| ISSN: | 1640-1808 |
At mum’s place, at dad’s place, at home. How children do family in joint physical custody arrangements
1
Instytut Etnologii i Antropologii Kulturowej, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Polska
Submission date: 2023-06-05
Acceptance date: 2023-07-29
Online publication date: 2023-10-12
Publication date: 2023-10-12
Corresponding author
Maria Reimann
Instytut Etnologii i Antropologii Kulturowej, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Żurawia 4, 00-503, Warszawa, Polska
Instytut Etnologii i Antropologii Kulturowej, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Żurawia 4, 00-503, Warszawa, Polska
Problemy Polityki Społecznej 2023;61(2):1-15
Maria Reimann tragically died on 20.07.2023. Editorial board has decided to publish this submitted article in unrevised version.
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Joint physical custody of children (JPC) after parental separation or divorce is a new phenomenon both in the Polish legal system and in the everyday practices of Polish families. While the number of couples who decide to share childcare equally after separation is growing, there is still no definition of JPC in Polish law and children who live in two homes are considered at risk of harm. The article presents findings of ethnographic research conducted with Polish children and teenagers who live in joint physical custody. It discusses how children who live in two homes do family and how they make sense of the efforts needed to successfully navigate frequent movement between their two homes. The article focuses on the practices and everyday life of children. It shows that children are not helpless subjects of their parents' choices but competent actors who creatively navigate and make sense of their family lives.
FUNDING
National Science Center, research grant UMO-2020/37/B/HS3/01114
REFERENCES (39)
1.
Altintas, E., O. Sullivan. (2016). ‘Fifty years of change updated: Cross-national genderconvergence in housework’, Demographic Research, 35, 455–70.
2.
Amato P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s. An update of the Amato & Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology. 15. 355–70.
3.
Amato, P.R. & Booth, A. (1997). A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
Bauserman, R. (2002). Child adjustment in joint-custody versus sole-custody arrangements: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Psychology. 16(1), 91–102. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10....
5.
Bergström, M., Fransson, E., Modin, B., Berlin, M., Gustafsson, P. A., Hjern, A. (2015). Fifty moves a year: Is there an association between joint physical custody and psychosomatic problems in children? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 69(8), 769–774. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech....
6.
Bergström, M., Salari, R., Hjern, A. i in. (2021). Importance of living arrangements and coparenting quality for young children’s mental health after parental divorce: A cross-sectional parental survey. BMJ Paediatrics Open, 5(1), e000657. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-....
7.
Bernandes Jon. 1987. Doing things with words. Sociology and “Family Policy” debates. Sociological Review. vol. 35. No 4, pp. 679-702.
8.
Bjarnason T, Arnarsson A. (2011). Joint Physical Custody and Communication with Parents: A Cross-National Study of Children in 36 Western Countries. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. 42. 871-890.
9.
Carlsund A., Erikson U., Sellström E. (2013). Shared physical custody after family split-up: implications for health and well-being in Swedish schoolchildren. Acta Pædiatrica. 102. 318–323.
11.
Christensen P., A. Prout (2002), Working with ethical symmetry in social research with children. Childhood. vol. 9, p. 477–497.
12.
Cieśliński (2015). Praktyka sądowa wysłuchiwania małoletnich w postępowaniach cywilnych w kontekście idei przyjaznego wysłuchiwania dziecka (komunikat o wynikach badania). [Court practice of interviewing minors in civil proceedings in the context of child-friendly hearing (statement on research findings]. Prawo w działaniu. Sprawy cywilne. 24. 221-236.
13.
Clark, C. (2011). In a Younger Voice. Doing Child-centered Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof....
14.
Czech, B. (2011). Pojęcie dobra dziecka [Child best interest concept]. In Kazimierz Piasecki (Eds]. Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Komentarz [Family and Guardianship Code. Commentary]. LexisNexis, Warszawa.
15.
Domański M. (2015). Orzekanie o pieczy naprzemiennej w wyrokach rozwodowych, Warszawa.
16.
Edlung E., I. Öun. (2016). Who should work and who should care? Attitudes towards the desired division of labour between mothers and fathers in five European countries. Acta Sociologica. vol. 59(2), p. 151 – 169.
18.
Greene S., M. Hill (2005), Researching children’s experience: methods and methodological issues, in: S. Greene, D. Hogan. eds. Researhing children’s experience. London, Thousand Oaks. New Delhi. Singapore: SAGE.
19.
Grunow D, Evertsson M. (2019). New parents in Europe. Work-care practices, gender norms, and family policies. Edward Elgar Publishing.
20.
James Alison. (2007). Voice to children’s voices: practices and problems, pitfalls and potentials. American Anthropologist. vol. 109, nr. 2, p. 261-272.
21.
James Alison, James Adrian. 2008. Key concepts in childhood studies. Los Angeles: SAGE.
22.
Jezierski, K. i Rostek, I. (2019). Wspólne wychowanie po rozwodzie jako wyzwanie współczesności. Horyzonty Wychowania, 18(48), 23‐32. DOI: 10.35765/HW.2019.1848.02.
23.
Lansford, J. (2009). Parental divorce and children’s adjustment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745....
24.
Maciejewska-Mroczek, E., Reimann M. 2016. Jak zgadzają i nie zgadzają się dzieci. O (nie)równowadze sił i świadomej zgodzie w badaniach z dziećmi. Przegląd socjologii jakościowej. V. 12, issue 4, p. 42-55.
25.
Monk, D. (2008), Dzieciństwo i prawo. W czyim „najlepiej pojętym interesie”? [Childhood and law. In whose ‘best interest’?]. Mary Jane Kehily (Eds.) Wprowadzenie do badań nad dzieciństwem [Introduction to childhood studies]. Wydawnictwo WAM. Kraków.
27.
Nieuwenhuis, R. (2020). The Situation of Single Parents in the EU. Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs.
28.
Neale B., Wade A., Smart C. (1995). ‘I just get on with it’. Children’s experiences of family life following parental separation or divorce. Centre for Research on Family, Kinship, and Childhood. Leeds.
29.
Nielsen, L. (2011). Shared parenting after divorce: a review of shared residential parenting research. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage. 52(8), 586–609. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10....
30.
Nielsen, L. (2013). Shared residential custody: review of the research (Part II of II). American Journal of Family Law. 27, 123–137.
31.
Poortman, A.-R., R. van Gaalen (2017). Shared Residence After Separation: A Review and New Findings from the Netherlands. Family Court Review, 55 (4), p. 531–544.
32.
Radkowska-Walkowicz, M., Maciejewska-Mroczek E. (2017). ‘O nas się mówi, ale z nami się nie rozmawia’. Dziecko w kulturze współczesnej i badaniach społeczno-kulturowych w kontekście polskiej debaty na temat technologii reprodukcyjnych [We are talked about, but we are not spoken to." A child in contemporary culture and socio-cultural research in the context of the Polish debate on reproductive technologies]. Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica. 18(4). 178-193.
33.
Sikorska M. (2009). Nowa matka, nowy ojciec, nowe dziecko. O nowym układzie sił w polskich rodzinach. Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne, Warsaw.
34.
Sikorska M. (2019). Praktyki rodzinne i rodzicielskie we współczesnej Polsce – rekonstrukcja codzienności, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa.
35.
Smart C. (2006). Children’s narratives of post-divorce family life. From an individual experience to an ethical disposition. The Sociological Review. 54 (1), p. 155-170.
36.
Solsona, M., Spijker J. (2016). Effects of the 2010 Civil Code on Trends in Joint Physical Custody in Catalonia. A Comparison with the Rest of Spain. Population, 71 (2), s. 97–323.
37.
Steinbach, A. (2019). Children’s and parent’s wellbeing in joint physical custody. A literature review. Family process. 58 (2).
38.
Szelewa D. (2015). Polityka rodzinna w Polsce po 1989 roku: od familiaryzmu prywatnego do publicznego. [in]: Hryciuk R., Korolczuk E. (eds) Niebezpieczne związki. Macierzyństwo, ojcostwo i polityka. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, p. 105 – 132.
39.
Vanassche, S., Sodermans, A. K., Declerck, C., Matthijs, K. (2017). Alternating residence for children after parental separation: Recent findings from Belgium. Family Court Review, 55(4), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.1....
| ISSN: | 1640-1808 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
