Gaining access to one's children: An evaluation of a visitation program for noncustodial parents

Fischer, Robert L

CHILD VISITATION

Abstract

Children born out of wedlock often suffer due to Infrequent and limited Interaction with the noncustodial parent. To address this issue, progams have been developed at the federal and state level that attempt to Improve the access of noncustodial parents (primarily fathers) to their natural children. This article describes an access and visitation program and presents findings from a 6-month demonstration In two counties in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia. The program assists noncustodial parents in establishing an access agreement with the custodial parent and In pursuing the establishment of their legal parental rights. In total, the demonstration Involved over 100 noncustodial parents. This report documents the process of establishing and maintaining visitation agreements, and Identifies the principle barriers to establishing visitation. The data on the program came from case files and administrative records and reflect status at 3-6 months after case opening and at case closure.

OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS, there has been an escalation of emphasis in the United States on the collection of child support payments from noncustodial parents (NCPs). This has been accompanied by a lesser, but consistent concern for noncustodial parents' access to their children. Since 1988, a series of demonstration projects have examined ways to improve noncustodial parents' access to their children. This report provides an overview of the Child Visitation Project, an access and visitation pilot program delivered by Families First, a family service agency in metropolitan Atlanta. During the initial 5 1/2 month phase, the program opened 112 cases involving noncustodial parents who wished to have greater access to their natural child or children. This report discusses the background for these types of interventions, the implementation of the Child Visitation Project, the families served, and the observed legal service and visitation outcomes. The report also shows that there is sizable desire among noncustodial fathers in establishing access to their child or children, that such programs can be effectively implemented, and that for many of the families, access can be successfully facilitated. Further, access was accompanied by statistically significant increases in both the amount and frequency of child support payments made by the NCPs in the program.

Policy Context

Divorce and family separation in the United States have led to the break up of large numbers of families since the 1960s. The large majority of mother-custody divorce cases led to increased emphasis on financial child support from noncustodial fathers beginning in the late 1970s. While the enforcement of child support orders often focused on divorced fathers who were not meeting their obligation for a child born in wedlock, a greater emphasis on never-married fathers developed during the 1980s. Frequently, these men were targeted because the mothers and their children were living in poverty and often were receiving cash public assistance. Recent work has shown that the rate of never-married mothers receiving child support grew fourfold between 1976 and 1997 to some 18% (Sorenson & Halpern, 1999). In the 1990s, with an intensified effort to find and collect support from these men, often through private sector contractors, an outcry was heard from several quarters. The fathers' rights movement and the proliferation of African American men's support groups (many growing out of the Million Man March) has led to an examination of how men and their relationship with their children have been impacted by child support enforcement efforts (Bertoia & Drakich, 1993). This was complicated by the widespread practical relationship between the payment of child support and fathers' access to their children. The activity of African American men's groups, along with compelling research findings related to the importance of fathers' roles in their children's lives, produced interest in facilitating the access to and visitation of their children by noncustodial parents.

While a primary consideration with divorced fathers is the enforcement of visitation and access orders, nevermarried fathers frequently are unaware that such orders are not in place, the men may not be aware of or have established their parental rights through legal means. With men in the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) system, frequently paternity has been established in a passive sense, in that the man did not contest the mother's identification of him as the child's father. These men are rarely aware that in Georgia, even though they have been identified as the biological father, because the child was not born in marriage, it is incumbent upon him to establish his legal parental rights through the process of legitimation. This lack of information appears to be particularly prevalent among unmarried African American fathers.

Legislative developments beginning in 1974 with the amendments to the Social Security Act (enacting Title IV-- D), established the federal government as a central player in child support enforcement but left enforcement activities up to the states. These amendments established state child support agencies, state and federal parent locator services and the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Walters & Abshire, 1995). A decade later, the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 were passed, requiring states to improve and strengthen their collection methods. With the comprehensive Family Support Act of 1988, Congress enacted provisions focused on establishing guidelines for child support, implementing immediate wage withholding, and establishing paternity. This Act also funded a set of demonstrations to "develop, improve, or expand activities designed to increase child access provisions of court orders." Finally, welfare reform legislation in the form of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, amended the Social Security Act and funded another round of demonstration projects, this time through child access and visitation grants made directly to the states (Federal Register, 1998, p. 15351). This is prominent among several efforts to assist noncustodial fathers in meeting their financial obligations and increasing their involvement with their children (Sorenson, 1999; Wolk & Schmahl, 1999).

Legal Context

The legal aspects of fatherhood for never-married men have drawn increasing attention in the last 20 years as the incidence of this phenomenon has increased (Levesque, 1993; Schwartz, 1975). The consideration of access and visitation services is closely linked to the legal issues facing unwed fathers in Georgia. While fathers of children born within marriage have automatic legal standing as the child's father, fathers of children born outside of marriage must establish their legal rights as father through a legal proceeding known as legitimation. In nearly all states, when paternity (i.e., biological fatherhood) is established, the legitimation of the child is done concurrently. However, in a handful of states, including Georgia, these two proceedings-paternity and legitimation-are not linked. Therefore, fathers of children born outside of marriage must take action to initiate legitimation, thereby establishing their legal rights as fathers. An emphasis on the establishment of legal paternity overlooks the special circumstances of never-married fathers in this subset of states where paternity and legitimation are not handled concurrently (Nichols-Casebolt, 1988; Nichols-Casebolt & Garfinkel, 1991).

Up until the 1980s, never-married fathers had few, if any, legal rights to their children (Melli, 1986). In a series of cases referred to as the Stanley line of cases, the U.S. Supreme Court established and upheld some liberty interests for unwed fathers. These interests related more to the father's relationship with the child than his biological kinship. However, the Court also found that unwed fathers can be denied certain rights, especially if the mother is married to another man; these rights include the right to gain custody of the child, to have visitation, and to stop an adoption proceeding (Walters & Abshire, 1995, p. 167).

Prior Research

A large body of work exists on approaches to the enforcement of child support orders, particularly after a divorce (Furstenberg, 1995; Peters, Argys, Maccoby, & Mnookin, 1993). There is a complementary set of work on the involvement of noncustodial parents in their children's lives (Braver, Wolchik, Sandler, Sheets, Fogas, & Bay, 1993; Nord & Zill, 1996a, & 1996b; Pagani-Kurtz & Derevensky, 1997; Wolchik, Fenaughty, & Braver, 1996).

Some research has been completed on visitation enforcement programs that have dealt primarily with divorced and separated noncustodial parents, including two rounds of federally-funded demonstration programs (Lee, Shaughnessy, & Banks, 1995; Pearson & Anhalt, 1994; Pearson & Thoennes, 1997; Pearson & Thoennes, 1996). In addition, a fair amount of work has addressed the issues facing young unmarried fathers, including the Parents Fair Share pilot project (Doolittle, Knox, Miller, & Rowser, 1998) and the Paternal Involvement Demonstration project (Howard, Matthews-Rasheed, & Fitzgerald, 1996), and other related efforts (Danziger & Radin, 1990; Marsiglio, 1995; Pirog-Good & Good, 1995; Vosler & Robertson, 1998). These efforts focused on strategies to improve fathers' ability to provide more financial support for their children.

There is also a growing body of work on issues particular to African American fathers (Christmon, 1990; Cochran, 1997; Dallas & Chen, 1998; Hamer, 1997; Johnson, 1998; McAdoo, 1993). However, no substantive work has been found in the literature dealing with issues related to access for never-married fathers. Concurrently, supervised access programs for divorcing parents, focusing on cases in which there are allegations of abuse against the noncustodial parent have drawn increased attention (Straus & Alda, 1994). While such programs were relatively rare a few years ago, supervised visitation programs have proliferated; one association, the Supervised Visitation Network, reports a membership of over 180 programs providing supervised visitation services in the United States and Canada (Straus, Blaschak-Brown, & Reiniger, 1998).

Pilot Program Description

A contractual arrangement between Georgia's Department of Human Resources and Families First established the demonstration of an access and visitation program targeting noncustodial parents (under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act). The program was the first and only demonstration project of its kind in Georgia. The 22-month demonstration accepted new cases from June 1, 1998 to November 15, 1998 and program staff continued to work with these families in an ongoing fashion. A primary goal of the pilot was to identify factors that are associated with establishing successful access and visitation by noncustodial parents. The basic components of the pilot program follow:

1. Identification: Noncustodial parents that desired to have visitation with their child or children were identified and referred to the Child Visitation Project (CVP). During the pilot phase, eligible cases were those in which at one or both of the parents resided in either DeKalb or Fulton Counties.

2. Assessment. The CVP Coordinator conducted face-to-face interview/assessments to (a) determine if the parent was eligible for the program, and, if so to (b) develop a case plan outlining the steps required to establish visitation. At this point the noncustodial parent signed a statement of intent to actively participate in the program.

3. Mediation: A visitation agreement was sought between the parents. If a visitation order already existed, the coordinator worked with both the parents to establish visitation according to the terms of the temporary agreements and/or court orders. If no visitation order existed, the coordinator concurrently (a) referred the noncustodial parent to Atlanta Legal Aid to pursue the establishment of their parental rights (i.e., legitimation action) and (b) began working with both parents to establish a voluntary visitation arrangement. Subsequently, the parents may have been referred to a parent training/coparenting class offered by Families First and/or to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Office.

4. Visitation: Visitation arrangements were implemented and the case was monitored by the coordinator. Supervised visitations and neutral drop-off/pick-up services occurred at two centrally located program offices in metropolitan Atlanta.

The evaluation of the Child Visitation Project focused on (a) assessing the implementation of the project, and (b) identifying the factors associated with success among cases in establishing the noncustodial parent's access to the child or children (Fischer, 1999).

Data on Participants

Background information was collected on all the families that participated in the pilot project. Throughout this report noncustodial parents are referred to as NCPs and custodial parents are referred to as CPs. Table 1 shows data on the noncustodial parents who opened cases. These data show that with the exception of one case, all the noncustodial parents were male; with the exception of one Asian male and one White male, all the NCPs were African American. Interestingly, while the recruitment of NCPs into the program was broadly targeted, the individuals who actually participated were predominantly never-married African American men.

On average, the NCPs were 31 years old, but ranged in age from 18 to 50. Half of the NCPs were in their 20s and an additional one-third were in their 30s. The majority of the NCPs (56%) resided in Fulton County and another 40% lived in DeKalb County. In the remaining cases (4.5%), the NCP resided outside of these two counties but the child or children involved lived in either Fulton or DeKalb Counties.

Overwhelmingly, the noncustodial parents involved in the program were working regularly at intake. Only 9% reported that they were unemployed at intake. This reflects the relatively high labor force attachment among NCPs involved with Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies. Nearly 83% of the NCPs reported making child support payments when they entered the program, though in some cases it is unclear whether these payments were made through the CSE system or to the custodial parent directly. For the NCPs who reported this information, the average monthly payment amount was $262, and the mean payment amount per child was just under $199 per month. Half of the NCPs paid between $165 and $309 per month (1999 dollars).

The cases in the pilot phase involved families of varying sizes and children of all ages (see Table 2). The majority of NCPs (83%) reported having one or two children and the visitation cases most often involved only one or two children (93%). In cases involving one child, 63 percent of children were male, while in multi-child cases, approximately 57% were male. In regard to the age of the children, in cases involving visitation with only one child, the child's average age was 41 years.

In cases involving visitation with more than one child, the mean age of the oldest child was just over 8 years of age, and the mean ages of the other children were approximately 6, 3, and 1 years old. The range in age of these children extended from 2 months of age to 18. Two cases in the pilot phase (1.8%) involved male NCPs with visitation actions dealing with children born to multiple custodial mothers.

Legal and Visitation Status at Intake

At the time they initiated participation in the pilot project, very few of the noncustodial parents had established their legal parental rights (see Table 3). While in almost all the cases (92%), paternity had been established, this had been accomplished as part of the legal process routinely undertaken by Child Support Enforcement. In this process, the child's father is named by the child's mother and he is informed that he is financially responsible for the child. If the father makes no objection, he is identified as the child's father and the court sets a child support award amount. In 12% of the cases, the father had legitimized the child and in 10% of the cases, a visitation order was in place. Cases in which the child had been legitimized or a visitation order exists primarily involved parents who were married when the child was born and subsequently divorced.

At intake to the program, 40% of the NCPs reported they had no access to their children) and another 10% said they could visit with the children) but only in the presence of the custodial parent. Nearly half of the NCPs (46%) said that they had some access to their children) but that the custodial parent controlled this access. A small subgroup of cases (4%) involved NCPs who reported having open access to their child(ren).

Pilot-Phase Process Assessment

The project's implication can be measured most directly using process information collected by program staff. During the pilot period, a total of 173 cases were referred to the project and 112 of these initiated participation in the program. Initially a large number of referrals came from the Child Support Enforcement offices, through advertisement of the program. Many other referrals came from the courts, fatherhood programs, other community programs, and in one instance a custodial parent referred the father of her child to the program. Most of the referrals that did not result in an intake involved noncustodial parents who did not follow through with their inquiry or those involving an out-of-state parent where the program could not meet their needs. All parents who agreed to an assessment interview subsequently agreed to participate in the program.

The data presented in the remainder of the report are based on the 106 cases that had been closed as of the writing of this report. The remaining 6 cases were still active and pending a legal outcome that would impact visitation. Contact between the NCP and program staff consisted of a minimum of one face-to-face interview (see Table 4). Approximately one-quarter of NCPs had more than one in-person meeting with program staff. After the initial meeting, most contact was conducted by phone, with over half of the NCPs having three to six phone conversations with program staff.

In addition, program staff had contact with many of the custodial parents involved in these cases. Over 70% of the CPs had phone contact with program staff, and approximately 10% had in-person contact with staff.

Pilot Phase Outcome Assessment

The second portion of the evaluation assesses how effective the access and visitation services were and what case and family factors appear to be associated with success. This approach looks at each case over time so that the relationship between background and outcomes may be observed. Data on these cases at intake provides a baseline for the program.

Legal services received. A major component of the program involved the pursuit of legal action that would secure or support the noncustodial parent's right to have access to his child(ren) (see Table 5). In total, 90% of the noncustodial parents were referred for legal services (n = 96) either through Atlanta Legal Aid or through a panel of private attorneys.

Nearly 90% of the referred cases were referred for legitimation, 93% were referred for a visitation order, and 3% were referred for paternity establishment. Of those cases referred for legitimation (n = 86), 46% resulted in a legal filing, of which 77% were finalized prior to the closing of the case. Similarly, of those referred for a visitation order (n = 89), 47% resulted in a legal filing, of which 79% were finalized prior to case closure. Only 3 cases were referred for paternity establishment and none of these resulted in a legal filing, though this may have been due to a concern among the NCPs about exposure to financial liability. On average, 3 months elapsed between the time the NCP entered the program and the date that a filing occurred, and an additional 2.7 months elapsed before the filing was finalized.

Among the cases in which no legal filing occurred or the filing was not finalized (n = 55), this mostly resulted from a lack of follow-through on the part of the NCP (80%). The reasons for this included an unwillingness of the NCP to complete the legal process, and NCP nonresponsiveness to phone calls and other efforts to contact made by the attorneys and program staff. Legal Aid staff made several attempts to phone the NCP and if there was no response, a letter was sent informing the NCP that if the Legal Aid staff did not hear from the NCP within 10 days of the date of the letter, the case would be closed. The private attorneys also made multiple attempts to contact NCPs before closing a case. In a recent study of supervised visitation services, Pearson & Thoennes (2000) reported that nearly half of the cases involved in programs at four sites closed due to parental attrition or in their words, "parents simply stopped coming" (p. 134).

Visitation outcomes. In regard to the level of access of noncustodial parents to their children after participating in the program, Table 6 presents the data on this issue. At the time of case closure, visitation had been established in 62% of all cases. In just over one-third of the cases (38%), the level of visitation between the NCP and the children had not changed as yet. Most frequently this was the result of the NCP not following through with the program (75%), the custodial parent residing out of state (12%), or refusing to participate (7%). Clearly, this categorization is rough at best since some cases may require more time or different tactics in order to establish visitation. Overall, more than one-quarter of the cases (28%) ended due to a lack of follow-through on the part of the NCP. While this proportion may seem large, other recent data suggest that within the context of these types of interventions such a rate may be within the realm of normal practice. Pearson & Thoennes (2000) reported on a four-- site supervised visitation study in which 48% of the cases involved (n = 444) ended when "parents simply stopped coming" (p. 135). Across the four sites the rate varied from a low of 27% to a high of 67% of cases terminating due to a lack of follow-through.

Further examination of the visitation outcomes showed that consideration of the recent access history at intake highlights some key differences (see Table 7). While all the cases involved NCPs with no current access to their children, the recent history in the situations varied considerably. Cases wherein the NCP reported having no access for an extended time proved to be the most difficult to influence. One-quarter of these cases showed improvements in visitation within 3-6 months, and onehalf showed improvement by the time of case closure.

Among cases in which the NCP reported controlled access in recent history, nearly 55% had improved access within 3-6 months, while 65% had access by the time of case closure. Among cases where NCPs reported somewhat more access in recent history, 40% showed improvement within 3-6 months, and 87% had access by the time of case closure. Of the 40 cases in which no access was established approximately 75% involved an NCP who did not follow through with the program or was nonresponsive. This lack of follow-through occurred nearly uniformly after the intake meeting with program staff and at the point of referral to legal services. The remaining onequarter of cases involved those in which no further progress was possible: 12% involved a CP who moved out of state, 7% involved a CP who refused to participate, and two cases involved other factors, such as an active restraining order against the NCP.

Support payment outcomes. An additional area of interest is whether participation in the program was accompanied by any changes in the child support payments made by participants. Using data records maintained by Child Support Enforcement, the recent payment histories of program participants were analyzed. Based on the date when the NCPs entered the pilot program, two payment periods were constructed for comparison purposes: the 6-month period prior to program entry, and the 6-month period following program entry. Payments made by the NCPs were aggregated for these two periods and the frequency and mode of payment were noted. See Table 8 for a summary of these data. All payments were made in the period 1998-1999, so reported dollar amounts are unadjusted.

Data on 99 of the 106 closed cases were available for this analysis; in 3 cases the NCP did not have an active CSE case, and in 4 cases, no CSE record could be located. The data on payment behaviors show that the NCPs in the pilot program did significantly increase their child support payments after entering the program. Both aggregate payments and frequency of payments increased between the two periods; overall, average total payments increased by approximately $260, or 44%, and frequency increased by an additional three payments over the 6 months. The share of NCPs making some payment (> $0) increased from 57% in the prior 6 months to 75% in the following 6 months, a significant 17% increase. All these findings are statistically significant, indicating that we would not expect changes this large due to chance alone.

Table 8 also shows the data on cases according to whether visitation occurred during the program. The pattern shows that NCPs who received visitation showed larger increases in amount and frequency of payments. For cases in which visitation occurred, average aggregate payments increased by $295 or 54% over the 6-month period, accompanied by an increase of nearly four payments during the period. The share of NCPs making some payment (> $0) increased from 49% in the prior 6 months to 72% in the following 6 months, a significant 23% increase. Conversely, for cases in which visitation did not occur, average aggregate payments showed a nonsignificant increase of $197 between the two periods. Further, the share of NCPs making some payment increased modestly from 71% to 79% (not statistically significant).

While the change in child support payments is statistically significant and appears to be noteworthy, a caveat should be mentioned in the interpretation of these data. That is, without data on a comparable group of NCPs who did not participate in a visitation program or similar initiative, it is difficult to place the changes in payment behaviors in context. It is unclear whether a similar groups of NCPs might show improved payment behaviors as a result of other factors, such as improved employment and/or compensation on the job, or stepped-up collection methods by CSE and/or the courts. However, in the absence of such data to determine causation, and given the pattern of findings, it is reasonable to conclude that the changes in payment behaviors are associated with the NCPs' participation in the program.

Factors Associated With Successful Visitation

A useful avenue for understanding the factors associated with establishing successful visitation is a direct comparison between cases that did and did not produce a positive change in visitation. Table 9 provides descriptive data on these two groups of cases at intake to the program-those in which visitation occurred (62%) and those in which visitation did not occur (38%). On a number of variables, there appear to be no meaningful differences; however a few patterns do emerge. First, successful cases more frequently involved NCPs who were employed and paying child support at intake to the program. While employment and payment of child support are closely related in a financial sense, this and other research suggests that establishing access is more difficult in instances where the NCP has not been consistently paying child support or payment arrearages, or both exist.

Second, in regard to the children involved in the case, there was no difference in the overall number of children involved. For single-child cases, the gender of the child did not differ between the two groups; however, in successful cases the children involved were, on average, about 1 year older, compared to cases in which visitation did not occur. For multi-child cases, it does appear that cases involving more female children were more successful, as well as cases involving younger children. For example, the oldest children in successful cases were nearly 3 years younger than the oldest children in cases where visitation did not occur. Interestingly, the presence of a prior domestic violence arrest or conviction of the NCP did not appear to play a role in the success of the case.

Third, based on the prior marital status of the parents and the existence of a legitimation and visitation order, it appears that cases in which the child had been born in marriage were less successful in regard to establishing visitation. This may not be surprising given that the program served primarily never-married parents (divorced couples represented 15% of the sample), and that the issues impacting visitation in these post-divorce cases may be more problematic, turning on such factors as prior legal actions and an emotionally charged relationship between the parents.

Fourth, cases in which no access existed prior to the program and in which more time had elapsed since the last contact between the NCP and the child, were less likely to be successful. On average, cases in which access was not established there had been 3 additional months of no contact between the NCP and the child (10.2 vs. 7.1 months).

Other comparative data highlight the differences in the nature and extent of the engagement between the NCP and the pilot program (see Table 10).

Cases in which visitation occurred were active 2 to 3 months longer, on average, than those in which no access was established. Similarly, successful cases were associated with more contact between the NCP and program staff, both in regard to face-to-face meetings and phone contacts. Partially related to greater contact with the NCP in successful cases, these cases also showed greater participation by the NCP in parenting classes and more frequent referral to other related services. Another key factor appears to be the level of contact between the program staff and the custodial parent. In nearly two-thirds of the unsuccessful cases (62%) there had been no direct contact between the program staff and the custodial mother; this was true in only one-quarter of the successful cases. However, it should be noted that in many cases it was difficult for the program staff to acquire accurate information on the location of the CP, due to confidentiality concerns related to CSE records and to a lack of information available from the NCPs. Frequently, accurate contact information for the CP was identified as part of the legal proceedings prepared by the attorneys.

In addition, data on the cases at closure are suggestive of important factors in establishing successful visitation (see Table 11). The success of the legal process is highlighted here as central to successful access. Very few of the cases (6%) in which no access occurred resulted in a filing for legitimation or a visitation order, and none of the cases produced a finalized legal outcome. All of the cases in which the legal process was finalized resulted in visitation.

Lastly, two staff ratings provided at case closure mirror closely the level of success in establishing visitation. Staff rated three-quarters of the successful cases as having improved access at closure, while 95% of the unsuccessful cases were rated as having the same level of access as they had at intake. In regard to the prognosis for the cases, approximately 82% of the successful cases were rated as having a "good" or "fair" prognosis at closure, while 87% of the unsuccessful cases were rated as having a "guarded" prognosis (where guarded is defined as less promising than "fair" but more hopeful than "poor").

The preceding descriptive analysis offers some insights into the factors associated with the successful establishment of visitation in cases involving African American fathers and their children. While none of the highlighted factors should be seen as directly causative or preventative in regard to visitation, taken collectively they do begin to illustrate the attributes of NCPs and the program that may be predictors of success. Further exploration of nonresponse on the part of NCPs is clearly warranted to understand how access might be best facilitated in these circumstances.

General Findings

The data presented in this follow-up report provide a basis for assessing the pilot of the Child Visitation Project. The data show that while in a majority of all cases access can be effectively established between noncustodial parents and their children, there are a number of barriers to success. Based on the case closure data on the 106 cases, the following findings are offered:

Visitation can be effectively established in most cases. In nearly two-thirds of the cases in the pilot phase (62%), visitation did occur between the NCP and the child involved. This represents a 50% increase above the level of contact established within 3 to 6 months of case opening, suggesting the greater time and effort needed to achieve access in many cases (Fischer, 1999). The remaining 38% of cases in which no visitation occurred resulted mainly from either a lack of follow-through on the part of the NCP or a resistance on the part of the custodial parent.

Legal process is closely tied to success. While in many instances voluntary visitation arrangements were agreed to prior to the conclusion of the legal proceedings, the establishment of legal parental rights for NCPs and binding visitation orders appears to be a necessary precursor to ensuring longer term child access. Approximately 94% of NCPs who made a legal filing for legitimation or visitation did get access to their child and 100% of NCPs whose legal filing was finalized had access.

Contact between program and NCP is important indicator of success. Cases that resulted in successful visitation showed substantially higher contact between the program and the NCP while the case was active. Given the interplay between the legal proceedings and the mediation process, the ability to maintain contact with the NCP appears critical. The unsuccessful cases nearly always failed as a result of nonresponse on the part of the NCP. An important aspect of this is establishing contact between the custodial parent and the program staff; this contact is not a requirement for successful visitation, but it appears to be instrumental in facilitating the process.

African American fathers desire contact with their children. These data challenge the stereotype that noncustodial African American men are not interested in legitimizing their children or in having regular ongoing access to them (Johnson, 1998). Most of the men served during the pilot phase were willing to take economic and emotional responsibility for the support of their children. The majority did not want be seen as irresponsible or lazy, but as men obligated and willing to take care of their own children, regardless of whether the relationship with the child's mother continued.

Visitation appears to be accompanied by increases in child support payments. The data from the CSE payment histories of the program participants show statistically significant increases in both the average amount of payments and the frequency of payments made by the NCPs. Overall, comparing the 6 months pre-program to the 6 months after, there was an average increase of 44% in total payments, with the share of NCPs making some payment increasing from 58% to 75%. The increases were larger and statistically significant for NCPs who had visitation with their child while active in the program.

References

Bertoia, C., & Drakich, J. (1993). The fathers' rights movement: Contradictions in rhetoric and practice. Journal of Family Issues, 14(4). 592-615.

Braver, S. L., Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, I. N., Sheets, V. L., Fogas, B., & Bay, C. (1993). A longitudinal study of noncustodial parents: Parents without children. Journal of Family Psychology, /( 1). 9-23.

Christmon, K (1990). Parental responsibility of African-American unwed adolescent fathers. Adolescence, 25(99). 645-653.

Cochran, D. L. (1997). African-American fathers: A decade review of the literature. Families in Society, 78(4). 340-349.

Dallas, C. M., & Chen, S. C. (1998). Experiences of African-American adolescent fathers. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 20(2). 210-222.

Danziger, S. K, & Radin, N. (1990). Absent does not equal uninvolved: Predictors of fathering in teen mother families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52. 636-642.

Doolittle, F., Knox, V., Miller, C., & Rowser, S. (1998, September). Building opportunity, enforcing obligation: Implementation and interim impacts of Parents' fair share. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

Federal Register. (1998, March 31). Child support enforcement program; Grants to states for access and visitation programs: Monitoring, evaluation, and reporting. Vol. 63(61). 15351-15353.

Fischer, R. L. (1999, February). Child visitation project: Report on the access and visitation pilot program in DeKalb and Fulton Counties (GA). Atlanta, GA: Families First.

Fursentberg, F.F. Jr. (1995). Dealing with dads: The changing roles of fathers. In Chase-Lansdale, P.L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (eds.) Escape from poverty: What makes a difference for children. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hamer, J.F. (1997). The fathers of "fatherless" black children. Families in Society, 78(4). 564-578.

Howard, W.D., Matthews-Rasheed, J., & Fitzgerald, J. (1996, June). An evaluation of the paternal involvment demonstration. Center fo Urban Economic Development. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago.

Johnson, W.E., Jr. (1998). Paternal involvment in fragile, African-- American families: Implications for clinical social work practice. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 68(2). 215-232.

Lee, C.D., Shaughnessy, J.J., & Bankes, J.K. (1995). Impact of expedited visitation services: A court program that enforces access. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 33(4). 495-505.

Levesque, R.J.R. (1993). Looking at unwed dads to fill the public purse: A disturbing wave in welfare reform. University of Louisville Journal of Family Law, 32(1). 1-31.

McAdoo, J.L. (1993). The roles of African-American fathers: An ecological perspective. Families in society. 28-35.

Marsiglio, W. (1995). Young nonresident biological fathers. Marriage and Family Review, 20. 325-348.

Melli, M.S. (1986). The changing legal status of the single parent. Family Relations, 35. 31-35.

Nichols-Casebolt, A. (1988). Paternity adjudication: In the best interest of the out-of-wedlock child. Child Welfare, 67(3). 245-254.

Nichols-Casebolt, A., & Garfinkel, I. (1991). Trends in paternity adjudications and child support awards. Social Science Quarterly, 72(1). 83-97.

Nord, C. W., & Zill, N. (1996a). Noncustodial parents' participation in their children's lives: Evidence from the survey of income and program participation, v. 1. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.

Nord, C. W., & Zill, N. (19966). Noncustodial parents' participation in their children's lives: Evidence from the survey of income and program participation, v. 2. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.

Pagani-Kurtz, L., & Derevensky, J. L. (1997). Access by noncustodial parents: Effects upon children's post divorce coping resources. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 27(1/2). 43-53.

Pearson, J. & Anhalt, J. (1994). Enforcing visitation rights: Innovative programs in five state courts may provide answers to this difficult problem. Judges' journal. Spring. 3-7,39.

Pearson, J. & Thoennes, N. (2000, January). Supervised visitation: The families and their experiences. Family er Conciliation Courts Review, 38(1). 123-142.

Pearson, J. & Thoennes, N. (1997). Resolving issues of access: Noncustodial parents and visitation rights. Public Welfare. Fall. 5-14.

Pearson, J., & Thoennes, N. (1996). Evaluation of the child access demonstration projects: Report to Congress. Denver, Co: Center for Policy Research.

Peters, H. E., Argys, L. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R H. (1993). Enforcing divorce settlements: Evidence from child support compliance and award modification. Demography, 30(4). November. 719-735.

Pirog-Good, M. A., & Good, D. H. (1995). Child support enforcement for teenage fathers: Problems and prospects. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 14(1). 25-42.

Schwartz, V. E. (1975). Rights of a father with regard to his illegitimate child. Ohio State Law journal, 36 (2). 1-16.

Sorenson, E. (1999). Obligating dads: Helping low-income noncustodial fathers do more for their children. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, March.

Sorenson, E., & Halpern, A. (1999, April). Child support enforcement is working better than we think. New Federalism Series, No. A-31. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Straus, R B., & Alda, E. (1994, April). Supervised child access: The evolution of a social service. Family and Conciliation Courts Re view, 32(2). 230-246.

Straus, R B., Blaschak-Brown, N., & Reiniger, A. (1998). Standards and guidelines for supervised visitation network practice: Introductory discussion. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 36(1). 96-107.

Vosler, N. IL, & Robertson, J. G. (1998). Nonmarital co-parenting: Knowledge building for practice. Families in Society, 41. 149-159.

Walters, L. H., & Abshire, C. R (1995). Single Parenthood and the law. Marriage and Family Review, 20(1/2). 161-188.

Wolchik, S. A., Fenaughty, A. M., & Braver, S. L. (1996). Residential and nonresidential parents' perspectives on visitation problems. Family Relations, 45. 230-237.

Wolk, J. L., & Schmahl, S. (1999). Child support enforcement: The ignored component of welfare reform. Families in Society, 80(5). 526-530.

Robert L Fischer is senior research associate, Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44106-- 7164; e-mail [email protected]

Author's Note: This work was conducted while the author was serving as director of program evaluation at Families First, a nonprofit child- and family-serving agency In Atlanta, Georgia. The opinions expressed as those of the author alone. This research was made possible through the cooperation of the Georgia Department of Human Resources, Child Support Division. The author would like to thank Russell Eastman, child support enforcement manager, and Quinten Gresham, LCSW, Barbara Johnson, LCSW, and Gerry White, ACSW, of Families First for their efforts in completing this project. Also, thanks go to Michelle Shapiro, M,P.H., for technical assistance In Its preparation.

Manuscript Submitted: March 6, 2000

Accepted: April 27, 2000

Copyright Families in Society Mar/Apr 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved