of the participating families (eight) were recruited through adolescents attending English-medium secondary schools with predominantly Black South African learners in the city of Tshwane. After permission and support for the recruitment were obtained from eight schools, arrangements were made to introduce learners of 14 years and older to the study and invite them to participate. Interested learners were requested to take the various child and parent informed consent forms home, complete it with their parent/guardian, and post it in a sealed box at school. Thirty-eight adolescent learners expressed an interest to participate. On attainment of their relevant consent forms, telephonic contact was made with the father and nominated family member. Of these 38 potential families, we were able to contact and obtain informed consent from the required four members of eight families.

In the second recruitment strategy, the first author identified and approached 10 male-dominated places and areas of work to obtain permission to introduce the study to their male employees. Only three of these companies gave permission, and the research was introduced to approximately 170 men of which only 5 expressed interest to participate. The informed consent of the family members of two of these families could be obtained and they were included in the study.

A total of 10 families (N = 40) participated. All the family members self-identified as Black and many lived in the Tshwane area in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Five of the fathers reported that they were employed and five unemployed. Eight of the mothers were employed, with two unemployed. The mean monthly income of the employed fathers who were willing to disclose their income was R20 000 (USD 1301) after tax deduction, and those of the employed mothers was much less at R10 612 (USD 691). Five fathers contributed financially to their children care. Three of these provided consistently via a monthly contribution and two on an intermittent basis when they were approached for money or as they were able to contribute when the child asked. The mean age of the children was 15 years and two months. The extended kin members consisted of five maternal aunts, four maternal grandmothers, and one paternal grandmother.

Most of the parents’ relationships started as romantic dating relationships that progressed to longer-term, co-residing relationships. Two out of the ten parent pairs were married and then divorced, five had a romantic relationship and co-resided, two had a romantic relationship but lived separately, and one had an extra-marital love relationship where the father was married and did not reside with the mother of the child. All the fathers had some contact with their children during infancy. However, in most cases, father–child contact was disrupted after the parents separated during the child’s early childhood years. The parents did not have formal conversations nor made agreements about continuing father–child contact. Father–child contact was thereafter irregular or non-existent until the children received their own cell phone (usually by puberty) that enabled independent contact with their biological father. Most father–child contact (6/10) took place via a cell phone once a month or less and the rest every six months or less.

Procedure

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee at the university of study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each family members in venues that were private and convenient to the participants. The first author (a registered clinical psychologist) conducted the interviews with 24 participants who felt comfortable with and were able to adequately express themselves in English. In the case of the 16 participants who indicated that they were more comfortable in other South African languages, interviewers were recruited and trained to conduct interviews with these participants. The majority (32) of interviews were face to face and eight were conducted via telephonic interview where the participant was not able to meet face to face. In the case of the non-resident fathers, the interview started by asking him about how he sees his role and his experience of his relationship with family members. The other family members’ interviews started with asking about their views of the role of the non-resident father and the history of their relationship with him. The subsequent areas of exploration for all participants included the frequency and type of contact between child and non-resident father, factors that facilitate father–child contact, factors that complicate father–child contact, and decision-making regarding visitation/contact between father and child. The interview duration was between 60 minutes and 180 minutes. All interviews were digitally recorded.

Data Analysis

The interviews conducted in English were transcribed by the first author and those conducted in African languages were translated and transcribed back into English by a professional translator. The authors collaborated in using Braun and Clarke’s (2006; 2013) six-phase thematic analysis method in an inductive way to analyse the transcribed data. Using this method, and informed by a family systems approach, we identified patterns in the data through a rigorous process of (i) data familiarisation by reading through the content multiple times and becoming immersed in the data; (ii) identifying codes, specifically codes that captured data related to family relationships and processes, and how each individual family member situated themselves in these. Subsequently, the ATLAS.ti programme was used to code each individual interview; (iii) theme development entailed that we looked for themes within each family’s four accounts and then collating themes across families to identify broader patterns of meaning. This entailed collation of codes for each family unit to identify family interactions and processes within each family unit and then using the latter to identify themes that captured family processes that occurred across the ten families; (iv) revision through checking candidate themes against the dataset and research question, and refining, splitting, combining, or discarding themes; (v) we defined four themes and developed each to detail their scope and focus; and (vi) writing up the findings by weaving the analytic narrative and data extracts together and contextualising the analysis in relation to existing literature (Braun & Clarke, 2017).

Credibility and Trustworthiness of Study

Braun and Clarke (2013) advocate for researchers to be aware of how the data collection tools may have influenced the collected data. The trustworthiness of this study’s data was enhanced by most of the interviews conducted by the first author, a clinical psychologist who is experienced in facilitating safe conversational spaces with diverse clients, and utilising Black research assistants to conduct interviews in the participant’s mother tongue in the presence of the first author. It is, however, possible that the presence of a white middle-class woman may have influenced the data in various ways. For example, participants may have represented themselves in more favourable ways under the gaze of a person that they could have associated with a critical or judgemental view.

Amongst other mechanisms, the trustworthiness of the data analysis was enhanced by using the ATLAS.ti programme to conduct the initial coding and thus ensuring that the codes represented all the data adequately. Data items were given equal weight through inclusive and comprehensive coding, as opposed to anecdotal coding through a few vivid examples (Braun & Clarke, 2017). The credibility of the theme identification and development was enhanced by the use of researcher triangulation that entailed the collaboration of both authors and reaching consensus about themes, as well as triangulating the data of each family unit’s members. Furthermore, in line with the principle of personal reflexivity (Braun & Clarke, 2017), we were mindful of the influence of differences between our participants and ourselves (both middle-class, white, women who grew up with resident fathers) on the data analysis process.

Results

We identified the following four themes that we thought best represented all the families’ accounts: Fathers’ seen as material providers underpin family conflicts; Unspoken longings for more than fathers’ material provision; Abdicating responsibility for father–child contact, and Conversations about father–child contact soften stances. Here, we present the theme ‘Abdicating responsibility for father–child contact’ which highlights a family process in which the implicit and explicit assumptions about father–child contact responsibility resulted in a circular dynamic which hindered father–child contact. Where pertinent in the presentation, in line with our family systems approach that prioritises the relationships and interactions between individuals in a family system that influence father–child contact, we cluster excerpts of members of the same family together to give a snapshot of the positions of different family members regarding a specific subtheme. The individual participants are indicated by their pseudonym, their position in the family (i.e. Father [F]; Mother [M]; Child [C]; Paternal Grandmother [PG]; Maternal Grandmother [MG]; Paternal Aunt [PA]; and Maternal Aunt [MA]), and the number of family they belong to, for example, Tony (C1), 1 indicating Family 1.

Abdication of Responsibility for Father–Child Contact

In all ten families, the various family members had firm and righteous assumptions about whose responsibility it was to initiate father–child contact. None of these assumptions or expectations were overtly communicated, which resulted in unclear rules of engagement and family members waiting on each other to make contact. When they were not contacted as expected, each assumed that the family member they expected to make contact did not want regular father–child contact, which further reinforced their reluctance to make contact. This theme is made up of three subthemes which will be presented in the following section. The first subtheme highlights that mothers, children, and extended family members expected fathers to want to see his child often and initiate this, and perceived his failure to do so as lack of interest and care. In the second subtheme, we discuss how fathers perceived mothers as the gatekeepers of father–child contact and awaited contact from the mother to approve or invite contact with children. Mothers, however, felt that contact should not be ‘forced’ by them. The third subtheme illustrates that children felt hurt and abandoned by parents’ expectation that they should independently initiate father–child contact when they reached adolescence.

Subtheme 1: Fathers’ Lack of Contact Initiation Interpreted as Uncaring

Mothers, children, and extended kin expected the father to want to see the child as often as he could as a demonstration of his love for his child. In their interviews, they were visibly upset when they told of instances where fathers had opportunities to see their children but did not utilise them. They believed that fathers’ failure to make frequent contact indicated their disinterest in or lack of love for children. Julia (M9) found it incomprehensible that the father did not visit his son when he was in town:

He was here to do the license, he didn’t come to me so maybe he can see the kids, because he got the chance to see them… It is not right at all!... He doesn’t come to see the children, he doesn’t call, he doesn’t do anything, so he is not a father. If he is a father he is supposed to see his children right?

Ntokozo (M5) related how she contacted the father in the past to confront his lack of effort to contact and see his daughter:

There was a time I used to call him and ask him ‘How do you feel not talking to Leago [child]? Not calling her or not coming to fetch her go to the mall with her, how do you feel?’ … I am willing that her father can come and spend time with her but he is not interested…

The extended kin members shared this view. Martha (PG9), for example, also perceived the father’s (her son) lack of contact to indicate that he was unenthusiastic about seeing his child:

When he heard that the child came and the child wanted to see him, he [father] never had that excitement of coming to see his child. He should have made an effort to come see him even if it was for two days. The child would have been satisfied with that.

Maria (MG10) viewed the father as uncaring because of his lack of contact to hear how his daughter was doing: ‘Because if you care about your child, you make a point of knowing what she has eaten every day, how is she doing. If the child does not contact him, he does not bother himself to check in’.

All the mothers and extended kin emphasised that they did not deny the father access to the child and viewed their lack of explicit opposition to contact as implied permission and open access granted to the father to contact his child. They also told of efforts they have made in the past to encourage father–child contact. They felt, therefore, that it was up to the fathers to make the effort to see their children and blamed them for not doing so. Mpho (M7), for example, proudly stated that she never rebuffed the father: ‘Because there was never a time where he wanted to visit her and then I refused him, never… But he never initiated everything from his side. It must be from him’. Erica (C7) confirmed her mother’s stance: ‘My mom always told me that she never ever told my dad not to visit me. Like my dad always knew where my grandmother lives and he could easily get my mother’s numbers from her’. She was very disappointed with her father for not initiating plans to meet. When she was asked if she reached out to her father about setting up a meeting, she said: ‘No, because I expected it from him’.

Fathers not making contact with children caused emotional distress for the children, and their upset was palpable when they talked about this in the interviews. Shakes’ (C9) was tearful when he talked about his lack of contact with his father: ‘I just don’t feel like talking about it…it will break my heart [tearing up]’. Tony (C1) felt rejected and hurt due to lack of father–child contact: ‘I feel like I am unwanted. Rejected, ya and useless [Sad expression on face]’. Caroline (C10) could not make sense of her father’s decrease in contact with her: ‘I don’t know, I don’t know what happened [crying]. Sometimes it’s like I don’t have a father…[sobbing] I’m very heart broken’.

The majority of the children, however, did not overtly speak to parents or kin about the emotional distress they experienced due to lack of father–child contact. They avoided showing painful emotions to avoid upset in the family and/or appear to be disrespectful of parents. Shakes (C9), for example, said that he ‘didn’t want to interfere in their [mother and father] love life’ by asking them for more frequent contact with his father. Michelle (C4) feared that her father may view it as disrespectful and that it may cause additional complications in their relationship: ‘my heart becomes sore and I just keep quiet…the reason that I don’t tell him is that my heart might end up broken, because he will see my anger as swearing at him’.

Subtheme 2: Fathers Waited for Contact From Mothers and Children, Mothers Saw Contact Initiation as ‘Forcing’ Father–Child Contact

In the previous subtheme, we highlighted that mothers, children, and extended family members expected fathers to want and initiate contact, and they perceived fathers’ failure to do so as evidence of his lack of interest and caring. In this second subtheme, we present the fathers’ stance that they wanted frequent contact but expected mothers or other family members to inform them that they and their contact was wanted or needed. The latter was evident when fathers explained infrequent father–child contact by saying ‘but they never called me’. More specifically, fathers explained why they waited for contact from other family members. Peter (F6), for example, thought that his daughter was more comfortable to express her needs to her mother than directly to him:

Yo, she misses me a lot when I’m not there hey… But she won’t call me direct. She will tell the mother and then the mother will tell me and say ‘hey you know…’. Girls they are, she’s close to her mother and you know the thing that I am not staying with them, maybe she’s [daughter] not so open to me.

However, his daughter was disappointed that she only had contact with her father as reactive to her initiation: ‘Sometimes he comes and visit, only when I tell him that I miss him… I have to communicate with him, only when I call him, that’s the time we talk’. The mother Tidimalo (M6), who desired and encouraged father–child contact, felt that it would be ‘forcing’ a father if the father was not inclined to pursue a relationship with his child.

Because as a mother you have to enforce, you have to force, you force it if you see that it’s [referring to child contact] not happening. If they [father and family] want a relationship with her they will do it, I can’t force my child on them or I can’t force myself on them. And if they do, my arms are ready to welcome them.

Frank (F7), who had not seen his child for a few years, also said that he was waiting for when he would be contacted and readied himself for it:

I told myself that she will grow up and she will know where her father is [meaning that the daughter knows how to get in contact with him]. That is what I told myself because when she [the mother] called me and told me that ‘I am having a problem, this child wants to see you’, I was expecting that.

The mother Mpho (M7), however, viewed her involvement beyond telling the father that the child wanted to meet him as forcing the relationship:

…there is nothing I can do. I said to her [child] ‘I won’t force him to love or visit you. I wouldn’t do that’. If me going to him again and it doesn’t help, we cannot force the relationship with someone he doesn’t want a relationship with.

Michael (F4) viewed it as culturally normative for the mother to initiate contact and that she would be best able to gauge when his contact with this child would not upset the mother’s current partner:

…according to culture, it was supposed to be her mother who gets me into contact with the child. She has the chance that when the stepfather is not there, she can look for me and tell me. Otherwise, I may come not knowing whether the stepfather is there and then he would think that this person wants to get back together with her ex…when you interfere with a child that has a stepfather you will cause fights between the mother and the stepfather.

Similar to Michael above, most of the fathers mentioned that making contact with the mother may be misconstrued as an attempt to romantically reconcile. Fathers thus avoided initiation of contact with the mother and rather opted to wait for the mother or child to reach out to him.

Frank (F7) was concerned that continued attempts to contact the mother may be viewed as harassment and put him at a risk of a restraining order: ‘We may end up having this restraining order or whatever…that was my thought’. Other fathers, as illustrated in Big’s (F10) excerpt below, thought that their contact with the mother of the child would be disrespectful towards the mother’s new partner, causing conflict between the mother and new partner:

I’m not a person who like to get in contact with her. If I go there it will just look like I disrespect him and me myself as the father of Thabi. He [stepfather] would think I want to get back together with her mother again. That guy is gonna be jealous, and they will get into fights just because of me…let me respect that.

Subtheme 3: Adolescents Burdened by Parents’ Expectation to Independently Initiate Father–Child Contact

Children usually received a cell phone in adolescence which mothers viewed as giving the child a means of communication with the father. Mothers assumed that adolescent children were old enough to contact their fathers independently if they wanted contact with their fathers, and to identify and communicate their material needs to the father. For example, Grace (M10) preferred to have as little contact as possible with the father and did not feel it necessary to facilitate father–child contact any longer:

I don’t contact him often unless there is something, a reason to contact him, but now that Caroline is old enough to communicate with him, I don’t like to communicate with him often... These days she is old enough to see that ‘My mum cannot afford this’, she is the one who calls him and say ‘I need this’, like last time she said ‘I need clothes’ and he said he will send her a voucher.

When Caroline (C10) reached 13 years of age, she received a cell phone and one of the first things she did was to call her father. She recalled how hurt she felt when he did not recognise her voice: ‘Ya, at first he didn’t know who I was, who he was talking to’. She then tearfully told in the interview how she was compelled to tell him that it was his daughter calling.

Ntokozo (M5) said that she encouraged her daughter to contact her father herself: ‘I’m the one who pushes it, and I would tell her to call him and “Tell him that you miss him” and she knows he will turn her down, but I will just say “Call him.”’ She also viewed her child as capable of identifying her basic needs and independently contacting the father about them: ‘I felt like I won’t tell him about her as she is able to send him a text herself to tell him that we are out of groceries and other things’. The frustrated Leago, however, longed for her parents to speak to each other about what she needs, and not to expect it of her:

They [referring to parents] don’t talk about me. If I ask my mom ‘Mommy, did you tell my dad?’ then she says ‘No, you must tell your dad, your dad is not my dad, so you must tell your dad’. And my mom thought I must tell my dad how I felt.

She felt defeated in her attempts to get her mother to facilitate father–child contact: ‘I will tell my mom I want to go to my daddy, she will say “You know how your dad is” and I will say “Okay” and then I let it go’.

Similar to Ntokozo (M5), Tidimalo (M6) insisted that her daughter can call her father herself to ask for what she needed: ‘I’m not the only parent. Sometimes you have to pick up a phone and call your dad and tell him that what you need’. Mpho (M7) reported that she gave Erica (C7) (who have had no contact with her father for over 10 years) her father’s contact number when she was 16 years of age. She felt adamant that father–child contact was the choice of her child once she reached adolescence: ‘I let her call and make an arrangement with him. It is no longer about me. Erica has grown up she can make her own decisions’. Erica confirmed that her mother gave her the father’s contact number when she turned 16: ‘Earlier this year my mom gave me my father’s numbers and she said I can do anything I want to do with the numbers’.

As indicated by some of the excerpts above, much of the contact with fathers that mothers and extended kin initiated or encouraged was contact about children’s financial or material needs. It would, therefore, be understandable that fathers could feel that they were only wanted for their financial contribution. Although fathers did report that they felt pressured and shamed by contact about material needs when they were not able to provide in the requests, most of them did not express resentment about being contacted about it. Similar to mothers, they expected adolescent children to freely initiate contact with them and they took care to emphasise in the interviews that they were open to hearing from their children – as if suggesting that this was their contribution to encouraging father–child contact. Peter (F6) stated: ‘…she can contact me whenever. There’s no strict rules like “don’t call me” no, she can call me whenever she wants to’. Samantha (C6), however, needed her father to initiate contact and felt uncomfortable with being the only initiator of contact: ‘Cause I feel uncomfortable, like with my dad, cause we never speak… I am the one that is supposed to call him, he doesn’t call’. Keke (F1) also thought the onus of father–child contact rested on Tony: ‘He must come closer to me or make contact with me’. Tony (C1) who usually initiated contact, wanted his father to call him and was angry and hurt that he never did: ‘As I said, he doesn’t call me, he doesn’t keep in contact. So maybe during break he can call me and maybe he can say “Let’s meet sometime somewhere,” but then he doesn’t. It doesn’t happen that way’.

Discussion

The study on which this article is based utilised multiple informants from ten families to explore if and how family relationships influenced father–child contact. In the previous section, we presented one of the prominent themes identified in our data analysis. This theme shows how a circular dynamic, based on unarticulated assumptions and expectations, resulted in family members abdicating responsibility for father–child contact. Similar to other research (e.g. the Irish study of Nixon and Hadfield (2018)), we highlighted that mothers, children, and extended kin expected fathers to initiate contact and viewed it as his responsibility to make practical arrangements to have father–child contact. Mothers and children believed that lack of contact initiation was indicative of fathers’ disinterest in and/or lack of caring about children. This negative perception of fathers’ underpinned mothers, extended kin, and children’s negative position about father–child contact (Sano et al., 2008).

However, similar to the men in other international and local studies (e.g. Fagan, 2021; Hunter, 2006), the fathers in our study professed to want more contact with their children. Rather than proactively pursuing such contact, though, they said that they were afraid to impose or cause disruption. They, therefore, awaited an invitation from the mother, child, and/or extended kin to indicate their presence was welcome, wanted, or needed. This underscores the finding of Curtiss et al. (2021) that non-resident fathers often believe that it is not in their hands to increase or initiate involvement with their child as they see the mother as in charge. In our study, however, fathers’ waiting and reactive approach fed into mothers’ and children’s assumption that fathers were not keen to have frequent father–child contact. Furthermore, mothers felt that they had done enough to encourage contact and proudly claimed that they had never denied fathers access and contact. They believed the latter stance served as implicit permission and open access to children.

The adolescents in our study were distressed by limited father–child contact and they felt unwanted and rejected by their fathers, as has been found in other research (e.g. Wineburgh, 2000). From a family systems perspective, it could be argued that adolescents’ distress has the potential to disrupt and change the family system dynamic around father–child contact. In line with Nduna & Sikweyiya, (2015) findings, though, children often hid their distress to avoid upset in the family and/or appear to be disrespectful of parents. Nevertheless, mothers and extended kin often had some awareness of the children’s distress. They, however, felt that they had done all they could to encourage father–child contact and that they could not ‘force’ the father to be more proactive and enthusiastic about contact. The fathers, on the other hand, appeared to be unaware of children’s distress and children confirmed that they did not share their distress with fathers. This silence seemed to contribute to keeping family systems unchanged with regard to father–child contact.

Similar to the Irish mothers in Nixon and Hadfield (2018), both parents in our study abdicated the responsibility for father–child contact to children when they deemed the children to be old enough in adolescence to decide if they want contact with fathers and to communicate their needs to them. Children, however, felt rejected if the fathers were merely reactive to their initiation of father–child contact. The parents’ expectation of the child to initiate contact and the child’s discomfort with this responsibility, especially contact about material needs, contributed to children reaching out less which resulted in maintaining minimal or absent father–child contact. In keeping with other research (Sobolewski & King, 2005) children desired cooperative co-parenting, defined as the ‘ability of mothers and non-resident fathers to actively engage with one another in order to share childrearing responsibilities’ (p. 1198).

The abovementioned assumptions and positions of various family members about father–child contact are not new and have been identified in other research that relied on the data of one individual in a non-resident family (e.g. Nixon & Hadfield, 2018; Sano et al., 2008). However, our study makes a valuable contribution in that it used multiple informants from one family and shows how family members’ assumptions and expectations about responsibility for the initiation of father–child contact were not overtly communicated. This resulted in a circular dynamic which left each family member abdicating responsibility for father–child contact and waiting on each other to make the first move. Although some authors (e.g. Nixon & Hadfield, 2018) hypothesise these dynamics, researchers often focus on resident mothers’ role in father involvement as a pertinent factor in non-resident fathers' involvement with children (Schoppe-Sullivan & Fagan, 2020). This factor is usually investigated by utilising the concept of maternal gatekeeping which is defined as ‘mothers’ preferences and attempts to restrict and exclude fathers from childcare and involvement with children’ (Fagan & Barnett, 2003, p. 1021). Such a conceptualisation, however, can be viewed as favouring fathers by putting the burden of father–child contact on mothers, dismissing their contributions to enable father–child contact, and de-emphasising fathers’ responsibilities to take responsibility for father–child contact (Nixon & Hadfield, 2018; Sano et al., 2008).

Moreover, our study highlighted the burden adolescent children feel when parents abdicate responsibility to negotiate and arrange childcare to adolescent children. Although adolescent children should be encouraged and given a voice to articulate their wishes and needs (Lundy & McEvoy, 2012), they should not be responsible to negotiate paternal care or manage parental conflict. Rather than keeping any one individual primarily responsible for encouraging and facilitating father–child contact, our finding emphasises that involving multiple family members would best address infrequent father–child contact. It highlights the importance of opportunities for all involved family members to make explicit their assumptions and needs, and explicitly negotiate viable agreements and procedures regarding father–child contact throughout the child’s development. It is critical that adolescent children are also encouraged and given a space to articulate their wishes and needs (Lundy & McEvoy, 2012). This suggestion is strengthened by our unexpected finding this theme is discussed in (Nell, 2023). That family members related in follow-up interviews that they experienced positive shifts in father–child involvement and contact. Upon further exploration of this shift, it emerged that the first interviews served as a space for individual family members to reflect on and re-assess their stance and actions about father–child contact. As a result, most of them did more to reach out to each other. This suggests that these non-resident family systems are open to input and can adjust to better act in the interest of children.

Family meditation is often promoted as a mechanism to facilitate constructive conversations between family members about non-resident father involvement (Lesch et al., 2021). It should be noted, however, that in South Africa mediation is usually only used, if needed, in the case of married parents who are legally obligated to agree on a parenting plan upon divorce. Unmarried parents are not required to do so, and subsequently father–child contact may suffer (Department of Social Development, 2012). Also, the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 still does not confer automatic, inherent parental rights on unmarried biological fathers in the same way it does for mothers (Department of Social Development, 2012). This leaves non-resident, unmarried, and unemployed fathers as a legally marginalised group when it comes to parental plans and father–child contact (Lesch & Kelapile, 2016). Co-parental mediation in the South African context should therefore include unmarried parents and consider more family-centred approaches that include extended kin (Lesch et al., 2021). It should also be made available and accessible to low-income families. Given that children may be the ones that are most impacted by infrequent father–child contact and that they should be empowered to have a say in it (specifically adolescents), it makes sense to support adolescents to access and/or initiate family mediation or reach out to for assistance to relevant service providers of their own accord. This, however, does not imply that adolescents should shoulder the burden of resolving father contact issues. Rather, such access should give children a means to alert service providers to activate a process whereby parents assume responsibility for all aspects regarding childcare, including father–child contact.

Study Limitations

Although our study makes a unique and diversifying contribution to knowledge about non-resident family dynamics around infrequent father–child contact, it has limitations. This includes that we relied on voluntary participation and the sample may be biased towards participants who are inherently bothered by lack of father–child contact and or in support of father–child contact. More specifically, most of our sample was generated through the adolescent children wanting to participate and these children were all distressed by lack of father–child contact. They may, therefore, not represent the experiences and views of most non-resident father children. Also, the fathers in this study, by being willing to participate, were likely fathers who had some investment in their children, potentially biasing the results towards the finding that non-resident father desired contact with their children. Also, although generalisability was not the aim of this research, it remains unclear whether the presented theme is relevant to other South African communities. Future research should, therefore, explore the transferability of these findings to other communities or groups in South Africa.