British Society for Population Studies Annual Conference

University of Manchester, 10–12 September 2008

Shared Residence

A new social category of analysis?

Alexander Masardo

Department of Social & Policy Sciences

University of Bath

ssmfam@bath.ac.ukssmfam@bath.ac.uk

Shared Residence

•Non-resident parents are not an homogenous group.•A form of family life in which children reside with each parent for roughly equal amounts of time by alternating their home life across two households.•A 30–70 spectrum of residence in percentage terms over the year (e.g. Baker & Townsend, 1996) provides a useful framework within which to explore the intersection of resident and non-resident parenting.•Shared residence brings the nomenclature of a resident–non-resident parent dichotomy into question.

The research

•Qualitative in-depth interviews with 20 British & 15 French fathers, accessed through snowball sampling.•Similarities in respondent characteristics could indicate a stronger propensity for shared residence to take place where certain core criteria are met.•Fathers described both structural and relational aspects of managing shared residence.•The need to distinguish shared residence/résidence alternée as a category of analysis in its own right.

The policy framework

•At the heart of policy management: a resident–non-resident administrative division can set parents in opposition to each other.•Many forced into becoming proactive in seeking imaginative ways of turning the system to their best advantage.•A ‘resident parent’ status can be dynamic.•The affordability of shared residence.•A ‘non-resident’ status can be a particular source of hardship for low-income families.

The legal framework

•La loi du 4 mars 2002 reform of ‘parental authority’: challenging a ‘default’ primary carer model.•Differences in approach between Britain and France are becoming increasingly less marginal.•Policy measures aimed at underpinning the notion of coparentalité (co-parenthood).•Distinguishing shared residence as an explicit option will necessitate a revision of the way such practices are considered and measured.

Defining shared residence

• Levels of reported ‘shared care’ vary from between 7-15 percent (e.g. Skinner et al., 2007).

• However, there remains little consensus or understanding of what shared residence entails.

• Arrangements were varied and changed over time, though actual levels of care were sustained.

• Cross-national differences were apparent in the length of residence.

Examples of shared residence ‘cycles’F = father; M = mother

British respondent: Chris (age 36) and Sue – Joel (age 7) and Sam (age 4).

M M M F F F MSun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat

British respondent: Kyle (age 35) and Freya – Roly (age 8).

Week 1 Week 2

F M F F M M F M F M F M F MSun Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat

French respondent: Jacques (age 44) and Mari-Lou – Julian (age 12) and Sophie (age 9).

Week 1 Week 2

M M M M M F F F F F F F M MSun Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat

Division of judicial decisions in France in October 2003 by mode ofshared residence and age of child

Pattern of care a Totalin %

Age0–4

Age5–9

Age10–14

Age15 +

Alternate weeks 80 76 81 79 82À la carte division of care b

according to detailedparenting plan

12 16 12 8 9

Every two weeks 5 7 2 8 0Undetermined pattern of care 4 2 4 6 10Other 1 0 1 0 0

Source: Moreau et al. (2004), based on figures from Ministère de la Justice – DACS – Cellule Etudes etRecherches – Enquête “Résidence des enfants” octobre 2003.Notes: a All figures have been rounded up; b An à la carte pattern of care still involved equal divisions oftime in nearly 80 percent of cases.

Conclusion

• A new social category of analysis?• There are dangers inherent in becoming overly

prescriptive in its definition.• The relationship between public preferences and

judicial decision making.• The need for flexibility.

• The development of shared residence as a category of analysis will challenge a resident– non-resident parent dichotomy.