Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Shared custody has become an increasingly common arrangement in post-divorce families in Portugal, raising questions about how fathers adapt to this parenting model. This qualitative study investigates how fathers navigate shared custody, particularly regarding their fathering roles and the transition to a new way of coparenting. Four semi-structured interviews were conducted with Portuguese fathers of children (4–10 years) under shared custody. Content analysis revealed that shared custody arrangements allowed fathers to develop an active role in all domains of their children’s lives. Fathers were committed to providing an environment favorable to their children’s well-being. Achieving cooperative coparenting was described as an effortful and gradual process. However, the transition to shared custody brings greater individual demands, namely in finding the balance between personal life and performing the various practical tasks necessary for childcare. These results contribute to public policies that encourage the maintenance of father-child bonds in different family configurations.

Keywords

father divorce shared custody coparenting child development qualitative

The increasing incidence of divorce and shared custody has contributed to significant transformations in the fathers’ role in recent decades (Cabrera et al., 2014, 2018; Diniz et al., 2023; Kalil et al., 2014; Monteiro et al., 2017). Portugal is one of the countries in the European Union with the highest divorce rate, with 60 divorces per hundred marriages recorded in 2021 (PORDATA, 2021). Approximately 20% of divorces in the Portuguese context occur in parents with preschool-aged children (INE, 2021), and it is estimated that 20% of divorced parents with minor children opt for shared custody (INE, 2021). Shared custody in Portugal is characterized by children spending at least 30% of their time with each parent (Coelho & de Oliveira, 2016; Jevne & Andenæs, 2017). Only in 2020 the law has started to emphasize shared parental responsibilities as the preferred arrangement (Decreto de Lei n.° 65/2020 de Assembleia da República, 2020), making this a particularly relevant and timely topic in understanding Portuguese evolving dynamics of parenting after divorce.

The challenge of balancing childcare with personal and professional life is greater for divorced parents since they no longer share the daily routine with the other parental figure (Amato, 2010; Steinbach, 2019). This difficulty is particularly relevant in the first years after the divorce, as there is observed difficulty for ex-spouses to dissociate the parental partner from a romantic figure, moving to a non-conjugal coparental relationship (Silva et al., 2019). This reorganization of parental roles requires further exploration by the scientific community, particularly through studies that integrate this experience from the direct perspective of fathers (Palkovitz & Hull, 2018; Volling et al., 2019; Volling & Palkovitz, 2021).

Although quantitative studies in divorced families are clear about the growing paternal involvement, both in terms of quantity and quality (e.g., Diniz et al., 2021), there is still a lack of studies addressing the subjectivity of experiencing this role for fathers. A recent literature review on qualitative studies about paternal involvement concluded that most studies focus on intact families (Diniz et al., 2023), revealing a gap in qualitative literature on divorced fathers. Through individual interviews, it is possible to perceive the nuances regarding the challenges of adapting to divorce within contemporary parents. Thus, the research question that guides this qualitative study is: How do fathers of young children perceive and navigate shared custody, particularly regarding their fathering roles and the transition to a new way of coparenting?

Divorce and Shared Custody in the Portuguese Context

Despite divorce being more frequent and accepted in society in recent decades, it is still described as a stressor event for the family system (Amato, 2010; Lebow, 2019, 2020), with the potential to generate psychological distress for parents and children (Emery, 2016; Härkönen et al., 2017; McIntosh et al., 2014). The way parents deal with custody issues and parenting practices during the separation process is crucial for the child’s adjustment (Baude et al., 2016). For example, when the post-divorce father actively engages to be involved in the daily routine of the children (e.g., taking them to school, preparing meals, grocery shopping, helping with homework), it results in benefits for the child’s development (Augustijn, 2021; Baker, 2017; Fagan, 2023; Neppl et al., 2019). Thus, what becomes most relevant for the child’s well-being are the factors related to the context of divorce, rather than the fact of divorce per se (Bauserman, 2012; Härkönen et al., 2017), such as the different forms of involvement of the divorced father in childcare (Fagan, 2023).

In Portugal, the legal framework of divorce seeks to promote shared custody as a resource to minimize the negative consequences of divorce on children (Coelho & de Oliveira, 2016). Shared custody can be defined as equality in responsibilities between men and women in caring for their children, which establishes the child’s residence and the rules for interaction with the other parent, foreseeing that the child spends at least 30% of their time with each of their parents (Decreto de Lei n.° 65/2020 de Assembleia da República, 2020). The shared custody agreement also covers other conditions related to the child’s interest, for example, school selection, organization of vacations, and management of extracurricular activities (Botelho, 2015; Ribeiro, 2019).

Unlike other European countries (e.g., Sweden, Belgium), where shared custody has been established for a longer period and is prevalent in most divorce cases (Hakovirta et al., 2023), shared custody in Portugal is relatively recent. It was first introduced in 2008, but only the 2020 revision to the law emphasized shared parental responsibilities as the preferred arrangement (Decreto de Lei n.° 65/2020 de Assembleia da República, 2020). However, despite this legal preference, shared custody is only present in 20% of cases, partly because the decision still depends on judicial discretion and whether the case proceeds to court. Additionally, societal adaptation to this model has been gradual. Given the recent nature of these changes, we aim to understand how these fathers perceive and navigate shared custody, with a focus on the transition to a new way of coparenting and the reorganization of their routines.

Involvement of the Divorced Father in Childcare

Divorced fathers with shared custody face unique challenges and opportunities in redefining their roles as active caregivers in post-divorce (Bauserman, 2012; Lebow, 2019). While traditional fathering roles often emphasize discipline and authority, contemporary expectations extend to logistical and relational aspects of childcare, requiring fathers to show presence, affection, and active engagement in their children’s lives (Cabrera et al., 2018; Diniz et al., 2021; Doucet, 2006; Palkovitz, 2019). Father involvement, particularly in the context of shared custody, can be divided into three components: (a) direct interaction, which represents time spent directly with the child in activities such as feeding, helping with homework, and playing; (b) accessibility, which corresponds to activities with less direct interaction, but where fathers are accessible for direct interaction with the child, such as preparing dinner in the kitchen while the child plays nearby; and (c) responsibility, which is characterized by the responsibilities the parent assumes regarding the child and their well-being, such as scheduling pediatric appointments and ensuring their presence at those appointments (Pleck, 2010). These components provide a framework for understanding how divorced fathers balance caregiving responsibilities, offering insights into the dynamics of shared custody and their impact on paternal involvement. However, this model was later revised by Cabrera and colleagues (Cabrera et al., 2014). The updated model describes how fathering is influenced by personal (e.g., motivation), relational (e.g., coparenting), and social aspects (e.g., socioeconomic resources). Accordingly, the motivation to be involved in the child’s life (Grzybowski & Wagner, 2010), and the quality of the relationship between the father and the child’s mother (Adamsons & Pasley, 2013; Rejaän et al., 2022) are crucial to father involvement. Moreover, social aspects, like balancing work and caregiving responsibilities without a coparental partner are critical to fathering (Gatrell et al., 2015, 2022; Philip, 2013). Another relevant social aspect can be socioeconomic status (SES), since divorced father’s involvement is very related to their income and educational level (Fagan, 2021; Kulik & Sadeh, 2015). Parents who are more educated and economically advantaged tend to spend more time caring for their children across various cultures (Furstenberg, 2014; Henz, 2019; Parke & Cookston, 2019), while low-income divorced fathers often report that their full involvement is hindered by economic circumstances (Waller, 2009). The interplay between individual, relational, and social factors offers a nuanced lens to explore how fathers adapt their roles in response to changing circumstances, such as divorce and shared custody, while maintaining their involvement with their child.

Coparenting Challenges in Divorced Parents

Following a divorce, parents transition from being romantic partners to engaging as coparental companions (Lamela & Figueiredo, 2016). Coparenting emerges as a concept to define how parental figures organize themselves as caregivers regarding issues related to child-rearing and decision-making (Feinberg, 2003; Margolin et al., 2001). The development of a cooperative relationship—that is, regular and quality communication between parents who support and respect each other—between divorced parents is essential to ensure a better quality of life and well-being for the children (Kalmijn, 2016; Rejaän et al., 2022). However, in the first years after a divorce, parents are often involved in resolving issues related to the end of their marital relationship, such as individualization of financial resources and housing, stabilization of routines, stress, fears, and feelings of hurt due to the end of a relationship (Adamsons & Pasley, 2013; Bauserman, 2012). These challenges can lead to conflictual coparenting—characterized by regular but hostile and competitive communication, where parents act as adversaries rather than a team—or triangulated coparenting, marked by poor communication about child-related issues, potentially resulting in a breakdown of coparenting and the formation of parent-child alliances (Margolin et al., 2001). A poor coparenting relationship can affect the quality of parenting (Neppl et al., 2019; Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2022; Sturge-Apple et al., 2017) and demands emotional adjustment from the children (Kalmijn, 2016; Lizarazu & Cracco, 2021). Ideally, parents should be able to establish a cooperative coparenting, which protects the child’s development, promoting higher levels of well-being, greater self-esteem, fewer emotional symptoms, better health status, and fewer internalizing and externalizing problems (Neppl et al., 2019; Nielsen, 2011; Oliveira & Crepaldi, 2018).

Building on this foundation, we aimed to explore the dynamics of coparenting among divorced fathers with shared custody. Specifically, by analyzing their narratives, the study seeks to gain a deeper understanding of fathers’ experiences in their fathering role and in reorganizing the post-divorce coparenting relationship.

The Present Study

Given the complexity of the paternal role in contemporary families, specifically in divorced couples, it becomes important to understand the father’s perspective regarding his involvement in childcare and the impact of non-conjugal coparenting in this new reality. The divorce of parents can be a critical period for the entire family, with a special impact on children, who are developing their socioemotional capacities, and thus are more sensitive to the emotional state of their parents (e.g., Olson et al., 2017).

Quantitative studies show that father involvement is of utmost importance for child development (Diniz et al., 2021); however, there is a gap in the literature regarding qualitative studies focusing on the father’s perception of adapting his parental role in the post-divorce period (Diniz et al., 2023). The paternal figure as the primary caregiver has only recently been the subject of study, resulting in the predominance of methodologies developed with a focus on the maternal figure (Volling & Palkovitz, 2021). Thus, qualitative studies allow for a better understanding of concepts and experiences related to parenthood in divorced fathers, which are not easily captured by quantitative studies and may be overlooked by the scientific community (e.g., Abdullah Kamal, 2019). Therefore, this study aims to add literature on how divorced fathers experience the share custody arrangement. Specifically, it will investigate (1) how fathers perceive their role in shared custody; (2) the transition to a new way of coparenting; and (3) the challenges to reorganize their routine in the context of shared custody.

Method

Participants

Four divorced fathers of eight children participated in this study. All fathers had two children, aged between 4–10 years. All participants were Portuguese, resided in urban centers, were aged between 41–46 years, had higher education, were in a medium-high socioeconomic status, and had been divorced for 1–3 years. Participants’ names were replaced by P1, P2, P3, and P4 to maintain confidentiality.

All fathers had shared custody arrangements and alternating weekly residence with the child’s mother, which was initiated immediately after the end of the marriage. Our study specifically included fathers who divorced within the past three years before the interview, meaning their experiences align with the latest legal developments. Although shared custody in Portugal requires each parent to spend at least 30% of their time with the child, in our sample couples opted for an equally shared custody model, with children spending approximately 50% of their time with each parent.

Procedures

This study is derived from the Master’s thesis of the first author, and is in accord with all research ethics standards and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the university. Participants were invited to participate in this research through the snowball sampling method. Data were individually collected by the first author, using semi-structured interviews. The interviews lasted between 30 and 40 minutes, providing a free space for the fathers to elaborate on the themes presented according to their perceptions of experiences with their respective children and ex-wives. All interviews happened in March 2022 and were conducted in Portuguese by the first author via video call, audio-recorded, and fully transcribed. Participants permitted the audio recording of the interview. Previously, a pilot interview was conducted to adjust the interview guide.

Measure

A semi-structured interview guide with eight questions was developed to investigate paternal involvement in divorced fathers with alternating residence arrangements. The questions aimed to explore their perception of parenthood. They addressed topics such as their role as fathers, transformation in fathers’ role after divorce, childcare sharing with the child’s mother, and benefits and challenges of shared custody, particularly focused on child development. Fathers also answered a brief set of sociodemographic questions such as fathers’ age, education level, duration of divorce/shared custody, and child’s age. The interview was designed to be concise and respectful of fathers’ time.

Data Analysis

The interviews were analyzed using the content analysis technique (Bardin, 2011), which is a systematic and objective method for analyzing textual or verbal data, aiming to identify patterns, themes, or meanings within the content. This method often involves a combination of deductive and inductive approaches, depending on the nature of the research and the data collected. The analysis followed Bardin’s (2011) key stages:

(a) Pre-analysis, which involved organizing and familiarizing with the data to define the analysis framework. Within this phase, there were three steps: (1) preparing the material by transcribing interviews; (2) exhaustively reading the interviews individually; and (3) formulating objectives to guide the analysis.

(b) Exploration of the material, which involved coding, breaking down, and categorizing data according to a cross-analysis of similar and different characteristics found in each interview: This step included: (1) coding, in which we assigned labels to segments of text. Some of our coding was based on predefined criteria (i.e., deductive, e.g., father’s role, coparenting), whereas others emerged based on participants’ descriptions (i.e., inductive, e.g., challenges/drawbacks of alternating residences, personal reflections on fatherhood). Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus; (2) then, classification consisted of grouping similar codes into four themes. For example, motivation/context for shared custody and benefits of shared custody for children categories were grouped in Theme 2 (The decision of shared custody and children’s socioemotional adjustment). Themes one, two, and three were deductive, while theme four was inductive, based on emerging patterns from interviews; and the final step, (3) organization, included structuring the data to facilitate meaningful analysis.

(c) Finally, the treatment of results, in which two authors independently interpreted the data to draw meaningful insights. We followed two steps: (1) interpreting the findings in relation to the research objectives and theoretical framework, and (2) validating the results by comparing them with existing literature.

Themes’ identification was based on a mixed process of analyzing the interviews and existing literature, constantly reviewed, and discussed between the first and last authors. All data analysis was conducted in Portuguese, the native language of the authors and the interviewed fathers and was later translated into English.

Results and Discussion

From the analysis of the interviews, four themes were identified: (1) Gaining multiplicity in the father’s role; (2) The decision of shared custody and children’s socioemotional adjustment; (3) The ideal of cooperative coparenting; and (4) The emotional overload of fathers in shared custody. Each of these themes will be presented below, illustrated with participants’ statements.

Gaining Multiplicity in the Father’s Role

This theme gathered fathers’ descriptions of their paternal role after divorce, highlighting how the shared custody arrangement allowed them to develop an active role in all domains of their children’s lives. Fathers presented how after divorce they had an involvement in all dimensions of childcare—i.e., interaction, accessibility, and responsibility (Pleck, 2010)—in which they were not fully involved before, as illustrated by the following quotes: “Separation taught me to be a more engaged and attentive parent. (…) I ensure active involvement in their [children] growth and education.” (P2); and “[Before the divorce] I could stay at work later and only get home in time for dinner, right? Nowadays, that’s unthinkable, you know. I have to be there [with the children].” (P3).

Fathers also reflected on how divorce changed their parenting behaviors, with increased involvement in decision-making, and the modification of their lifestyle to accommodate these duties: “I adjust my lifestyle to prioritize my children’s needs” (P2).

There were many things that I used to delegate, I'll put it that way, and there are things that nowadays I don't delegate. I bring them into my area of responsibility, and so, it also forced me to modify my lifestyle a little bit, I have my schedule made differently. (P3)

Another father emphasized his active role in being emotionally present, supportive, and involved in the children’s lives, describing the importance of his role in child development: “To be present and supportive in each of their developmental journeys. I strive to provide experiences for the kids that empower them” (P1).

However, shared custody introduced some challenges in daily communication and fathers highlighted the need to be connected with their children, even if they were not physically present, as disclosed by P2: “We talk by phone every day [when the children are in the mother’s house]”.

Overall, these fathers’ descriptions highlighted how shared custody introduced new responsibilities in their roles. It has been discussed how divorce and shared custody are often presented as a turning point in fathering, allowing fathers to fully care for their children (Ball, 2010; Summers et al., 2006; Waller, 2009). Among our participants, shared custody allowed fathers to deepen their parenting skills, moving beyond direct activities to include key responsibilities typically associated with the mother’s role (Buddelmeyer et al., 2018; Izci & Jones, 2021; Monteiro et al., 2017). Equal shared custody positions fathers on equal footing with mothers (Dermott & Miller, 2015; Volling & Palkovitz, 2021), fostering a more involved and responsible paternal role across various aspects of child-rearing (Philip, 2013; Steinbach, 2019).

The Decision of Shared Custody and Children’s Socioemotional Adjustment

This theme reflects how fathers conceived shared custody and the importance of both parents’ involvement in the healthy socioemotional development of their children. All parents described the children as a priority in the divorce, emphasizing that their needs were the most important, grounding their decision to shared custody. Participants demonstrated a keen awareness of the child’s socioemotional aspects during various phases of marriage and the divorce process, where they consider that divorce and shared custody arrangement were more favorable for the child’s well-being: “I really think the advantage is being with parents in a better environment, without witnessing fights … there were arguments before, and they witnessed them, which was not good at all” (P1).

One father reported his surprise at how easily his children positively adapted to the new configuration:

I think we suffer more for them. That is, I thought perhaps my children could grow up sad because they didn't have their parents together, but in reality, the children.... I think the children adapt more quickly. That is a concern of adults and not theirs. (P2)

Participants revealed frequent examples of paternal willingness to ensure the presence of both parental figures, to preserve and promote the well-being of their child: “I believe that maintaining a healthy relationship between the father and mother is essential for children’s well-being” (P2). Shared custody was also perceived by parents as a way to ensure affection and stability to children, as illustrated by the following quote: “Seeing that my children continue to have the regular presence of both parents, to feel that they continue to receive love and affection from both” (P1).

Parents also reflect on how shared custody and the equal involvement of both parents in their child’s life was important not only to parents: “I realize that it makes sense for both the father and the mother to have the same time and to equally be part of the family and the children’s lives…. I may be completely wrong, but it seems to me to be a much more accepted idea nowadays” (P3), but also to children: “What makes sense for the children is to have the father and the mother as a reference” (P4).

The collaborative and non-competitive attitude of a father in sharing the children was highlighted: “Every time they [the children] go to mother’s or father’s houses, they come back with joy and excitement…. I think it’s super healthy for them to miss the mother and father equally, right, I’m not measuring, but equally, yes” (P3).

The understanding of the advantages of the plurality of this new family configuration for the child’s development and well-being is observed by another father when he makes a poetic association by pointing out the importance of the presence of both parents: “This [shared custody] gives us different styles and allows the girls … to build their way of relating to things based on that (…). A song with more instruments is a more melodic song…” (P4).

Overall, the fathers strongly emphasized their desire to maintain their role as fathers through their relationships with both their children and the mothers, in order to preserve children’s well-being (Adamsons & Pasley, 2013; Bauserman, 2012; Philip, 2013), which highlights the role of personal motivation to fathering (Cabrera et al., 2014; Grzybowski & Wagner, 2010). Despite divorce being often perceived both as an emotional and practical burden for the children (Kalmijn, 2016; Rejaän et al., 2022; Sarrazin & Cyr, 2007), these parents faced it as an opportunity to improve their parenting roles, offering a better developmental environment to their children. Fathers described how they sought to actively maintain positive relationships with their children, desiring emotional closeness and comfort in their interactions (Bauserman, 2012; Philip, 2013).

The Ideal of Cooperative Coparenting

This theme reflects fathers’ ideal of cooperative coparenting, characterized by cooperation between both parents in planning and executing the child’s care (Feinberg, 2003) to ensure their healthy development (Cabrera, 2020; Neppl et al., 2019). This type of coparenting is achieved through symmetry and quality interaction between the former couple, based on a regular communication relationship about the children, avoiding conflicts or individual disputes (Stright & Bales, 2003). Restructuring coparenting seems to be more difficult at the beginning of the divorce because there are complex feelings involved (Philip, 2013), as two fathers said: “That was my biggest challenge…. Being able to separate well and distinguish the entity of my ex-wife from the entity of the mother of my children” (P3); “It is important to distinguish between my ex-wife and the mother of my children—they are the same person, but with different roles” (P2).

Parents’ adaptation to their new family structure, making possible to establish cooperative coparenting, is described as a process occurring about one to two years after divorce (e.g., Lebow, 2019; Nunes-Costa et al., 2009). The difficulty on cooperative coparenting may be perceived in the description of one father who was divorced for 18 months:

We only collaborate on logistics. Celebrating a child’s birthday, that’s not achieved together. We are very, very competent in merely logistical matters (...) but there isn’t an affective, emotional, and pedagogical coparenting ... it’s a terrain that simply cannot be stepped onto (...). That's what should be co-worked on and it’s not ... it’s not achieved. (P4)

Nevertheless, the two fathers who have been divorced for longer periods were able to recognize their ability current to establish this cooperative coparenting: “We share and talk…. It’s always our way, in different forms, because we are two different people who don’t live in the same environment” (P3). One father reflects on how his behavior has changed, allowing him to better cooperate with their child’s mother: “[Early after divorce] perhaps, I acted alone concerning their growth and personality. Extracurricular things, that is, I didn’t maintain a living relationship with the mother in this sense. I believe that nowadays we already have common concerns about their growth as individuals” (P2).

The improvement in the quality of coparenting was emphasized, as one father, who had been divorced for longer, said: “We try to have a common base of values that guide how we raise our children” (P2). Another described how they worked to avoid conflict and better communicate with each other: “There must be a guiding line and an environment that doesn’t clash with each other. Or that ideally complements each other” (P3). Fathers who have been divorced for longer described how achievement of cooperative coparenting is a gradual process, as reinforced by a father divorced for three years:

It wasn’t a refined process, nowadays it's much more refined (…), being able to fit that person back into my life and realize that it's only good for the kids. A healthy father-mother relationship... capable of creating a new coparenting relationship that will last their whole lives. (P3)

Overall, this theme reflects how fathers valued cooperative coparenting and highlighted how conflictual relationships may be disruptive to parenting (Cabrera et al., 2014). The goal of cooperative coparenting was shared by all of the fathers, and fathers who divorced for a longer time described how they achieved it. Their descriptions uncover the increasing ease in dialogue with the mother of the child after a longer time from the end of the marriage (e.g., Silva et al., 2019; Steinbach, 2019). Our findings also uncovered how despite coparenting difficulties, fathers described themselves as involved with their children and performing their parental activities, contrary to some research on the topic who correspond conflict coparenting to a decrease in fatherhood (e.g., Adamsons & Pasley, 2013; Rejaän et al., 2022). These results may suggest that shared custody by involving fathers’ motivation to participate as a parental figure (Grzybowski & Wagner, 2010) may allow to overcome coparenting difficulties, keeping fathers engaged in their roles.

The Emotional Overload of Fathers in Shared Custody

The fourth theme describes fathers’ emotional overload related to childcare. Fathers reported difficulties in balancing the practical tasks required for childcare with maintaining high-quality parenting and safeguarding their own well-being. One father described this challenge in adapting to shared custody: “Two small children, it was difficult. Everything changes, and it’s a complex process, both for adults and children (…)” (P3). Another father described the changes in his routine: “In the weeks I have them, I have an agenda filled with their activities…. I have different types of appointments” (P2).

Fathers also reflect on the difficulties of managing child routines by themselves:

It became much more complex [after the divorce] because there was no longer that other person to cover my shortcomings. Therefore, it naturally became much more demanding. I strive to make it as perfect as possible (...) obviously not entirely sufficient, but I like to think I manage to be quite complete in that sense. So yes, it became two roles in one. (P3)

Another father adds how being there by himself may decrease parenting quality: “ [Single parenting is a] very monotonous parental … record” (P4).

The balancing between parenting and all the other dimensions of life, such as work, or personal agenda was highlighted as a challenge by some fathers, as illustrated by the following quotes: “Balancing work, personal life, and time with my children has become a difficult burden to manage” (P2);

(…) It has been very demanding... Very demanding. (...) suddenly I felt like a chameleon with one eye looking in each direction. Man ... it dawned on me that now my life is this ... like a chameleon. (P4)

This father goes further by describing the suffering involved in this process: “It’s been a process of a lot of emotional pain (…) because I was an eighty percent father … before the separation, and now I became 100%, responsible for everything alone” (P4).

The burden of balancing work and caregiving responsibilities was depicted in these fathers’ descriptions, which is in line with research on the topic, identifying this balance as one of the main challenges for single fathers without a coparental partner (Gatrell et al., 2015, 2022; Philip, 2013).

This theme also uncovers how, despite fathers agreeing that shared custody is the best solution for parents and their children, it does not happen without pain: “A painful struggle was not being able to be with my daughters … all the time” (P4). One father went further and reflected on how this arrangement may interfere with bonding: “The feeling of absence when they are with their mother is constant and hard to endure (…) I fear that this constant back-and-forth might affect the bond I have with my children” (P2). Another described the emotional challenge of being a “half-time” father and how it affects his emotions: “The pressure to always be the perfect parent in half the time is emotionally taxing, and I make sure it’s as perfect as possible” (P3).

This last theme gathers some of the burdens and challenges related to shared custody. On the one hand, fathers reflect on some of the difficulties of being single parents, in which they need to cover all domains related to childcare. Despite the challenges, fathers perceived parenting as an activity that brings a high level of satisfaction and a sense of fulfilled duty (Dermott & Miller, 2015; Philip, 2013). On the other hand, it uncovers some of the emotional pain related to it, expressed by the burden of conciliating multiple roles, or the distance of their children in the other half period. By reflecting on that, fathers were able to express positive and negative emotions related to fatherhood, which was not common in fathering discourses (e.g., Dermott & Miller, 2015).

Conclusion

The present study aimed to understand how divorced fathers navigate shared custody, through individual interviews. Findings contribute to existing theoretical models (Cabrera et al., 2014; Pleck, 2010) by providing empirical evidence that underscores the multifaceted nature of father involvement. First, fathers demonstrate responsibility for their children’s care and recognize the benefits of having both parental figures present during children’s development. We observed that these divorced fathers were involved through direct interaction, accessibility, and described sense of responsibility concerning their children routines and well-being (Pleck, 2010). Additionally, fathers offered a great emphasis on cooperative coparenting for the well-being of the children, underscoring the crucial role of a supportive environment in their development (Cabrera et al., 2014). Finally, the shared custody arrangement was shown to be a source of reinforcement and renewal in post-divorce paternal involvement, despite the challenge of emotional overload.

Fathers revealed how the separation process introduced changes at various levels, involving redefinitions of parental roles and coparenting, and identified some of its challenges (Pardo et al., 2020; Westphal et al., 2014). They described how shared custody compelled them to transform their daily routines, particularly by investing more in various aspects of childcare, accumulating them with professional responsibilities.

Even though the balance between work and family is often presented as disruptive for parenting, this was not emphasized among our sample (Burnett et al., 2013; Gatrell et al., 2015, 2022). These differences may be due to the specific characteristics of our participants, who typically had some degree of flexibility in their work arrangements. Flexible work has been addressed as an important aspect of decreasing parental burden (Fagan, 2021; Kulik & Sadeh, 2015). However, we may also think that during interviews fathers may want to focus on emotional aspects related to care, rather than professional aspects, due to the increasing value men are putting in family care (Gatrell et al., 2015, 2022). While the effort of these fathers to be involved in childcare must be recognized, it is also important to remember the external aspects that facilitate these fathers’ involvement, such as work flexibility (Gatrell et al., 2015, 2022; Philip, 2013), and a high socioeconomic status (Fagan, 2021; Kulik & Sadeh, 2015), that may enhance their involvement as fathers. Thus, these results should be interpreted with caution, as fathers in different socioeconomic contexts may face additional challenges to active involvement, namely by lack of time and housing conditions (Furstenberg, 2014; Henz, 2019; Parke & Cookston, 2019).

Another relevant finding was how fathers valued cooperative coparenting (N. Cabrera et al., 2014; Neppl et al., 2019). The interviews suggested that despite the coparenting challenges, establishing positive forms of coparenting emerged as a goal of all parents, but some were still limited due to communication barriers between ex-spouses (Fagan, 2021). However, fathers who were divorced for longer periods revealed a gradual ability to separate the marital sphere from the parental one to ensure cooperative coparenting (Amato, 2010; Härkönen et al., 2017). The fathers from our sample seemed to be aware of the negative consequences of negative forms (e.g., conflict) of coparenting can have on their child, and thus try to develop a cooperative coparenting with the ex-spouse.

Finally, fathers reflected on the burdens and challenges related to being a single parent, in full charge of their children, even if for shorter periods (typically, one week). Their descriptions uncover some of the emotional states related to shared custody, namely by missing their children and being worried about the consequences of a “half-period parenting” to the quality of the relationship with their children. These reflections uncover how these fathers reflect a “new fatherhood” (Cabrera et al., 2018) by embracing aspects typically associated with mothers. This finding offers a deeper understanding about the multiple emotions and experiences that may be involved in shared custody, that may not be easily captured by quantitative studies. By exploring them we ensure that they are not overlooked by the scientific community (Abdullah Kamal, 2019).

In conclusion, the four themes provided novel insights about fathering in the context of divorce, specifically shared custody. Participants highlighted the multifaceted roles and emotions they assume as single parents during their custodial times, underscoring the broader and more complex demands they face (Brandth & Kvande, 2018; Miller, 2010). We believe that these findings provide valuable nuance to existing literature and offer a fresh perspective on the evolving roles of fathers in shared custody arrangements (Cabrera et al., 2018; Abdullah Kamal, 2019). One of the key theoretical contributions lies in broadening the qualitative understanding of paternal experiences (Volling & Palkovitz, 2021). Our findings highlight how fathers begin to experience aspects traditionally associated with mothers, such as mental load and concerns about the child’s development (Brandth & Kvande, 2018; Miller, 2011). This perspective challenges traditional gendered assumptions about parenting roles and contributes to the theoretical discourse by suggesting that fathers, too, navigate these dimensions of caregiving. Such insights can inform future research and theoretical frameworks that aim to integrate a more inclusive understanding of parental experiences across genders.

Limitations and Implications

Despite the relevance of the results, some limitations should be mentioned. Firstly, the homogeneity and reduced size of our sample may reflect the limitations of recruitment. Snowball sampling was employed to recruit participants; while this method was effective in reaching suitable informants, it limits the diversity of the sample and may also introduce potential biases in participants’ selection (Stratton, 2023). Furthermore, the time constraints associated with this research, as it forms part of a Master’s thesis, limit the time to reach additional participants. Nevertheless, we believe that, despite sample size, our sample allows to deeper the understanding about fathering in shared custody, aligning with the principles of information power, which suggests that the adequacy of a sample is determined by the richness and relevance of the data rather than its size (Malterud et al., 2016).

Also, the four interviewed fathers belong to the same socioeconomic status, as they were predominantly parents with a higher level of education, living in Portuguese metropolitan areas, and professionally employed with above-average income. The homogeneity and size of the sample limit the generalization of the results to other contexts. This is particularly important as divorced fathers with low income may be less involved with their children due to several challenges: economic constraints and housing instability can limit their ability to provide a stable environment (Fagan, 2021; Waller, 2009); work demands often require long hours or multiple jobs, reducing available time (Futris & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2007; Linnenberg, 2012); legal and custodial issues, compounded by financial difficulties, can further restrict their involvement; transportation barriers, social stigma, and a lack of support systems; and stress, mental health issues, and limited access to educational resources hinder their capacity to engage effectively with their children (Coley & Hernandez, 2006). Thus, future research should explore shared custody processes in parents from different socioeconomic backgrounds, especially those less privileged.

Second, all interviewed fathers proactively established shared custody and alternate residence arrangements at the onset of the separation process. This joint initiative for shared custody could have minimized conflicts during divorce and fostered the development of positive coparenting dynamics. Future studies should explore involvement in parents whose shared custody decision was not a parental initiative but rather legal. A third limitation is interviewing fathers at a single time point. It is important to understand how paternal involvement, coparenting, and shared custody evolve during the child’s development through longitudinal studies.

Fourth, the interviews duration was relatively short for qualitative research, and this can be attributed to several specific factors. First, we aimed to keep the discussion concise and respectful of the fathers’ time, given their busy schedules and personal circumstances. However, during the interviews fathers explicitly said that they had never reflected on these issues before, which made it difficult for them to elaborate during the interviews. This may reflect how little space they had to talk about their experiences, limiting their ability to communicate. Additionally, the interviews were conducted via video call during the COVID-19 pandemic, which in some cases seemed to hinder the creation of a more open and comfortable environment. It is also important to note that some participants were in a particularly sensitive phase, such as after a recent divorce, which may have affected the depth of their responses. Despite these limitations, we believe that the material collected was rich enough to address the research questions.

Our findings allow us to uncover how divorced fathers with shared custody are engaged in their parental roles, being aware of its benefits for the child. This type of parenting reflects a decrease in gender roles in performing parental functions (Allport et al., 2018). It is worth noting that, besides father involvement being important for the child, fathers also benefit from feeling greater well-being in participating in their children’s development. The study enriches the literature by offering a nuanced understanding of fatherhood, emphasizing the importance of context in fathering roles, and suggesting pathways for fostering positive coparenting and greater paternal engagement. The results are important for raising awareness among families, health professionals, and legal practitioners, as well as for promoting public policies that strengthen paternal responsibilities after divorce.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded with national funds from FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, I.P., in the context of the project UID/04810/2020 and CEECIND/04111/2017 to the third author.

ORCID iD

Dora d’Orsi

Author Biographies

Luciane Jensen holds a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology from Ispa – Instituto Universitário. Her research focuses on parenting relationships, fatherhood, and families’ adaptation to divorce in early childhood.

Dora d’Orsi is a PhD fellow at the William James Center for Research, Ispa – Instituto Universitário. Her research explores parenting stress, father involvement, and parental well-being during the transition to parenthood and early childhood.

Eva Diniz PhD, is a researcher at Ispa – Instituto Universitário and a full member of the William James Center for Research. Her research focuses on personal, relational, and social aspects of parenting and early child-parent relationships, with a particular interest in the psychosocial determinants of father involvement using a dyadic approach.

References

Abdullah Kamal

S. S. L. B.

(2019). Research paradigm and the philosophical foundations of a qualitative study. People: International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), 1386–1394. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2019.43.13861394

Adamsons

Pasley

(2013). Coparenting following divorce and relationship dissolution. In Fine

M. A.

Harvey

J. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 241–261). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315820880-16

Allport

B. S.

Johnson

Aqil

Labrique

A. B.

Nelson

Angela

Carabas

Marcell

A. V.

(2018). Promoting father involvement for child and family health. Academic Pediatrics, 18(7), 746–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2018.03.011

Amato

P. R.

(2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 650–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x

Augustijn

(2021). The relation between joint physical custody, interparental conflict, and children’s mental health. Journal of Family Research, 33(3), 613–636. https://doi.org/10.20377/jfr-621

Baker

C. E.

(2017). Father-son relationships in ethnically diverse families: Links to boys’ cognitive and social emotional development in preschool. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(8), 2335–2345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0743-3

Ball

(2010). Indigenous fathers’ involvement in reconstituting “circles of care”. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(1–2), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9293-1

Bardin

(2011). Análise de conteúdo 4 ed. Edições, 70(1977), 99–120.

Baude

Pearson

Drapeau

(2016). Child adjustment in joint physical custody versus sole custody: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 57(5), 338–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2016.1185203

10.

Bauserman

(2012). A meta-analysis of parental satisfaction, adjustment, and conflict in joint custody and sole custody following divorce. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 53(6), 464–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2012.682901

11.

Botelho

(2015). Regulação das responsabilidades parentais. Nova Causa Edições Jurídicas.

12.

Brandth

Kvande

(2018). Masculinity and fathering alone during parental leave. Men and Masculinities, 21(1), 72–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X16652659

13.

Buddelmeyer

Hamermesh

D. S.

Wooden

(2018). THE stress cost of children on moms and dads. European Economic Review, 109(3), 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2016.12.012

14.

Burnett

S. B.

Gatrell

C. J.

Cooper

C. L.

Sparrow

(2013). Fathers at work: A ghost in the organizational machine. Gender, Work and Organization, 20(6), 632–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12000

15.

Cabrera

(2020). Father involvement, father-child relationship, and attachment in the early years. Attachment & Human Development, 22(1), 134–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2019.1589070

16.

Cabrera

Fitzgerald

H. E.

Bradley

R. H.

Roggman

(2014). The ecology of father child relationships: An expanded model. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(4), 336–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12054

17.

Cabrera

N. J.

Volling

B. L.

Barr

(2018). Fathers are parents, too! Widening the lens on parenting for children’s development. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12275

18.

Coelho

F. P.

de Oliveira

(2016). Curso de direito da família: Vol. I: Introdução direito matrimonial (5th ed.). Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra/Coimbra University Press. https://www.centrodedireitodafamilia.org/sites/cdb-dru7-ph5.dd/files/eBook_-_Curso_de_Direito.pdf

19.

Coley

R. L.

Hernandez

D. C.

(2006). Predictors of paternal involvement for resident and nonresident low-income fathers. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1041–1056. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1041

20.

Decreto de Lei

n.° 65/2020 de Assembleia da República. (2020). Diário da República n.° 215/2020, Série I de 2020-11-04. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/lei/65-2020-147533134

21.

Dermott

Miller

(2015). More than the sum of its parts? Contemporary fatherhood policy, practice and discourse. Families, Relationships and Societies, 4(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1332/204674315X14212269138324

22.

Diniz

Brandão

Monteiro

Veríssimo

(2021). Father involvement during early childhood: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 13(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12410

23.

Diniz

Brandão

Veríssimo

(2023). Father involvement during early childhood: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Family Relations, 72(5), 2710–2730. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12858

24.

Doucet

(2006). Estrogen-filled worlds’: Fathers as primary caregivers and embodiment. Sociological Review, 54(4), 696–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00667.x

25.

Emery

R. E.

(2016). Two homes, one childhood: A parenting plan to last a lifetime. Penguin.

26.

Fagan

(2021). Associations between low-income nonresident fathers’ parenting identity and involvement with children. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 22(3), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000295

27.

Fagan

(2023). Children’s contact with fathers who never co-resided with them and father–child relationship quality at age 9. Journal of Family Issues, 45(11), 2802–2821. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X231220037

28.

Feinberg

M. E.

(2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research and intervention. Parenting, 3(2), 95–131. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327922PAR0302_01

29.

Furstenberg

F. F.

(2014). Fifty years of family change: From consensus to complexity. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214524521

30.

Futris

T. G.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

(2007). Mothers’ perceptions of barriers, parenting alliance, and adolescent fathers’ engagement with their children. Family Relations, 56(3), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00457.x

31.

Gatrell

Ladge

J. J.

Powell

G. N.

(2022). A review of fatherhood and employment: Introducing new perspectives for management research. Journal of Management Studies, 59(5), 1198–1226. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12771

32.

Gatrell

C. J.

Burnett

S. B.

Cooper

C. L.

Sparrow

(2015). The price of love: The prioritisation of childcare and income earning among UK fathers. Families, Relationships and Societies, 4(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1332/204674315X14321355649771

33.

Grzybowski

L. S.

Wagner

(2010). Parental involvement after separation/divorce. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 23(2), 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722010000200011

34.

Hakovirta

Meyer

D. R.

Salin

Lindroos

Haapanen

(2023). Joint physical custody of children in europe: A growing phenomenon. Demographic Research, 49(18), 479–492. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2023.49.18

35.

Härkönen

Bernardi

Boertien

(2017). Family dynamics and child outcomes: An overview of research and open questions. European Journal of Population, 33(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-017-9424-6

36.

Henz

(2019). Fathers’ involvement with their children in the United Kingdom: Recent trends and class differences. Demographic Research, 40(30), 865–896. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2019.40.30

37.

Instituto Nacional de Estatística [INE] . (2021). Rendimento e Condições de Vida Condições de vida das crianças: Módulos «Saúde e Privação Material das Crianças» e «Famílias separadas ou reconstituídas». https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_destaques&DESTAQUESdest_boui=544260133&DESTAQUESmodo=2

38.

Izci

Jones

(2021). An exploratory study of Turkish fathers’ involvement in the lives of their preschool aged children. Early Years, 41(2–3), 248–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2018.1521384

39.

Jevne

K. S.

Andenæs

(2017). Parents in high-conflict custodial cases: Negotiating shared care across households. Child & Family Social Work, 22(1), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12240

40.

Kalil

Ryan

Chor

(2014). Time investments in children across family structures. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654(1), 150–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214528276

41.

Kalmijn

(2016). Father–child contact, interparental conflict, and depressive symptoms among children of divorced parents. European Sociological Review, 32(1), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv095

42.

Kulik

Sadeh

(2015). Explaining fathers’ involvement in childcare: An ecological approach. Community, Work & Family, 18(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2014.944483

43.

Lamela

Figueiredo

(2016). Coparenting after marital dissolution and children’s mental health: A systematic review. Jornal de Pediatria, 92(4), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2015.09.011

44.

Lebow

J. L.

(2019). Treating the difficult divorce: A practical guide for psychotherapists. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000116-000

45.

Lebow

J. L.

(2020). The challenges of COVID-19 for divorcing and post‐divorce families. Family Process, 59(3), 967–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12574

46.

Linnenberg

K. D.

(2012). “CinderFella” and first-shift fathers: The effect of work schedule on father involvement. Sociological Focus, 45(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2012.686092

47.

Lizarazu

Cracco

(2021). Implicación paterna post divorcio: Una revisión sistemática. Ciencias Psicológicas, 15(2), e-2408. https://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v15i2.2408

48.

Malterud

Siersma

V. D.

Guassora

A. D.

(2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444

49.

Margolin

Gordis

E. B.

John

R. S.

(2001). Coparenting: A link between marital conflict and parenting in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037//0893-3200.15.1.3

50.

McIntosh

J. E.

Pruett

M. K.

Kelly

J. B.

(2014). Parental separation and overnight care of young children, part II: Putting theory into practice. Family Court Review, 52(2), 256–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12088

51.

Miller

(2010). It's a triangle that's difficult to square: Men's intentions and practices around caring, work and first-time fatherhood. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 8(3), 362–378. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0803.362

52.

Miller

(2011). Falling back into gender? Men’s narratives and practices around first-time fatherhood. Sociology, 45(6), 1094–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511419180

53.

Monteiro

Fernandes

Torres

Santos

(2017). Father’s involvement and parenting styles in Portuguese families. The role of education and working hours. Análise Psicológica, 35(4), 513–528. https://doi.org/10.14417/ap.1451

54.

Neppl

T. K.

Wedmore

Senia

J. M.

Jeon

Diggs

O. N.

(2019). Couple interaction and child social competence: The role of parenting and attachment. Social Development, 28(2), 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12339

55.

Nielsen

(2011). Shared parenting after divorce: A review of shared residential parenting research. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 52(8), 586–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2011.619913

56.

Nunes-Costa

R. A.

Lamela

D. J. P. V.

Figueiredo

B. F. C.

(2009). Psychosocial adjustment and physical health in children of divorce. Jornal de Pediatria, 85(5), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2223/JPED.1925

57.

Oliveira

J. L. A. P.

Crepaldi

M. A.

(2018). Relação entre o pai e os filhos após o divórcio: Revisão integrativa da literatura. Actualidades en Psicología, 32(124), 92–110. https://doi.org/10.15517/ap.v32i124.29021

58.

Olson

Choe

Sameroff

(2017). Trajectories of child externalizing problems between ages 3 and 10 years: Contributions of children’s early effortful control, theory of mind, and parenting experiences. Development and Psychopathology, 29(4), 1333–1351. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457941700030X

59.

Palkovitz

(2019). Expanding our focus from father involvement to father–child relationship quality. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(4), 576–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12352

60.

Palkovitz

Hull

(2018). Toward a resource theory of fathering: Resource theory. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(1), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12239

61.

Pardo

Martín-García

Castro-Martín

Cabella

(2020). Fatherhood after union breakup in Uruguay: Transitory or life-long commitment? Journal of Family Issues, 41(6), 784–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19882960

62.

Parke

R. D.

Cookston

J. T.

(2019). Fathers and families. In Parke

R. D.

Cookston

J. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of parenting (3rd ed., pp. 64–136). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429433214-3

63.

Philip

(2013). Relationality and moral reasoning in accounts of fathering after separation or divorce: Care, gender and working at ‘fairness. Families, Relationships and Societies, 2(3), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1332/204674313X667407

64.

Pleck

J. H.

(2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and theoretical linkages with child outcomes. In Lamb

M. E.

(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 58–93). John Wiley & Sons.

65.

PORDATA . (2021). Número de divórcios por 100 casamentos. PORDATA, Base de Dados Portugal Contemporâneo. https://www.pordata.pt/Portugal/Número+de+divórcios+por+100+casamentos-531

66.

Rejaän

Van Der Valk

I. E.

Branje

(2022). Postdivorce coparenting patterns and relations with adolescent adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 43(7), 1739–1759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X211030027

67.

Ribeiro

N. C.

(2019). A residência alternada e a jurisprudência dos Tribunais da Relação. In Divórcio & família. https://divorciofamilia.com/parentais/residencia-alternada-jurisprudencia/

68.

Sarrazin

Cyr

(2007). Parental conflicts and their damaging effects on children. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 47(1–2), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v47n01_05

69.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Nuttall

A. K.

Berrigan

M. N.

(2022). Couple, parent, and infant characteristics and perceptions of conflictual coparenting over the transition to parenthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(4), 908–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211048954

70.

Silva

L. D. L. da

Chapadeiro

C. A.

Assumpção

M. C.

(2019). O exercício da parentalidade após a dissolução conjugal: Uma revisão integrativa. Pensando familias, 23(1), 105–120.

71.

Steinbach

(2019). Children’s and parents’ well-being in joint physical custody: A literature review. Family Process, 58(2), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12372

72.

Stratton

S. J.

(2023). Population sampling: Probability and non-probability techniques. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 38(2), 147–148. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X23000304

73.

Stright

A. D.

Bales

S. S.

(2003). Coparenting quality: Contributions of child and parent characteristics. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 52(3), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00232.x

74.

Sturge-Apple

M. L.

Jones

H. R.

Suor

J. H.

(2017). When stress gets into your head: Socioeconomic risk, executive functions, and maternal sensitivity across childrearing contexts. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(2), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000265

75.

Summers

J. A.

Boller

Schiffman

R. F.

Raikes

H. H.

(2006). The meaning of “good fatherhood”: Low-income fathers’ social constructions of their roles. Parenting, 6(2–3), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2006.9681303

76.

Volling

B. L.

Cabrera

N. J.

Feinberg

M. E.

Jones

D. E.

McDaniel

B. T.

Liu

Almeida

Lee

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Feng

Gerhardt

M. L.

Dush

C. M. K.

Stevenson

M. M.

Safyer

Gonzalez

Lee

J. Y.

Piskernik

Ahnert

Karberg

Cookston

J. T.

(2019). Advancing research and measurement on fathering and children’s development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 84(1), 7–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12404

77.

Volling

B. L.

Palkovitz

(2021). Fathering: New perspectives, paradigms, and possibilities. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 22(3), 427–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000354

78.

Waller

M. R.

(2009). Family man in the other America: New opportunities, motivations, and supports for paternal caregiving. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 624(1), 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716209334372

79.

Westphal

S. K.

Poortman

A.-R.

van der Lippe

(2014). Non-resident father–child contact across divorce cohorts: The role of father involvement during marriage. European Sociological Review, 30(4), 444–456. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu050

Navigating Shared Custody With Young Children: A Qualitative Study of Fathers’ Experiences

Abstract

Keywords

Divorce and Shared Custody in the Portuguese Context

Involvement of the Divorced Father in Childcare

Coparenting Challenges in Divorced Parents

The Present Study

Method

Participants

Procedures

Measure

Data Analysis

Results and Discussion

Gaining Multiplicity in the Father’s Role

The Decision of Shared Custody and Children’s Socioemotional Adjustment

The Ideal of Cooperative Coparenting

The Emotional Overload of Fathers in Shared Custody

Conclusion

Limitations and Implications

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References