Observed coparenting and triadic dynamics in African American fragile families at 3 months' postpartum.

A

R

T

I

C

L

E

OBSERVED COPARENTING AND TRIADIC DYNAMICS IN AFRICAN AMERICAN FRAGILE FAMILIES AT 3 MONTHS’ POSTPARTUM JAMES P. MCHALE

University of South Florida, St. Petersburg ERICA E. COATES

University of South Florida, Tampa This report examines coparenting and triadic interactions in 19 unmarried, first-time African American families as fathers, mothers, and 3-month-old infants navigated the Lausanne Trilogue Play (LTP; E. Fivaz-Depeursinge & A. Corboz-Warnery, 1999). Parents in 10 of the 19 families reported coresidence at the time of the 3-month assessment, and the other 9 sets of coparents lived apart. All participating families had taken part in a prenatal intervention emphasizing the importance of father engagement in children’s lives, and in all families, parents reported episodic to regular father contact with the children at 3 months. Analyses of LTP sessions revealed that 9 of the 19 families exhibited high levels of coparenting solidarity—cooperation and family warmth accompanied by low levels of coparenting competition and disengagement. Among the remaining 10 families, competitiveness (verbal sparring, interference) and/or disengagement (repeated, episodic absenting by one or both parents from the ongoing interaction) signaled strain and challenges to solidarity. Differences between the higher and lower solidarity groups were found in father-reported relationship rapport. However, coresidentiality versus noncoresidentiality of the parents did not distinguish high- from low-solidarity groups. A case analysis of one family’s triadic session is presented to elucidate the rich potential for clinical intervention in triadic work with fragile family systems. Implications of the study and its findings for theory, research, and clinical work with unmarried fathers and families, along with limits of the study design and generalizability of findings, are discussed. ABSTRACT:

Este reporte examina interacciones de crianza compartida en familias afroamericanas primerizas y no casadas durante el Juego Tripartito de Lausanne (LTP) a los 3 meses posteriores al parto. Los padres en 9 de las 19 familias participantes no resid´ıan juntos. Todas las familias hab´ıan completado una intervención prenatal que enfatizaba la importancia de la vinculación paterna en la vida de los niños. Los padres en todas las familias reportaron a los 3 meses un contacto del padre con sus niños entre episódico y regular. Los análisis de las sesiones de LTP revelaron que 9 de las 19 familias mostraban altos niveles de solidaridad en la crianza compartida – cooperación y calor familiar acompañado de bajos niveles de competitividad y desvinculación en la crianza compartida. Entre las restantes 10 familias, la competitividad (enfrentamientos verbales, interferencia) y/o desvinculación (repetida, episódica ausencia de la interacción continua por parte de uno o ambos padres) indicaron tensión y retos a la solidaridad. Las diferencias entre los grupos de más alta y más baja solidaridad se encontraron en la armon´ıa de la relación tal como fue reportada por los papás. Sin embargo, la presencia residencial de los papás no distinguió al grupo de alta solidaridad del grupo de baja solidaridad. Un análisis de caso de la sesión tripartita de una familia señala la potencialidad para una intervención cl´ınica en trabajos con tr´ıadas dentro de sistemas familiares frágiles. Se discuten las implicaciones de los resultados del estudio para la teor´ıa, la investigación y el trabajo cl´ınico con papás y familias no casadas, as´ı como los l´ımites del diseño y la posibilidad de generalización del estudio.

RESUMEN:

Work on this project was supported by a grant from the Brady Education Foundation to the first author. We thank Elisabeth Fivaz-Depeursinge for her independent evaluation of one of the featured families’ triadic interactions; Mt. Zion Human Services for their genuine and affirming partnership on this project; the Pinellas County Health Department for their assistance in bringing the study to the attention of area families; Mari Kittle, Jessica Gordon, and Rashid Mizell for their superb efforts in recruiting fathers and mothers to take part in the study; Mari Kittle, Eric Armstrong, and Florence Guillett for their assistance with family interviews and assessments; the many talented interventionists, supervisors, and Family Study Center staff whose ever-sensitive efforts at relationship-building, recruitment, retention, and intervention helped the families who participated feel welcome and valued; and above all, the families who helped provide a deeply meaningful glimpse into their lives, sharing both their triumphs and tribulations. This work, and the impact it may ultimately stand to make in our field, would never have been possible without their trust, generosity, and love and vision for their children. No author has any conflict of interest related to this article. Direct correspondence to: James P. McHale, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida St. Petersburg, 140 Seventh Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; e-mail: [email protected]. INFANT MENTAL HEALTH JOURNAL, Vol. 35(5), 435–451 (2014) C 2014 Michigan Association for Infant Mental Health View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com. DOI: 10.1002/imhj.21473

435

436

•

J.P. McHale and E.E. Coates

´ ´ RESUM E:

Ce rapport examine les interactions de co-parentage de familles noires américaines non mariées durant le Jeu Trilogue de Lausanne (abrégé ici LTP suivant l’anglais Lausanne Trilogue Play) a` 3 mois après la naissance. Les parents dans 9 des 19 familles participant ne vivaient pas ensemble. Toutes les familles avaient participé a` une intervention prénatale mettant l’accent sur l’importance de l’engagement du père dans les vies des enfants. Toutes les familles ont fait part de contact e´ pisodique a` régulier avec les enfants a` 3 mois. Les analyses de séances de LTP ont révélé que 9 des 19 familles faisaient preuve de niveaux e´ levés de solidarité de co-parentage – coopération et chaleur familiale accompagnées de niveaux peu e´ levés de compétition de co-parentage et de désengagement. Parmi les 10 familles restant, la compétitivité (duel verbal, interférence) et/ou le désengagement (absentéisme ou retrait d’une interaction continue répété, e´ pisodique de la part d’un ou des deux parents) signalaient des tensions et des défis a` la solidarité. Les différences entre les groupes ayant une solidarité e´ levée ou bien plus basse ont e´ té trouvées dans le rapport de relation effectué par le père. Cependant la résidentialité des pères ne distinguaient pas les groupes de solidarité e´ levée ou basse. Une analyse de cas d’une séance triadique d’une famille illustre le potentiel qui existe pour l’intervention clinique dans le travail triadique avec des systèmes familiaux fragiles. Les implications des résultats de l’étude pour la théorie, les recherches, et le travail clinique avec les pères non-mariés et leurs familles, ainsi que les limites de la conception de l’étude et de sa généralisation sont discutées. Dieser Bericht untersucht die Interaktion von unverheirateten afroamerikanischen Ersteltern während des ,,Lausanner Spiel-zudritt“ (Lausanne Trilog Play; LTP) 3 Monate nach der Geburt. Bei 9 von 19 teilnehmenden Familien wohnten die Eltern nicht zusammen. Alle Familien hatten vor der Geburt an einer Intervention teilgenommen, welche die Bedeutung des väterlichen Engagements im Leben von Kindern betonte. Alle Eltern berichteten u¨ ber episodischen bis regelmäßigen Kontakt des Vaters mit den Kindern 3 Monate nach der Geburt. Die Analysen der LTP-Sitzungen ergaben, dass 9 der 19 Familien hohen Zusammenhalt hinsichtlich der Erziehung zeigten – Kooperation und familiäre Wärme, begleitet von Engagement und geringem Konkurrenzkampf der Eltern. Unter den restlichen 10 Familien, stellten Wettbewerbsfähigkeit (verbales Kämpfen, Einmischen) und/oder mangelndes Engagement (wiederholtes, episodisches Fernbleiben von der laufenden Interaktion von einem oder beiden Elternteilen) Belastungen und Herausforderungen für den Zusammenhalt dar. Die Unterschiede zwischen den Gruppen mit höherem und niedrigerem Zusammenhalt zeigten sich im väterlichen Bericht u¨ ber die Beziehung. Allerdings ließ sich anhand des Wohnsitzes der Väter nicht zwischen Gruppen mit hohem und niedrigem Zusammenhalt unterscheiden. Eine Fallanalyse von einer triadischen Sitzung einer Familie veranschaulicht das Potenzial für die klinische Intervention in der triadischen Arbeit mit fragilen Familiensystemen. Implikationen der Studienergebnisse für Theorie, Forschung und klinische Arbeit mit unverheirateten Vätern und Familien, und die Limitationen des Studiendesigns sowie die Generalisierbarkeit der Ergebnisse werden diskutiert.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG:

dd:dddddddd3ddddddddddddddddLausanne Trilogue Play (LTP)dddddddddddddddd dddddddddddddddddddddddd19dddddd9dddddddddddddddddddddddddddd ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd3dddddddddddddddddd ddddddddddddddLTPddddddddddd19ddddd9ddddddddddddddddddddd−ddddd ddddddddddddddddddddisengagementddddddddddddddddddd10dddddddddd(dddd dddddddd)ddd/dddddddddd(dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd dd)ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd ABSTRACT:

* * * In their 2010 volume The Myth of the Missing Black Father, Coles and Green noted that African American fathers in the United States are rarely depicted as deeply embedded within and essential to their families of procreation. Instead, stereotypical portrayals of African American men as fathers have been extrapolated from national data on nonmarital births—which have indicated that Black men are least likely (vs. White and Hispanic fathers) to marry or cohabit with their babies’ mothers—to paint a caricature of men who abdicate their responsibility as fathers to their infants and young children. Yet, data summarized by Carlson and McLanahan (2002) have provided a different perspective. Visitation rates among unmarried, nonresident Black fathers are 44%, as compared to 17% of White and 26% of Hispanic nonresident fathers. Nonresidential Black fathers’ provision of caretaking or in-kind support (more than formal child support) is likewise high (Lerman

& Sorensen 2000; Mott, 1994), and nonresidential Black fathers maintain involvement over time longer than do nonresident White and Hispanic fathers (Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1999; Danziger & Radin, 1990; Seltzer, 1991; Stier & Tienda, 1993; Wattenberg, 1993). Clearly, millions of unmarried fathers, even those who do not coreside with their infants and toddlers, show a vested interest in being a coparent to their young children. Yet, perhaps owing to the stereotypical view that unmarried African American families fail to develop meaningful mother–father coparenting relations during their child’s first year, no study has ever endeavored to assess unmarried African American mothers and fathers and their babies together, as a triangular family unit, during the early postpartum months. This study provides preliminary data to begin addressing this unfortunate divide, examining the dynamics of early

Infant Mental Health Journal DOI 10.1002/imhj. Published on behalf of the Michigan Association for Infant Mental Health.

Father–Moher Coparenting in Fragile Families

coparenting and father engagement during three-person African American family interactions, through the conceptual lens of the “primary triangle.” A generation of research has unequivocally confirmed the unique and crucial roles men play in guiding their children’s intellectual and social development. Although capable of being just as nurturing and sensitive with infant children as are women, the roles men play are both additive and complementary (McHale, KuerstenHogan, & Rao, 2004). Even when fathers’ primary contributions are as play partners to infants and toddlers, such contributions nonetheless stimulate early brain and relationship development in a manner known to have lasting effects on later social, emotional, and academic skills and abilities. Fathers help children to engage in divergent thinking and problem-solving, enhance intellectual skill and language development by reading, and foster mastery motivation in their 9- to 30-month-olds (Clarke-Stewart, 1978; Nugent, 1991; Radin, 1994; Yarrow et al., 1984). Yet, perhaps not surprisingly, virtually all of these important studies of roles that fathers play, as well as others typically cited by purveyors of the literature (e.g., Lamb, 2010; Pruett, 2001), were completed with two-parent coresident families (Lu et al., 2010). However, principles of bonding, attachment, security, healthy brain development, social and emotional competence, and preschool readiness are every bit as salient for children growing up in families where parents are not married and fathers are not coresident as those in families where parents are married and share a domicile together with the child. Meaningful engagement by noncoresidential fathers is greatly facilitated when unmarried mothers and fathers form strong, positive coparenting alliances (Carlson, McLanahan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2008; Fagan & Barnett, 2003; Fagan & Palkovitz, 2007). Positive coparenting alliances are a formidable protective factor for all children. They foster competence in the parenting role, help parents feel less distressed and more capable of handling challenges, protect against abuse, and promote healthy infant and toddler development (Fagan & Palkovitz, 2007; Florsheim et al., 2003; McHale, 2009; McHale & Lindahl, 2011, Minuchin, Colapinto, & Minuchin, 2007). However, in families headed by unmarried parents (often referred to in the literature as “fragile families;” see McLanahan & Carlson, 2002), the impediments to developing a positive coparenting alliance can be formidable. In the United States, challenges can be especially daunting for African American families in the underclass, where nonmarriage often owes to poverty and economic instability. Low-income, young African American men encounter multiple barriers in their efforts to synchronize work and family participation (Roy, 2005), and many low-income, young African American women’s strategic relational choices are influenced by concerns about immaturity and readiness to commit, fear of or anger about sexual infidelity, gender mistrust, and concerns about children from prior unions (Carlson, McLanahan, & England, 2004; Edin, 2000; Furstenberg, 2001; McLanahan, et al., 2003; Ooms & Wilson, 2004). Despite these challenges, 93% of expectant, unmarried mothers surveyed in the large-scale Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWB; McLanahan & Carlson, 2002) reported want-

•

437

ing the child’s father involved in the baby’s life—including two thirds of mothers no longer even in relationships with the father when the child was born (also see Gaskin-Butler, Engert, Markewitz, Swenson, & McHale, 2012). Ninety-nine percent of expectant, unmarried fathers surveyed by the FFCWB reported a wish to help rear their child, and over 80% of FFCWB fathers saw mothers episodically during her pregnancy. This is relevant, as the father’s maintenance of rapport and communication with their baby’s mother after they have learned of the pregnancy is a key factor in predicting whether African American fragile families will develop a sustained coparenting alliance after the baby’s birth. According to Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project data, unlike White and Hispanic fathers, whose nonresidential status at birth is the best prognosticator of the timing of eventual inaccessibility to their children, the best predictor for African American fathers is actually not their nonresidential status at birth but whether the fathers were involved during the pregnancy (Shannon, Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda, & Lamb, 2009). After children are born, it is the nature of the coparenting alliance that unmarried parents go on to create (or fail to create) that stands as a critical determinant of whether fathers will stay involved. Carlson et al. (2008) found that coparenting between noncoresident FFCWB parents during infancy strongly predicted later father involvement whereas early father involvement only weakly predicted later coparenting. Unfortunately, in these important and seminal studies of the evolving coparenting alliance between unmarried mothers and fathers of young infants in higher risk communities, research protocols have never included triangular observations of the two parents and baby together. Rather, self-reports of children’s mothers, and when possible, fathers, have been the primary source of data. This investigation focuses on these previously unstudied mother– father–baby interactions among unmarried families, drawing from a representative lower income urban community in the Southeastern United States (population: 924,413). In the catchment area from which study participants were recruited, 84% of residents are African American, and 94% of children are born to families in which mothers are unmarried. African American families in the community studied are not unlike millions of Black families in urban U.S. communities in the challenges they confront every day. Maternal and infant health disparities between White and Black populations are substantial. In the community studied, Black infants are 2.6 times more likely to die before age 1 year than are White babies, and twice as likely as White babies to be born with clinically low birth weights. Forty-five percent of Black children under 18 live below the poverty level, as compared with 10% of White children. Neighborhoods in the study’s target sectors are plagued by high crime rates. Unemployment is 16%, median income less than $7,000, and over 50% of adults lack a high-school diploma. The targeted catchment area has the region’s greatest racial disparity in healthcare, and it has been a target of initiatives concerned with cancer, diabetes, and HIV/AIDs. In these ways, families described in this report share community and life circumstances reflective of countless lower income fragile families in the


438

•


United States. Yet, they are a group about whom little is known regarding early coparenting and triadic interactions.

COPARENTING AS A TRIADIC CONSTRUCT

The absence of triadic data from large-scale studies of fragile family systems in the United States is a major gap in the field’s existing knowledge base (McHale, Waller, & Pearson, 2012). Unfortunately, while the promotion of mother–father–child coparenting in fragile families is by definition a triadic undertaking (McHale & Lindahl, 2011), virtually all existing infant mental health and other writings about unmarried, noncoresident families have been implicitly guided by dyadic theoretical models (McHale, 2007a). That is, work is done with the father to promote the father–child relationship, and/or work is done with the mother and father to promote relationship enhancement, which is then expected to trickle down to positively affect dyadic parent–child relations. At best, existing frameworks have employed 2+1 models (emphasizing how fathers can support mothers’ efforts). The triadic mother– father–baby alliance as a unique, distinctive unit and force in the family related to, but separable from, dyadic infant–parent relationship subsystems has been almost altogether absent in research and clinical work with fragile families (McHale et al., 2012). Absent triangular conceptualizations, any mission to help unmarried men and women to co-create a meaningful and enduring coparenting alliance for their shared child is severely compromised from the start. Triadic conceptualizations have been exemplified over the past 15 years in the infant–family mental health literature by studies of the “primary triangle” (Fivaz-Depeursinge & CorbozWarnery, 1999). Evaluations of families in the Lausanne Trilogue Play (LTP) have indicated that signs of strength and risk can be detected during the earliest postpartum months, have prognostic value, and help to inform case conceptualizations and interventions (Favez, Frascarolo, Lavanchy Scaiola, & Corboz-Warnery, 2013; Fivaz-Depeursinge & Corboz-Warnery, 1999; Fivaz-Depeursinge & Philipp, 2014; McHale, 2007b). However, no study has ever sought to bring unmarried African American mothers and fathers together with their infants during the early postnatal months to similarly begin documenting and understanding the early family patterns characteristic of these primary triangles. Hence, this report provides the first such glimpse into the early emerging coparenting and triangular dynamics of such families. In this study, we describe coparenting patterns of 19 different families at 3 months’ postpartum. We examine whether greater coparenting solidarity is shown by coresidential families and/or by those families in which parents report a more positive mother–father relationship, regardless of coresidentiality by the baby’s father. For clinical purposes, we then also feature a case illustration to elucidate particular coparenting and family processes that interventionists working with fragile family triads might attend to and capitalize on in efforts to help foster greater coparenting coordination and solidarity in such family systems.

METHOD Participants

Nineteen unmarried African American families took part in this study. Mothers (M = 23.09, SD = 5.11, range = 14–35) were slightly younger than were fathers (M = 25.51, SD = 7.22, range = 14–53); 3 mothers and 2 fathers were under 18 at the point of intake into the study during the second or third trimester of the pregnancy. This was a low socioeconomic sample; all coparents reported earnings in 2012 and 2013 that were more than 200% below the poverty line. Although this was the first baby together for all 38 study participants, 6 mothers and 5 fathers already had children from prior relationships. In 100% of the families, the father was present at the hospital at the time of the baby’s birth, and he had his name placed on the child’s birth certificate.

Recruitment

All 38 participants were involved in a longitudinal investigation of the transition to coparenthood in fragile families and completed a prenatal intervention (“Figuring It Out for the Child [FIOC]”; McHale, Gaskin-Butler, McKay, & Gallardo, 2013) emphasizing the importance of early coparenting. For the parent study, a total of 56 mothers were referred by community agents during the recruitment phase for the project. Referral agents (Health Department Healthy Families staff, faith-based organizations, area pregnancy centers and OBGYNs) were appraised that a family was a candidate for the study if the baby’s father had expressed an interest in being involved during the pregnancy and if there were no known intimate partner violence concerns. From the 56 referred women, 34 (61%) expressed interest in the study. Two of the 34 who expressed interest were not eligible because of concerns identified on a domestic violence prescreen survey completed by the mother. Given an interested and eligible mother, successful recruitment of the father was accomplished in 88% (28 of 32) of cases. Twenty of the 28 consented-in families (71%) fully completed the six-session intervention and seventh (booster) session. Of the 8 families (29%) who did not, only 1 family was formally a noncompleter (discontinuing after completing five sessions because of legal complications); the other 7 families never began the FIOC intervention for various reasons (fetal demise, moved out of area, encountered work or other time conflicts). The 19 (of 20) completer families whose interactions are described in this article comprise all families for whom 3-month assessments had been completed at the time of this special issue. With respect to the representativeness of the family participants in this study, there were no significant differences between demographics of our sample at the point of intake and those of the national FFCWB study, with one exception. Just under half of the mothers (42%) and just over half of fathers (58%) in the current study expressed optimism as to the possibility that they may one day marry, a significantly lower proportion than those expressing similar optimism in the FFCWB study (Waller & McLanahan, 2005).



FIGURE 1.

•

439

Mother–father–baby Lausanne Trilogue Play interaction.

Procedure

All families, including the family whose interactions we detail in the case description, were assessed at 3-months’ postpartum in a university-based Family Study Center. Parents were both present for the 3-month sessions, as was the baby. Parents first individually completed the FFCWB interview protocol, administered by trained research assistants, covering topics such as father contact, residentiality, and current status of the mother–father relationship. FFCWB interviews lasted an average of 40 min. Parents then completed Fivaz-Depeursinge and Corboz-Warnery’s (1999) LTP procedure. The LTP has four parts: (a) First, one parent (the “Active Parent”) plays with baby while the other parent (the “Third Party Parent”) is just present; (b) the parents switch roles; and then (c) all 3 family members play together, after which (d) both parents are Active and the baby is placed in the Third Party position. Parents were advised that they could decide when to transition from one part to the next. Average session length for the interactions was 8 min, and parents were debriefed regarding the purpose of the interactions following the LTP. The instructions were as follows: “Today, we will ask you to play as you might when the three of you are together with one another. The play will have four parts. In the first part, one of the parents will play with the baby while the other will stay simply present; in the second part parents will change their role and the parent that was simply present in the first part will play with baby while the other will stay in the third-party position; in the third part both parents will play together with baby and then, in the fourth part, parents will talk together and it will be the baby’s turn to stay simply present”. Although standard instructions were used, a number of families appeared to have misunderstood

or misinterpreted the instructions for Part 4. Hence, only Parts 1 through 3 were examined in the formal coding completed by two experienced family researchers. Parents were seated in a triangular configuration, with the infant placed in a specially constructed infant seat that could be placed at chest height for the parents, enabling the baby to be a full and interactive partner with the parents during play. The LTP was video-recorded, and two different camera angles were used; one behind the parents to enable views of the baby’s positioning and gaze (see Figure 1), and the other behind the baby to afford the same views of the parents. The seat was constructed by the same orthopedic firm that builds the apparatus for the Lausanne studies. It could be swiveled so that the baby faced either parent or stayed in midline. Measures

Socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status (SES) refers to access to economic and social resources and the social positioning, privileges, and prestige that derive from these resources (Hauser & Warren, 1997; Mueller & Parcel, 1981). In this study, the FFCWB schedule was used to assess household earnings, which serves as a proxy indicator of SES. Median family income was $10,000 to 14,999 in 2013 U.S. dollars. One third of all respondents (32.8%) earned less than $5,000 (vs. 20% of the FFCWB sample); 25% reported having had no meaningful work or source of income during the past year. Father Coresidentiality. Parents reported on whether the father was living together with mother and baby. Parents in 10 of the 19 families reported coresidence at 3 months’ postpartum, and


440

•


the remaining 9 families reported living apart (Fathers in the noncoresidential families reported that they were currently living with either origin family members or with extended blood or fictive kin.) Regularity of time fathers spent with the baby. To estimate the regularity of time that fathers spent with the baby during the past month, we used the measure of father engagement from the FFCWB study. Both mothers and fathers rated regularity of involvement on a scale that ranged from 1 (never) to 6 (daily). Maternal and paternal reports were significantly correlated, r = .50, p < .01. Current quality of the mother–father relationship. Overall quality of relationships was reported by mother and by father on the Positive Quality in Relationships Scale and the Negative Quality in Relationships Scale (Fincham & Linfield, 1997). Each scale is a three-item global assessment of positive or negative relationship quality, with items rated on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely) (hence yielding a possible range of scores from 0 to 30). The scales are valid for use with married couples (making reference to marriage quality) as well as unmarried partners (making reference to relationship quality; Mattson, Paldino, & Johnson, 2007). In that a number of the unmarried partners in the current sample also were noncoresident, we assessed the reliability of the Positive and Negative Quality in Relationships Scales with parents in the current sample. The Positive Quality in Relationships Scale demonstrated good internal consistency for mothers (α = .94) and satisfactory internal consistency for fathers (α = .69), and the Negative Quality in Relationships Scale demonstrated good internal consistency for both mothers (α = .94) and fathers (α = .95). Assessments of coparenting assessed during triadic interactions. Coparenting during the LTP was evaluated using the 3-month version of the Coparenting and Family Rating System (CFRS; McHale, Kuersten-Hogan, & Lauretti, 2000; McHale, Kazali et al., 2004). The CFRS 3-month version previously has been used with and was validated for working-class samples. It allows for both the assessment of micro-events and the coding of global coparenting processes capturing cooperation, warmth, sensitivity, competitiveness, verbal sparring, overstimulation, and disengagement. Infant distress during the interactions also is assessed. Ratings were completed by two coders who were experts in using the CFRS with diverse samples. Intraclass correlations for the rated variables, completed for a subset of 10 cases, ranged from .66 (family warmth) to .89 (competition). The CFRS system, described in extensive detail elsewhere (McHale, 2007b; McHale, Kazali et al., 2004), is detailed in the Appendix. Next, we briefly summarize each scale. Cooperation captures the degree to which coparents support one another’s interactions with their infant. Typical indicators include shows of affection, use of humor, benign or active support, and (during LTP Part 3) active coaction between parents (as when parents synchronize their activities with the infant, such as

swinging the baby’s hands in unison, singing a song together). A high rating signifies coparents who engage meaningfully together throughout the interaction, and cooperate, affirm, and support one another at multiple points during the play. A low rating indicates coparents who fail to show mutual coordination and cooperation in their activities, with a propensity toward separatism and absence of any sense that the coparents are collaborating together as a unit. Family Warmth captures the overall sense of pleasure and positive regard. Parents demonstrating high levels of warmth typically smile at and use touch with the baby, and may use playful, gentle, and/or affectionate voice tones; when conveying warmth with and toward the coparent, parents may smile, use touch, make eye contact, and/or laugh simultaneously. A high score indicates clear and multiple moments of positive affective connection between both parents and the baby as well as between the coparents. A low score signifies that there were no demonstrations of warmth between the parents and that the parents’ engagement with the baby was exceptionally somber and reserved. Midrange scores are assigned to families demonstrating moderate warmth in certain, but not all, dyadic subsystems. Coparents’ Sensitivity toward Baby captures the extent to which the coparenting partners, as a partnering unit, effectively attend to and respond contingently and appropriately to both subtle and pronounced signals from the infant. At the high end, both parents appear exquisitely attuned to the child’s signals and show no evidence of misreading or ignoring cues. Low scores signify families in which one or both partners repeatedly appear grossly oblivious to the infant’s signals and comfort level. Competition captures the degree to which parents intrude upon and interfere with one another’s interactions with their infant. Examples include introducing new stimuli to a baby who is engaged with the other partner, flirting or talking with the baby when supposedly in the role of the third party during Parts 1 and 2 of the LTP, and making comparative statements such as “Look at Mommy, don’t look at Daddy.” High ratings are given to families that exhibit numerous clear instances of competitive behavior. Low ratings signify families who refrain from showing any comparative, antagonistic, or competitive remarks or behaviors during all parts of the LTP. Verbal Sparring captures the frequency of verbal jabbing between the partners. The “sparring” must be a sequence of one partner making a remark and the other retaliating. The variability built into this measure is intended to accommodate “playful” insults at midrange values, and clear-cut criticism and disapproval at the high end. A low rating on this scale indicates little to no evidence of any back-and-forth ribbing or kidding at any time. A high rating indicates multiple instances of back-andforth exchanges that are unquestionably hostile or contentious in nature. Degree of Overstimulation captures the degree to which the parents’ bustle and level of activity, collectively, exceeds infant comfort levels and comes to overwhelm and/or disorganize



the baby. Parents can overwhelm via facial, verbal, or tactile stimulation, or a combination of these. Low ratings signify that both parents’ activity is tolerable, measured and modulated, and never intense or unexpected. A high score indicates levels of parental overstimulation that are too intensive throughout the session. Disconnection/Disengagement captures the degree to which the family interaction conveys a sense of “two-ness,” “non-threeness,” or (to a lesser degree) separateness. Although ratings of disconnection are typically based principally on the behavior of one partner, the rating is assigned to the family process and not to the individual, per se. A low score signifies no evidence of disinterest or disinclination to engage by either partner at any point during the entire interaction. A high score signifies parents who clearly convey repeated signs of disconnection from the partner– baby interaction. Distress of Baby captures protest and upset exhibited by the baby over the course of the LTP session. Distress is rated independently from parental overstimulation or sensitivity. Infants can signify distress by crying, squirming, fussing, shifting of body posture, or shifting eye gaze to avoid stimuli. A low score signifies no evidence, or brief isolated instances, of discomfort or signs of distress. A high score signifies infants who show signs of distress for a considerable portion of the session. Assessment of the family alliance during LTP sessions: “Grid for Trilogue Evaluation of the Centre for Family Study (GETCEF)” system. We collaborated with E. Fivaz-Depeursinge at the Centre d’Etude de la Famille in Switzerland to evaluate one of the intriguing high-solidarity families in this study. Fivaz-Depeursinge, Cornut-Zimmer, Borcard-Sacco, and Corboz-Warnery’s (1997) GETCEF system, which affords clinically meaningful insights into family interactive patterns through global coding of these interactive patterns, was used for this purpose. In the GETCEF evaluation, four hierarchically embedded functions—participation, organization, focalization, and affective contact (see Frascarolo, Favez, Carneiro, & Fivaz-Depeursinge, 2004)—are coded. Participation refers to the partners’ readiness to interact, focusing on the extent to which everyone is included in the interaction. Organization refers to roles, focusing on the degree to which everyone honors their roles as an active or a third-party participant. Focalization refers to whether the family maintains a joint focus of attention in the games. Affective contact describes the quality of attunement between parents and baby. Coders take account of several indicators revealed at three nonverbal communication levels (pelvis, torso, and head and gaze) and of the quality of the family games (for extensive details, see Frascarolo et al., 2004). RESULTS

The results are presented in three sections. In the first section, we provide descriptive data for key variables of interest and summarize the overall patterning of coparenting interactions across the 19 families who participated. In the second section, we note ways

•

441

in which the residentiality, father contact, and couple relationshipquality variables we examined did or did not distinguish among families who showed evidence of greater or lesser solidarity. Finally, we present a case description of the family also independently evaluated by Fivaz Depeursinge with the GETCEF rating system. Overall Patterning of Coparenting Interactions

Table 1 provides descriptive data for mother- and father-reported father contact, positive and negative relationship quality, and for the coparenting and family observational ratings derived from coding of the LTP. Both mothers and fathers described fathers’ contact with the baby as at least episodic; daily contact was reported by all residential families. Positive and negative relationship quality varied widely for both mothers and fathers. Overall, coparenting and triadic dynamics revealed evidence of both coparenting collaboration and connection (cooperation, family warmth), and coparenting challenges and strains such as intrusiveness, gross misattunement, critical commentary, or disengagement by the parents. This variability can be seen most clearly in Table 2, which summarizes the overall patterning of scores across the 19 participant families seen at 3 months’ postpartum. As shown in Table 2, in 9 families (Families A–I), CFRS ratings that signify coparenting collaboration and connection were high, and CFRS ratings signifying coparenting challenges and strains were low. Of the remaining 10 families, another 7 also exhibited moderate levels of cooperation and warmth and/or sensitivity, but did so in the context of high levels of competition (Families J, L, M, and N), high levels of disengagement (Families P and Q), or both (family K). These families are of interest in that they revealed some level of coparenting and family strength that provided at least some balance for the evident signs of coparenting strain and challenge. The remaining three families (Families O, R, and S) were distinctive in more worrisome ways. In Family O, led by two younger teen coparents, mother and father were restrained and tentative with their baby. Their interaction revealed an ebbing and flowing of attentiveness to and responsiveness toward the baby, shown episodically by first parent and then the other one. Attentiveness by one parent was typically not synchronized with attentiveness by the other, and both parents’ bouts of responsive engagement were interspersed with episodic bouts of disconnection (yawning, checking cell phones, and missing infant cues). Family R exhibited what appeared to be a quiet hostility, characterized by extended periods of “checking out” as the other parent engaged with the baby, and punctuated by occasional critical (and borderline hostile) exchanges, all in the context of low levels of positive affect or warmth. Finally, in Family S, neither parent was able to mount and sustain any prolonged engagement with the baby. Exchanges were subdued and matter-of-fact, and both parents (though more so for the father) disconnected almost completely at times throughout the play, sitting with his head in his hands, texting on his cell phone, or looking off into the distance while the coparent interacted with the child.


442

•


TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables Range M Variable

M

SD

Father–Child Contact Mother–Father Relationship Quality Positive Quality Negative Quality Coparenting Collaboration Cooperation 4.53 Family Warmth 4.68 Sensitivity to Baby 4.47 Competition 2.89 Verbal Sparring 2.42 Overstimulation 2.05 Disengagement 2.95 Distress of Baby 2.53

SD

Actual

Mothers

Fathers

Mothers

Fathers

Potential

5.47

5.56

.77

.92

24.61 11.11

25.28 9.94

7.11 8.53

5.76 8.00

Mother

Father

1–6

3–6

3–6

0–30 0–30

5–30 0–27

11–30 0–22

1.95 1.53 1.26 2.16 1.43 1.35 1.65 1.47

1–7 1–7 1–7 1–7 1–5 1–7 1–7 1–7

All

1–7 1–7 3–6 1–7 1–5 1–6 1–6 1–6

N = 19.

TABLE 2. Triadic Interaction Scale Ratings Cooperation

Family Warmth

Sensitivity to Baby

Competition

Verbal Sparring

Overstimulation

Disengagement

Distress of Baby

Family A Family B Family C Family D Family E Family F Family G Family H Family I

7 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5

7 6 6 5 6 5 5 6 4

6 6 4 6 6 6 6 4 4

3 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 1

2 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 1

2 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 2

2 3 3 1 1 2 4 2 1

2 1 4 1 2 3 5 2 2

Family J Family K Family L

5 4 3

6 6 3

4 4 3

7 6 5

5 3 4

4 6 2

2 2 2

2 2 4

Family M Family N

4 3

5 3

3 6

7 6

3 5

4 2

5 1

1 2

Family O Family P Family Q Family R Family S

3 3 3 1 1

3 4 5 3 1

4 3 4 3 3

2 2 1 2 1

1 2 2 5 1

2 1 1 1 1

4 5 5 5 6

1 6 4 1 3

N = 19.

In looking across the full range of coparenting and family dynamics (Table 2), the clinical impressions of both CFRS coders were that Families A through I all demonstrated significant strengths and signs of interadult collaboration and connection. By contrast, Families J through S all exhibited signs of challenges and strain ranging from moderately to severely concerning. As a means of establishing partial validation for these clinical impressions, we completed factor analyses with the seven parent-directed

CFRS variables rated (Baby’s distress was excluded from these analyses.)1 This analysis indicated a two-factor solution account1 We recognize and acknowledge that factor analyses with a small number of participants and low subject-to-measures ratio is far from ideal; although a survey of 1,076 journal articles utilizing principal components analysis or exploratory factor analysis in psychology (Costello & Osborne, 2003) revealed that 41% of peer-reviewed, published studies have utilized less than a 5:1 subject-to-item ratio, Gorsuch (1983) and Hatcher (1994) recommended a



TABLE 3. Means of Residential and Nonresidential Fathers on Triadic Interaction Scales Residential Variable Cooperation Family Warmth Sensitivity to the Baby Competition Verbal Sparring Overstimulation Disengagement Distress of Baby

Nonresidential

M

SD

M

SD

t(17)

p

4.60 5.20 4.30 2.60 3.50 2.10 3.50 2.80

1.96 1.03 1.25 2.12 1.51 1.73 1.51 1.81

4.44 4.11 4.67 3.22 2.33 2.00 2.33 2.22

2.07 1.83 1.32 2.28 1.66 0.87 1.66 0.97

−.17 −1.62 .62 .62 .07 −.16 −1.61 −.85

.87 .12 .54 .55 .95 .88 .13 .41

N = 19.

ing for 86% of the variance in scores. Cooperation, family warmth sensitivity, and (a negative loading for) disengagement defined the first factor; and competition, verbal sparring, and overstimulation defined the second factor. We created composite scores by summing raw scores for the constituting variables and labeled the first composite variable Family Harmony (M = 11.73, SD = 5.86, range = 0–19) and the second composite variable HostilityCompetitiveness (M = 7.37, SD = 4.23, range = 3–16). Of note, these two factors closely mirror factors identified in previous studies employing the CFRS (e.g., McConnell & Kerig, 2002; McHale, 1995). Analyses of variance indicated that these two empirically derived factors significantly differentiated the two groups described in Table 2 (Families A–I; Families J– S). As a group, Families A through I had significantly higher Family Harmony scores (M = 15.0) than did Families J through S (M = 6.9, F(1, 17) = 25.54, p < .001, while as a group, Families J through S had higher HostilityCompetitiveness scores (M = 9.40) than did Families A through J (M = 5.11), F(1, 17) = 6.29, p < .05. These analyses hence provide some additional suggestive support for the identification of higher (A–I) versus lower (J–S) solidarity coparenting units based on their interactive behavior as a threesome during the LTP. Quality of Mother–Father Relationship and Tenor of LTP Interactions

A key question in this study was whether families showing more positive coparenting interactions in the LTP are more likely to be those living together or distinguished by more frequent father contact, and/or whether they are distinguished by better relationship quality between the unmarried coparents. We examined this issue in two ways. First, we examined each of the CFRS variables as a function of coresidentiality (Table 3). These analyses indicated no significant differences between residential and nonresidential cominimum 5:1 subject-to-item ratio for exploratory factor analysis. The factor analysis completed for this study thus should be viewed for heuristic purposes only.

•

443

parents on any variable of interest in the LTP, positive or negative (Table 3). Second, we examined differences between higher (A–I) versus lower (J–S) solidarity coparenting units on coresidentiality, regularity of time father spent with the baby, reports of positive and negative relationship by fathers, and reports of positive and negative relationship by mothers. Of these variables, reports by fathers of the positive quality of the mother–father relationship were significantly higher in the high-solidarity coparenting group (M = 29.13, SD = 2.10, range = 24–30) than they were in the low-solidarity coparenting group (M = 22.20, SD = 5.95, range = 11–30), F(1, 17) = 9.72, p < .01. Higher and lower solidarity coparenting units were not distinguished by paternal reports of negativity in the mother– father relationship, F(1, 17) = 3.53, n.s., or by maternal reports of positivity, F(1, 17 = 0.68, n.s.) or negativity, F(1, 17) = 0.11, n.s.. Of greatest interest, high-solidarity coparenting alliances were no more likely among residential than noncoresidential families, and were not distinguished by the degree of contact that the fathers had with the infant during the past month—although the regularity of father contact showed a truncated range on the index used to assess time together [No fathers visited their children never (1) or rarely (2).] Case Example: Dynamics of Coparenting During the LTP in a Noncoresidential Family

We close this section by providing a glimpse of one of the families who took part in the study, Family C. This family was rated by both CFRS coders and, independently, by E. Fivaz-Depeursinge (January 2014) using Fivaz-Depeursinge et al.’s (1997) GETCEF rating system. We include this analysis to illustrate the flow of the LTP interactions; highlight ways in which a family might be evaluated using two different, widely used and standardized systems; and draw attention to elements of the interaction that would be of clinical interest to interventionists. The GETCEF coding analysis is offered for heuristic purposes only because this system has never been used with African American samples. Nonetheless, to the extent that the Lausanne system captures elements of body formations thought to be universal in defining family dynamics, there is value in examining the extent to which there is overlap and difference in how the two coding systems reconciled in understanding family dynamics. Family C was a young family (Mother was 22 years old, and father was 24) with a great deal of energy. Mother resided with her father (the maternal grandfather), and father resided with his cousins. The parents reported seeing one another daily, and both gave the highest possible ratings (30) on the Positive Quality in Relationships Scale. Mother reported only minor negativity in the relationship (a score of 2 on the 30-point scale), and father reported none (a score of 0). The family’s triadic interaction was spirited, playful, and “led” by the parents (rather than driven by the baby’s initiatives). Although the parents exhibited an intensity of engagement that overwhelmed the baby at various points throughout the play, bringing the baby to what was seemingly the verge of disorganization, the baby actually handled the intensity of stimulation


444

•


quite well, with behavioral and affective regulation remaining “inbounds” until he finally became fatigued at the very end of the session. Concerning the flow of Parts 1 through 3, the father began and remained extremely interested and engaged in the goings-on between mother and baby during the mothers’ 2+1 (which came first). The mother likewise started out extremely engaged after moving to the role of third-party parent during Part 2 (when the father moved in as active parent), but then showed some mild signs of disinterest toward the end of father’s 2+1. The family came together with spirit and enthusiasm during the three-together part, truly giving an impression of “threeness.” Specifically, both parents echoed noises that the other made during a significant portion of the three-together (active co-action). The parents also “nibbled” the child’s feet together in another shared game. At yet another point, mother and baby played peekaboo, and father assisted baby in the game by covering his eyes. Later, when the baby began to fuss, mother gently took baby out of the chair, and father patted baby on the back. Mother also made multiple positive and endearing mentions of father during the triadic play, and stated “We are trying to play with you” to the baby. Family warmth was a highly salient feature of this family’s triadic interaction; both mother and father were extremely warm with baby and also quite warm with one another. Their positive regard and playfulness was evinced by their shared laughter, by their smiling at one another, and even by demonstrations of comfortable physical contact (exemplified when mother rested her head on father’s shoulder). There was no recurring theme of competitiveness, although mother did appear to be somewhat rigid in articulating her impression of the rules for the LTP exercise. The baby was extremely happy, smiling, and bouncing throughout most of the 2+1s as well as during the three-together, and even laughing at two junctures. The baby grew fussy in the closing moments of the LTP, perhaps from all the intensive activity, but the parents responded with some sensitivity by “turning down their volume” after the baby became distressed. The coparents in this family were clearly among the study’s “high-solidarity” cases, as evidenced by the high Cooperation and Family Warmth scores, and low Competition and Verbal Sparring scores. Sensitivity to the baby ebbed and flowed, with seeming misattunement during epochs when the intensity of stimulation bordered on being too much for the baby to tolerate, but also awareness and capacity to dial down (demonstrated by both parents) when the baby did signal that he needed some time to regroup. The Overstimulation score reflects the top-down nature of the interactions and the coparents’ episodic missteps reading the child’s cues, but there also was ample evidence of capacity for attunement and of intuitive parenting shown at various points of the session. Finally, the minor disconnection of mother during part of the father’s 2+1 was something CFRS coders found worthy of comment, although it was not nearly at the same level of concern as seen in those families where the disconnect was prolonged and pronounced.

The GETCEF evaluation is presented next for Parts 1, 2, and 3, along with annotated comments for each of the four hierarchical functions (participation, roles, focal attention, and affective contact) for each part. In the notations, B is Baby, F is Father, and M is Mother. Part 1 (M–B+F): Participation: appropriate, everyone included. Roles: M as active parent and B are appropriately engaged. F’s engagement as third party is only partially appropriate because he is leaning in too much and his resonance is so loud that it is likely to distract the B and cause some of his bids (Some of M’s reactions at the beginning, i.e., looking at him, may indicate that she feels that he is interfering by attracting the attention of the baby.) B’s engagement is inferred from his head orientation and from his vocal engagement. Focal attention: idem (M–B focus on games appropriate, F partially appropriate because of his interferences). Affective contact: M–B partially appropriate; M’s artful but very close, intense stimulations bring B to the upper end of excitement, with insufficient space for attentional cycling and risk of overload, which actually happens. M perceives his tension, but tends to increase the stimulation before finally trying to soothe him. F’s affective contact is also partially appropriate; he is often in tune with the dyad, but tends to add to the infant’s overload by means of the spillover of his intense resonance. Transition 1–2: smooth, indicating high degree of coordination between the parents. Part 2 (F–B+M): Participation: partially appropriate; F and B included, but M, included in three fourths of the part, makes two very long cutoffs toward the end of the Part, looking away and thereby absent to the F–B interaction. Roles: F as active parent and B are appropriately engaged. M’s engagement as third party is only partially appropriate; she is not interfering, in contrast with F in Part 1, but not sufficiently present because of her cutoffs. Focal attention: idem (F–B focus on games appropriate partially because of her cutoffs). Affective contact: partially appropriate. F’s style, like M in Part 2, very close and hyperstimulating, yet perceptive of B’s expression of overload. B‘s signals of overload with F more clear than with M (clear head aversion and protest). Again, M only partially appropriate, not because of interference but of affective absence during cutoffs. Transition 2–3: well-coordinated. Part 3 (FMB) Participation: appropriate, everyone included. Roles: appropriate, everyone sufficiently engaged. Focal attention: appropriate, creativity and coordination between parents, who complement each other in realizing games, with M tending to lead and F to follow smoothly. B works hard to go along, in spite of the overload.



Affective contact: partially appropriate; beautiful creativity and synchronization between parents, but intensity at the limit for the baby, with not enough opportunities for him to pause and regulate his excitement. Conclusion: In the conventions of the Lausanne system, the family alliance would be considered functional, in the lower stressed range. There were many resources (coordination between parents, some warmth between them, and much warmth toward baby), but some problems, too: maintaining participation (mother), interfering (father), and some degree of dysregulation of excitement. The Lausanne GETCEF evaluation, completed blindly, reveals substantial overlap with the CFRS 3-month assessment in highlighting both resources and signs of potential growth for this family. There are a number of important considerations to deliberate in determining the extent to which the assessments may have prognostic and clinical value; these considerations are summarized in the concluding section. Discussion

The objectives of this study were to describe coparenting and triadic interactions among African American “fragile families” during the early postnatal months after the baby’s arrival; to establish whether variability in interaction patterns can be attributed to residentiality, father contact, or mother–father relationship quality; and to highlight ways that a reading of triadic interactions might inform the work of infant–family mental health professionals working to support and strengthen coparenting in fragile family systems. Results from this study indicate that it is not only possible but also illustrative to evaluate through observational means early emerging coparenting dynamics during triadic interactions. In this project, in which none of the coparents were married and in which nearly half were noncoresidential, there was intriguing evidence that distinctive triangular patterns already had begun to emerge, that coparenting solidarity is evident both in families where fathers live together in the same household with the mother and infant and in families where they do not, and that a primary variable distinguishing higher from lower coparenting solidarity families was the father’s perception of the overall positive quality of the mother– father relationship. Key Findings: Unmarried Fathers as Participative, Collaborating Coparents

This study’s use of the CFRS, an instrument previously employed with and adapted for diverse populations McHale, Salman, Strozier, & Cecil (2013), but never previously used in the study of fragile family systems, revealed considerable strengths in the family interactions shared by fathers, mothers, and babies. Clinical grouping and statistical analyses of CFRS data from the 19 participant families revealed that in 9 of the 19 families (i.e., in roughly half of all participant families), coparenting collaboration and connection between unmarried fathers and mothers clearly matched or outweighed coparenting challenges and strain. Among these

•

445

higher solidarity families, parents demonstrated significant levels of parental cooperation, family warmth, and sensitivity to the baby, and low levels of competition, verbal sparring, and disengagement. They were engaged, respectful of one another’s space and parenting interventions, and warm not just toward the baby but in many cases toward one another as well. Their infants remained regulated and managed to recompose themselves on those occasions when they did become fussy. Data also suggest that the positive nature of the high-solidarity relationships was not confined just to those who were living together nor was it reliant on the regularity of paternal time spent with the baby (at least within the narrow definition of engagement used to assess frequency of contact in this study). However, we do anticipate that circumstances may look different for families in which fathers never or rarely visit children, but there were no such families enrolled in this investigation. In the remaining 10 lower solidarity families, hostilitycompetitiveness and patterns of miscoordination were more pronounced. Moreover, in 5 of the 10 families, patterns of disengagement and withdrawal by one or both parents from the interaction impressed observers as noteworthy. This is the first empirical evidence that signs of risk can be detected during staged, triangular coparenting interactions with fragile family systems. Note that concurrently with the clear signs of challenge and strain, there were at least some sporadic indications of coparenting collaboration and connection observed in the majority (n = 7) of these 10 lower solidarity families during the LTP. What this means is that infant– family mental health professionals working with more challenged families would find it possible to identify subtle or fleeting signs of family strength to try to build on during interventions targeting the coparenting and triadic alliance. Having acknowledged the clear indicators of coparenting challenges among 10 of the 19 families who took part in this study, we wish to emphasize here the equally clear indications that unmarried mothers and fathers in both coresidential and noncoresidential African American fragile families—at least those who have had some encouragement to think about the importance of coparenting during a prenatal intervention—have nevertheless indeed begun forging triangular relationships and coparenting alliances during the first 3 postpartum months. More important, many—in fact, most—of these families’ LTP interactions were characterized by at least sporadic observable signs of strength, camaraderie, and “threeness.” These impressions stand in stark contrast to so many portrayals of the “fragileness” of fragile families. To be sure, a number of families remained fragile in the sense that signs of strain were evident, and noncoresident coparents had typically not had the same degree of opportunity as did married or cohabiting parents to engage routinely and daily in triadic family commerce. The case study detailed provides a window into the potential affordances of working with unmarried family triads. Coparents in the featured family, despite father’s noncoresidentiality, showed camaraderie, mutual enjoyment of the baby, and signs of support for one another that were viewed by both CRFS and GETCEF coders as formidable strengths and indicators of functionality (GETCEF) and solidarity (CFRS). Also evident were some areas for


446

•


growth—brief, mild disconnection by the mother during father’s time with the baby, a few missteps in responding in a fully attuned way to the baby’s communications, and occasionally raucous “horseplay” and intensive stimulation that at times brought the child to the brink of distress—although each time, the coparents recognized the child’s growing agitation and contingently backed away from their intensive stimulation. These and other important features of the coparenting interaction, positive and less positive, were discernible to varying degrees among the triadic interactions of each of the fragile family units in our study. We see these dynamics as highly relevant and appropriate for reflecting to the parents in clinical interventions involving the triadic family unit (see Fivaz-Depeursinge & Phillip, 2014). New Directions for Theory and Research

In most LTP studies completed to date, there is a perhaps implicit assumption that the meaning of the triangular patterns observed owe in part to the hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of hours of day-to-day commerce at a shared residence. While a number of families in this study had made a decision to coreside by the 3-month postnatal point, numerous others had not taken that step. Those latter families are hence “three together” only episodically— although metaphorically of course, they are always a triangle. Yet, unless infant–family mental health practitioners explicitly embrace a framework in which fathers in fragile family systems are reliably seen as one leg of the primary triangle, we believe it unlikely that currently stultifying views of “single mothers” and “absentee fathers” will ever significantly change. Our hope is that the glimpse into the early triangular process of the families in this study might help to reconfigure national dialogues about understanding and supporting fragile families during the earliest days and months of their shared baby’s life—because, as has been documented with other samples, early emerging coparenting patterns, once established, tend to show their own momentum and coherence across developmental time. Helping to nurture the evolving, and in many cases very evident, competencies and resources of new unmarried mother–father coparenting teams should become and remain a significant priority for early interventionists—ideally, with formative roots for eventual coparenting having been cultivated with unmarried mothers and fathers, together, during the prenatal period. Finally, as in all family research, there is an urgent need that subsequent studies in this domain be guided by more, and better, culturally grounded observations. To illustrate with one relevant observation from the current inquiry: The CFRS variable that had the lowest interrater reliability in this study was family warmth. In most prior studies using the CFRS (see McHale et al., 2000), this variable has been one with a particularly high degree of interrater agreement, and so the relatively lower level of initial consensus in this study was unexpected. Examination of individual cases points to three in which there were moderate levels of verbal sparring (Families E, J, and M) in which the raters had different takes on the significance of the ostensible criticism, which both agreed qualified as teasing and mild mockery. One coder saw this as

indicative of a negative inclination which dampened the family warmth rating; the second viewed the mockery as feigned and the joking as playful banter, albeit with an edge, that elevated rather than diminished the family warmth rating. Clearly, a more thorough understanding of the families and their sensibilities than was available from the LTP observation would have been necessary to definitively address which interpretations were most accurate for each individual family, but the nature of the discussions that experienced, but blind, CFRS coders had about the meaning of the behavior stands as a reminder that meanings are likely most accurately divined by culturally competent informants closest to families and their everyday interpersonal dynamics. As new efforts around the globe spring up to try to understand the salience of triadic interactions during infancy and the toddler years in an everwidening array of cultural and family systems, efforts guided by emic approaches (McHale, Kuersten-Hogan, & Rao, 2004) become increasingly important. Study Limitations

Although by all indications we succeeded in recruiting a representative sample of unmarried African American families expecting their first child together, note that all of the participating fathers and mothers had shown interest in and completed a prenatal intervention designed specifically to help coparents learn ways to reach past the formidable obstacles to coparenting that were summarized earlier in this article. Hence, we are unable to extrapolate from the observational data reported here to uncoupled parents who may not have been able or ready to take part in an intervention with their baby’s other parent of the sort that we designed. What we can say is that the demographics of the families who did take part did not differ significantly from those of African American fragile families in general, and that in no way was there a sampling bias wherein only motivated, committed parents consented to take part. To the contrary, recruitment for the study was typically a gradual, time-intensive, and personalized endeavor that often lasted 1 month or more before parents mounted sufficient trust to check out the program. The program did not change any relationship trajectories toward cohabitation or marriage, and indeed, several of the families who came to participate in the 3-month assessments arrived in different taxis and acknowledged that they were in the midst of a rough patch. Hence, we see the data from this study as reflecting what is possible, rather than what is necessary routine, for parents who have not yet made (and for many, who may never make) an enduring relationship commitment to one another. We also advise that these data be viewed principally as heuristic indicators of early family dynamics between lower income African American mothers, fathers, and infants. A significant number of participating parents coresided with blood or fictive kin. Hence, many of the babies in this study, as is true for the majority of lower socioeconomic African American families in the United States, had additional coparenting figures besides their mothers and fathers. While it is tempting to argue that the three-person mother–father–baby unit is every bit as primary in fragile families



as it is in coresidential two-parent family systems, it is possible, and even likely, that the nature of the three-person dynamic would shift significantly with a third (or more) coparent added to the mix. The same also would undoubtedly be true if the parents’ other children from prior unions were added to the equation. Indeed, even in two-parent nuclear families, things change when a sibling is introduced to make a triadic interaction tetradic; different coparenting propensities and leanings are revealed (McHale, 2007b). Yet, these realities do not make the value of properly understanding the mother–father–baby triangle in unmarried families any less important for infant–family mental health professionals. The consequences of overlooking altogether the power of this triangle, as routinely happens in our profession’s dealings with higher risk families, are far more worrisome than is developing a useful, if incomplete, reading of the family’s resources and potentialities. Summary and Conclusions

In summary, we are hopeful that this preliminary and first-ever observational glimpse of unmarried African American fathers’ partnership in helping to cocreate an early coparenting alliance with their babies’ mothers might help move the national dialogue about such men in the United States in a new, and hopefully far more generative, direction. We look forward to increasing numbers of reports guided by triangular frameworks that likewise value unmarried fathers for the salient roles that they play in their babies’ and coparents’ lives. The untapped potential of such work cannot be overstated.

APPENDIX Coparenting and Family Rating System (CFRS) 3-Month Global LTP Scoring Criteria (Adapted for Coding of Parts 1 through 3 Only)

Cooperation 1 – Parents virtually never act in smooth accord. One or both partners are unengaged for parts of the 2+1 and continue this separation during the 3-together. During Part 3, no evidence of inclination toward active co-action, benign cooperation has quality of neutrality or uninvolvement. Overall impression of isolation and ongoing nonconnection. 2 – Very little mutual coordination and cooperation in the activities, but less severe leanings toward separatism. Level of connection with the active partner in 2+1 is not very animated. During 3together the benignly cooperative parent is polite but inactive, failing to search for a joint or common theme. Efforts to join are tentative, forced, miscoordinated. Both partners are adequately involved but unconnected. 3 – Impression is a “mixed” one. Unlike a”4” family where cooperation as a theme is apparent but where there may also be occasional interference or other evidence of individual rather than joint agendas, a “3” family will impress as having been very uncooperative at times (extended “watches and is not engaged” period during one or

•

447

both 2+1s, followed by a cooperative rebound in the 3-together). Overall, the family shows evidence of having been cooperative, but behavior either during the 2+1s or the 3-together cannot be readily reconciled with what came before or after, leaving the rater with some questions. 4 – The “average” cooperative coparenting pair. Such partners politely wait turns, watch the ongoing interaction with interest, on one or two occasions say something affirming, build on the partner’s activities, make an attempt at co-action. At other times, momentary miscoordination, interference, boredom, or disengagement may be seen, but it is in the context of a cooperative engagement qualitatively different from polite nonconnection. 5 – A family receiving a score of “5” likewise shows no evidence of puzzling disinterest or disconnection. Typically, a “5” family will differ from a “4” in that one of the two partners seems particularly cooperative and jointly oriented (showing a consistent active presence, willingness to make room for the other, interest in what the partner is doing, and several affirmative comments), while the other partner’s behavior is more like that in a”4” family (largely benign support, but with few or no instances of referencing the partner or taking over for what the partner is doing). Occasional miscoordination or disconnection may be seen, but is clearly not of any real consequence. 6 – In a “6” family, both partners are clearly cognizant and supportive of one another, and make joint and regular efforts to sustain a family theme. Such interactions fail to receive a “7” rating only because these activities by both of the partners, while frequent and convincing, are not sustained for the entire session and interspersed with down-time or momentary miscoordination. 7 – A “7” is a most unusual score, signifying mutual, wellcoordinated benign or active cooperation throughout the entire session, maintenance of a common family theme, and no evidence of misattunement. Competition 1 – Absolutely no evidence of even mild competition. 2 – Virtually no competition between the parents; limited to one competitive remark such as “No—look at Mommy” and/or one or two events of mild and momentary miscoordination. 3 – Competitive remarks are confined to the transition between Parts 1 and 2 (i.e., continuing to protest if the baby remained involved with the active parent from Part l) and occur in combination with several (up through four) acts of miscoordination. However, no instances of sustained competition are evident. 4 – The “typical” family; parents make two or more competitively tinged remarks (either about the Part 1-to-Part 2 transition, or some other topic) and show either periodic evidence of miscoordination (four or more instances) and/or one clear instance of sustained interference (i.e., continuing to present different stimuli for 4 s or longer). 5 – Something more than clumsiness is going on at one point in the session, but competitiveness has not yet become a pervasive family theme. The coder discerns more than one clearly competitive remark beyond protests about who the baby should be attending to, and/or notes either two separate, but contained, competitively


448

•


flavored bouts for attention from the baby, or a single extended competitive bout that continues for 10 s or more. 6 – Families receiving a score of “6” demonstrate multiple instances of competitive exchanges (i.e., three or four contained bouts, or two sustained bouts of >l0 s), but no more than these (i.e., they do not cycle through such competitive exchanges throughout the entire session). 7 – The exceedingly rare “7” goes to unquestionably competitive parents engaging in more competitive exchanges than those described in “6.” Keep in mind that these are behavioral guidelines; in cases where the rater has the impression of unquestionable competition taking place, even when veiled more carefully than allowed for in the above codes, the rater is warranted in giving a higher score, but must note the rationale on the coding sheet for later inspection. Family Warmth 1 – No demonstrations of warmth between the parents; parents’ engagement with the baby showed clear warmth for less than half the session. 2 – No warmth between the parents; parents’ interactions with the baby were at least moderately warm for at least half of the session. 3 – The parents were unquestionably warm with the baby—more than just moderately so but short of exceptionally so—but showed absolutely no warm moments with one another; or the parents had one or two moments of warmth between them in the context of a moderately warm session with the baby. A 3 can also be given if one parent was quite warm toward baby while the other’s warmth toward baby was more tempered. 4 – Both parents were unquestionably warm with the baby, more than moderately so but short of exceptionally so (or, one was moderately warm while the other was exceptional), and the parents were also clearly warm with one another on one or two occasions. 5 – Both parents were exceptionally warm with the baby, and were clearly warm with one another on one or two occasions; alternatively, one or both parents were unquestionably warm with baby (more than moderately so but not exceptionally so), but were clearly warm with one another on three or four occasions. 6 – A high-end family; both parents show both exceptional warmth with the baby and are clearly warm with one another on three or four occasions. 7 – Rare; family exudes clear and convincing evidence of warmth, levity, and affection among all family members at multiple, regular junctures throughout Parts 1 through 3 of the LTP interaction. Degree of Overstimulation 1 – The parents’ activity is always measured and modulated, and never intense or unexpected. 2 – On one clear occasion, one or both parents appear out of touch with the child (sudden, unexpected movement; initiating simultaneously with the partner but in a different modality or activity; using voice tone that disorganizes the infant momentarily). The bout is brief in duration. 3 – On two clear occasions, one or both parents disrupt the baby as in “2” above.

4 – Though overstimulation is not truly a family “theme,” the rater nonetheless detects at least three clear occasions during which one or both parents unquestionably jar the smooth flow of interaction as described above; or, engage in only one or two such activities but do not desist until the infant protests. Otherwise, though, the session can be described as modulated. 5 – To receive a score of 5 or greater, the rater must have a sense that overstimulation is a recurrent theme for the family; scores of 5, 6, and 7 are distinguished principally by how much of a theme. A “5” signifies that one (not both) of the parents episodically and unquestionably overwhelms the baby, even in the face of signs of protest, but does occasionally draw back. 6 – To receive a score of “6,” either one partner regular overwhelms the baby with little cognizance of doing so while the other has a more measured approach; or, both partners show overwhelming behavior. The family receives a “6” and not a “7” only because parents do show the occasional tendency to back off and modulate their behavior at least sometimes. 7 – “7s” are reserved for unquestionably chaotic sessions where stimulation is constant and the infant is given little breathing room by either partner. The rater has no question but the level of stimulation was too intensive. Disconnection/Disengagement 1 – No evidence of disinterest or disinclination to engage by either partner at any point. 2 – One brief instance of zoning out, yawning, appearing to daydream by one partner, but no other off-task behavior. Or, alternatively, one partner leaves the threesome momentarily to get an item for the baby. 3 – One more prolonged instance of off-task behavior as described in“2” by one of the partners, but no compelling evidence that the off-task behavior signifies disinterest (e.g., being gone for 30 s or longer; talking to the examiner about something in relation to play session). 4 – One of the two parents demonstrates more than one instance of off-task behavior during the 2+1, but still does not present clear and compelling evidence that the off-task behavior signified boredom or disinterest (e.g., parent may ask the examiner a few questions, ask one question and pause briefly to pet the dog, checking cell phone when it buzzes; shows momentary distraction by street noise but in the context of a session that is otherwise primarily watches and is engaged in the 2+1 or cooperative in the 3-together). Or, each of the two parents displays at least one instance of off-task behavior. 5 – Parent is psychologically absent (watches and is not engaged and disengages) for significant portion of the 2+1 and the absence clearly denotes a lack of interest in the partner–baby interaction. However, the same parent becomes more active during the 3-together, during which she/he may or may not show brief moments of disinterest or disconnection. 6 – A rating of “6” is given to a family where the parent’s behavior is the same during the 2+1 as described in “5” above, and where the off-task behavior carries over to a greater extent to the 3-together



as well. Periods of preoccupation or boredom intermingle with periods of activity. 7 – A “7” is a very rare score, and should be given only when a parent is absent during significant portions of both the 2+1 and the 3-together—the parent impresses the rater as listless, depressed, preoccupied, unaware, or not in touch with the partner–baby interaction. There is some flexibility here, as with competitiveness, for a rater to assign a higher score even in the absence of extended periods of disconnection if the general sense is of a partner who is largely a second wheel and/or out-of-touch with the partner–baby dyad. Overall Distress of the Baby 1 – Absolutely no distress. The baby appears to be comfortable and content throughout the interaction and there are no signs of distress (such as avoidance-eye gaze, crying, or fidgeting). 2 – Very low level of distress. The baby shows one short instance of a behavior that signals distress, such as precipitously turning the head to gaze away from a stimulus, briefly waving the hands, rocking the body forcibly, fidgeting uncharacteristically and noticeably, or protesting through verbal means. 3 – Low to moderate level of distress. The baby either shows a longer period, or multiple instances of; mild distress, as outlined above. A 3 would also be given for a very short, single instance of moderate distress signaling, such as crying or fussing. 4 – Moderate level of distress. The baby shows several signs of low distress and a short instance of moderate distress (crying, fussing), but for most of the time seems calm, or content. These short episodes might be a reaction to something that happened in the interaction or outside of it, yet the baby quickly “bounces back” to the baseline. 5 – Moderate to high level of distress. The baby seems distressed for a significant percent of the time, yet is composed for part of the time. This code can be given to a baby who exhibits several discrete episodes of crying and fussing, or who engages in one prolonged episode. These signs of distress can be (but certainly don’t have to be) a result of something that happened in the interaction, while in this case it took the baby a longer time to recover. Also use this code for a baby that for several minutes showed low signs of distress, which later built up to crying and fussing. 6 – High level of distress. The baby strikes the rater as being distressed for most of the session, and although she did settle for brief periods, typically took a long time to calm down. Use this code for all babies who show some level of distress for the majority of the interaction, demonstrating several prolonged periods of clear and pronounced distress signs, such as crying and fussing. 7 – Continuously high level of distress. Rare. This code should only be used for babies who continuously cry and fuss throughout the entire interaction, and who wouldn’t calm down. These babies will often have necessitated that the interaction be cut short. Couples Sensitivity to the Baby

•

449

1 – Parents who are judged to be completely insensitive are those who poke at, cajole, and stimulate the baby based on their own sets of interests without noticing the baby’s responses (Infants may sit completely baffled and unresponsive without becoming distressed, show signs of self-protection such as turning away, or become disorganized and cry.) If babies cry, neither parent is able to calm or soothe the child effectively. 2 – Scores of “2” go to parents who are each likewise driven by their own agendas but who do occasionally notice that a baby is unhappy with something and so cease and desist, or interested in something and so follow the baby’s lead. Such instances are rare though in the face of an otherwise parent-driven session. 3 – A family receiving a “3” on sensitivity will typically be one where one partner is attuned to the baby and largely sensitive and responsive, while the other is often (though not always) out of tune. They receive a below-average score typically when disruptions caused by the insensitive parent are not always readily smoothed over by the other parent. 4 – “4” signifies a typical family, one in which the parents are both generally sensitive to the Baby’s needs but who episodically take missteps and momentarily provoke or disturb the baby, and/or show some slowness to recognize a baby who is beginning to grow tired and to fuss. If one parent is judged to be frequently insensitive, even when the other is generally well-attuned, a score of “3” is probably more appropriately warranted. 5 – Families who receive scores of “5” or greater should be those in which both parents impress the rater as being above-average in their sensitivity to the baby’s comfort and cues. “5” ratings hence go to a pair of clearly sensitive parents, one or both of whom sometimes overstimulates the child or misjudges the baby’s signals, but quickly recognize doing so and compensate. It is quite possible for parents with a cranky baby to get a score of 5, 6, or even 7 if they are able to soothe and calm the child. The soothing process may take some time but ultimately, the parents’ efforts succeed in calming the child some, even if she/he does not soothe completely. 6 – A score of “6” would be given to a family where one parent is exceptionally sensitive and the other is likewise above average in sensitivity, showing just one or two instances of out-of-synch or mildly misattuned behavior. 7 – A score of “7” would be assigned only to the rare family that takes no missteps and is exquisitely attuned to the child’s signals, whether the baby is out-of-sorts or content. The parent’s ministrations are largely responsible for keeping the child engaged and soothed. Verbal Sparring 1 – Absolutely no evidence of any back-and-forth nattering or kidding at any time. 2 – One instance of a back-and-forth exchange of uncertain valence (sounds playful, but may or may not be tinged with hostility— unable to judge with confidence). 3 – More than one back-and-forth of uncertain valence, as described in “2” above.


450

•


4 – One back-and-forth exchange unquestionably hostile or contentious in nature. 5 – More than one back-and-forth exchange unquestionably hostile or contentious in nature; or, multiple hostile and contentious comments made by one partner that are not responded to verbally by the addressee but which may be responded to via nonverbal means. REFERENCES

of triadic interactions. Unpublished research report, Centre d’Etude de la Famille, Lausanne, Switzerland. Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., & Philipp, D.A. (2014). The baby and the couple: Understanding and treating young families. London: Routledge. Florsheim, P., Sumida, E., McCann, C., Winstanley, M., Fukui, R., Seefeldt, T., et al. (2003). The transition to parenthood among young African American and Latino couples: Relational predictors of risk for parental dysfunction. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(1), 65– 79.

Carlson, M., & McLanahan, S.S. (2002). Fragile families, father involvement, and public policy. In C. Tamis-LaMonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 461–488). Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum. Carlson, M.J., McLanahan, S.S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Coparenting and non-resident fathers’ involvement with young children after a nonmarital birth. Demography, 45, 461–488.

Frascarolo, F., Favez, N., Carneiro, C., & Fivaz-Depeursinge, E. (2004). Hierarchy of interactive functions in father-mother-baby three-way games. Infant and Child Development, 13, 301–322. Furstenberg, F.F., Jr. (2001). The fading dream: Prospects for marriage in the inner city. In E. Anderson & D. S. Massey (Eds.), Problem of the century: Racial stratification in the United States (pp. 224–246). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Carlson, M., McLanahan, S., & England, P. (2004). Union formation in fragile families. Demography, 41(2), 237–261. Clarke-Stewart, K.A. (1978). And daddy makes three: The father’s impact on mother and young child. Child Development, 49(2), 466–478. Coles, R.L., & Green, C. (2010). The myth of the missing black father. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gaskin-Butler, V., Engert, T., Markewitz, M., Swenson, C., & McHale, J. (2012). Prenatal representations of coparenting in unmarried African American mothers. Family Process, 51, 357–372. Gorusch, R.L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Coley, R.L., & Chase-Lansdale, P.L. (1999). Stability and change in paternal involvement among urban African American fathers. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(3), 416. Costello, A.B., & Osborne, J.W. (2003, April). Exploring best practices in factor analysis: Four mistakes applied researchers make. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. 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(3), 636–642. Edin, K. (2000). What do low-income single mothers say about marriage? Social Problems, 47(1), 112–133. Fagan, J., & Barnett, M. (2003). The relationship between maternal gatekeeping, paternal competence, mothers’ attitudes about the father role, and father involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 1020– 1043. Fagan, J., & Palkovitz, R. (2007). Unmarried, nonresident fathers’ involvement with their infants: A risk and resilience perspective. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(3), 479–489. Favez, N., Frascarolo, F., Lavanchy Scaiola, C., & Corboz-Warnery, A. (2013). Prenatal representations of family in parents and coparental interactions as predictors of triadic interactions during infancy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 34(1), 25–36. Fincham, F.D., & Linfield, K.J. (1997). A new look at marital quality: Can spouses feel positive and negative about their marriage? Journal of Family Psychology, 11(4), 489. Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., & Corboz-Warnery, A. (1999). The primary triangle: A developmental systems view of mothers, fathers, and infants. New York: Basic Books. Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., Cornut-Zimmer, B., Borcard-Sacco, M., & Corboz-Warnery, A. (1997). The GETCEF. A grid for the analysis

Hauser, R.M., & Warren, J.R. (1997). Socioeconomic indexes for occupations: A review, update, and critique. Sociological Methodology, 27(1), 177–298. Lamb, M.E. (Ed.). (2010). The role of the father in child development (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Lerman, R., & Sorensen, E. (2000). Father involvement with their nonmarital children: Patterns, determinants, and effects on their earnings. Marriage & Family Review, 29(2–3), 137–158. Lu, M.C., Jones, L., Bond, M.J., Wright, K., Pumpuang, M., Maidenberg, M., et al. (2010). Where is the Fin MCH? Father involvement in African American families. Ethnicity & Disease, 20, S2–S49. Mattson, R.E., Paldino, D., & Johnson, M.D. (2007). The increased construct validity and clinical utility of assessing relationship quality using separate positive and negative dimensions. Psychological Assessment, 19(1), 146–151. McConnell, M.C., & Kerig, P.K. (2002). Assessing coparenting in families of school-age children: Validation of the Coparenting and Family Rating System. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 34(1), 44–58. McHale, J. (1995). Co-parenting and triadic interactions during infancy: The roles of marital distress and child gender. Developmental Psychology, 31, 985–996. McHale, J. (2007a). When infants grow up in multiperson relationship systems. Infant Mental Health Journal, 28, 1–23. McHale, J. (2007b). Charting the bumpy road of coparenthood: Understanding the challenges of family life. Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press. McHale, J. (2009). Shared child-rearing in nuclear, fragile, and kinship family systems: Evolution, dilemmas, and promise of a coparenting



framework. In M. Schulz, M. Pruett, P. Kerig, & R. Parke (Eds.), Strengthening couple relationships for optimal child development: Lessons from research and intervention (pp. 77–94). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McHale, J., Gaskin-Butler, V., McKay, K., & Gallardo, G. (2013). Figuring It Out for the Child Initiative: Fostering coparenting among unmarried African American parents. Zero To Three Journal, 33, 17–22. McHale, J., Kazali, C., Rotman, T., Talbot, J., Carleton, M., & Lieberson, R. (2004). The transition to co-parenthood: Parents’ pre-birth expectations and early coparental adjustment at three months post-partum. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 711–733. PMID:15605633 McHale, J., Kuersten-Hogan, R., & Lauretti, A. (2000). Evaluating coparenting and family-level dynamics during infancy and early childhood: The Coparenting and Family Rating System. In P. Kerig & K. Lindahl (Eds.), Family Observational Coding Systems: Resources for systemic research (pp. 151–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. McHale, J., Kuersten-Hogan, R., & Rao, N. (2004). Growing points in the study of coparenting relationships. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 221–235. McHale, J., & Lindahl, K. (2011). Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press. McHale, J., Salman, S., Strozier, A., & Cecil, D. (2013). Triadic interactions in mother–grandmother coparenting systems following maternal release from incarceration. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78, 57–74. McHale, J., Waller, M., & Pearson, J. (2012). Coparenting interventions for fragile families: What do we know and where do we need to go next? Family Process, 51, 284–306. McLanahan, S.S., & Carlson, M.J. (2002). Welfare reform, fertility, and father involvement. The Future of Children, 12, 146–165. McLanahan, S., Garfinkel, I., Reichman, N., Teitler, J., Carlson, M., & Audigier, C.N. (2003). The fragile families and child wellbeing study: Baseline National Report. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. Minuchin, P., Colapinto, J., & Minuchin, S. (2007). Working with families of the poor (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

•

451

Mott, F.L. (1994). Sons, daughters and fathers’ absence: Differentials in father-leaving probabilities and in home environments. Journal of Family Issues, 15(1), 97–128. Mueller, C.W., & Parcel, T.L. (1981). Measures of socioeconomic status: Alternatives and recommendations. Child Development, 52, 13–30. Nugent, J.K. (1991). Cultural and psychological influences on the father’s role in infant development. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(2), 475–485. Ooms, T., & Wilson, P. (2004). The challenges of offering relationship and marriage education to low income populations. Family Relations, 53(5), 440–447. Pruett, K.D. (2001). Fatherneed: Why father care is as essential to your child as mother care. New York: Free Press. Radin, N. (1994). Primary-caregiving fathers in intact families. In A. Gottfried & A.W. Gottfried (Eds.), Redefining families: Implications for children’s development (pp. 11–54). New York: Plenum Press. Roy, K.M. (2005). Transitions on the margins of work and family life for low-income African-American fathers. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 26(1), 77–100. Seltzer, J.A. (1991). Relationships between fathers and children who live apart: The father’s role after separation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 79–101. Shannon, J.D., Cabrera, N.J., Tamis-LeMonda, C., & Lamb, M.E. (2009). Who stays and who leaves? Father accessibility across children’s first 5 years. Parenting: Science and Practice, 9(1–2), 78–100. Stier, H., & Tienda, M. (1993). Are men marginal to the family? Insights from Chicago’s inner city. In J.C. Hood (Ed.), Men, work, and family (pp. 107–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Waller, M.R., & McLanahan, S.S. (2005). “His” and “her” marriage expectations: Determinants and consequences. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(1), 53–67. Wattenberg, E. (1993). Paternity actions and young fathers. In R. Lerman & T. Ooms (Eds.), Young unwed fathers: Changing roles and emerging policies (pp. 213–234). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Yarrow, L.J., MacTurk, R.H., Vietze, P.M., McCarthy, M.E., Klein, R.P., & McQuiston, S. (1984). Development course of parental stimulation and its relationship to mastery motivation during infancy. Developmental Psychology, 20(3), 492–503.


Associations between prenatal coparenting behavior and observed coparenting behavior at 9-months postpartum.

Bridging the Gap across the Transition to Coparenthood: Triadic Interactions and Coparenting Representations from Pregnancy through 12 Months Postpartum.

Coparenting experiences in African American families: an examination of single mothers and their nonmarital coparents.

Fragile Families in the American Welfare State.

Improvements in Unmarried African American Parents' Rapport, Communication, and Problem-Solving Following a Prenatal Coparenting Intervention.

Correlates of Self-Reported Physical Activity at 3 and 12 Months Postpartum.

Paternal Hostility and Maternal Hostility in European American and African American Families.

Maternal depressive symptoms and parenting practices 3-months postpartum.

Jointly structuring triadic spaces of meaning and action: book sharing from 3 months on.

Sexual health communication within religious African-American families.

Triadic Interactions in Families of Adolescents with Anorexia Nervosa and Families of Adolescents with Internalizing Disorders.

Chronically ill children and fragile families.

Parental endorsement of spanking and children's internalizing and externalizing problems in African American and Hispanic families.

Caregiver Burden in Fragile X Families.

Observed and Reported Supportive Coparenting as Predictors of Infant-Mother and Infant-Father Attachment Security.

Postnatal depression among Sudanese women: prevalence and validation of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale at 3 months postpartum.

Developing programs for African families, by African families: engaging African migrant families in Melbourne in health promotion interventions.

Linkage and risk assessment in fragile X families using new DNA probes at Xq27.

Parent - Adolescent Relationship Qualities and Adolescent Adjustment in Two-Parent African American Families.

Obesity, African American Race, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Resistant Hypertension: The Step Beyond Observed Risk.

Transmission of Work Ethic in African-American Families and Its Links with Adolescent Adjustment.

HIV status, breastfeeding modality at 5 months and postpartum maternal weight changes over 24 months in rural South Africa.

Microsecond protein dynamics observed at the single-molecule level.

Parents' Relative Socioeconomic Status and Paternal Involvement in Chinese Families: The Mediating Role of Coparenting.