What are the key factors that influence the health and development of children? Researchers have tried to answer this question for many years by looking at the role of the child's mother, the school, and the neighborhood, among other factors. Until recently, the role of fathers in their children's lives has been mostly overlooked. If the contribution of fathers was studied, the focus was often on white, middle-class families. Few studies in the past have addressed the role of fathers in disadvantaged or at-risk families. When examining the antecedents and effects of child maltreatment, it is no surprise that the role of the father-child relationship, both as a protective factor and a risk factor, has been virtually ignored.

LONGSCAN Studies

Three recent studies from the Longitudinal Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect (LONGSCAN) consortium, published in Child Maltreatment, examined the role of fathers and father-figures in families at increased risk for child abuse and neglect. The LONGSCAN consortium consists of five ongoing longitudinal studies of children's health, development, and risk of child maltreatment, each based in a different region of the United States. Although the sites share a common longitudinal design and battery of measures, the degree of actual maltreatment or risk for maltreatment varies by site. For example, in one site families met criteria for "high risk" but they had not necessarily been maltreated. In another site, families were involved with Child Protective Services (CPS), and in one site the children had been placed in foster care. Findings from these LONGSCAN studies on father's role in child maltreatment are discussed below, along with their significance to the child welfare system.

Father surrogates

Radhakrishna and others examined the relationship between the presence of a father surrogate in the home and the risk for child maltreatment in their article "Are father surrogates a risk factor for child maltreatment?" Participants included 70 mother-child dyads from the Southern LONGSCAN site who had been reported to CPS, and 140 unreported families, who served as controls. Household structure was examined periodically to assess whether the child was living with a biological father, a non-biological father-figure, or no maternal partner. Mother's age, mother's level of education, child's race and sex, receipt of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), number of siblings in the home, and maternal depression were considered.

The study found that children who lived in homes with a non-biological partner were at least twice as likely to have been reported to CPS as compared to children living with their biological father or no father. Between ages 6 and 8 years, nearly 27 percent of children who lived with non-biological father figures had a documented CPS report, while rates for children living with a biological father or no father were 3.8 percent and 18 precent respectively. Unfortunately, the authors did not examine the relationship of the perpetrator to the child in their analysis. Therefore, it is unclear whether increased maltreatment risk might be related to direct abuse or neglect by the father figure, increased stress placed on the family by the presence of an unrelated male in the home, or other factors. However, the results make clear the need for CPS workers to consider the increased risk to children of having an unrelated father figure in the home. At the same time, most non-biological fathers do not maltreat children, and they may offer a great deal to their families.

Male influence on child health and behavior

The second study, by Marshall and others, examined fathers' and father figures' potential influence on behavioral and health outcomes among children reported to CPS. Age 4 and 6 year interview data from 182 Northwestern children, who had been reported but not necessarily substantiated for child maltreatment, were included in the analysis. Child characteristics, family/parent characteristics, parental and family functioning, extra-familial relationships, aspects of the neighborhood, service utilization, and maltreatment history were also studied.

Maternal use of minor violence against the child, more CPS referrals, being male, and being African American were associated with increased child aggression. However, the presence and involvement of fathers had little direct effect on child aggression. The authors did find that 6-year-old children whose father or father figure was absent had increased aggression, but only if the child had an African American caregiver. Six-year olds without a father or father figure had decreased aggression only if the child's caregiver had a strong religious affiliation. The presence and involvement of fathers/father figures also had little overall direct effect on child depression. For children with African American caregivers, however, father's absence was associated with increased depression. These results suggest that CPS caseworkers should consider the potential beneficial effects of religious affiliation on families with absent fathers. In addition, they should be aware that father's absence may be particularly harmful for African American children.

Males' effects on child functioning

The third study examined the effect of fathers on the functioning of 677 six-year-old children enrolled in any of the LONGSCAN sites. Dubowitz and others assessed four aspects of children's functioning, including behavioral problems, depressive symptoms, cognitive development, and self-perception of competence and social acceptance. The children rated father support in terms of companionship, emotional support, practical support, and tangible support provided by the father or father figure. Children who reported stronger father figure support had a better perception of their competence and social acceptance, and they had fewer depressive symptoms.

Father figure support did not affect childrens' externalizing behavioral problems or cognitive development. The findings showed no significant difference for biological fathers compared to non-biological father figures. This study provides additional evidence that father involvement may be beneficial to children. Therefore, clinicians and caseworkers should encourage positive interaction and support between fathers (including father figures) and their children.

Conclusion

Taken together, these three studies demonstrate that the effect of father and father figure presence is mixed, at times leading to positive child outcomes, while at other times having negative effects. As Dubowitz demonstrated, children with strong father or father figure support may feel more competent and less depressed than children with less support. Father figures were no less likely to exert these positive influences than were biological fathers.

In contrast, Radhakrishna demonstrated that the presence of a father figure may affect some children negatively, as children living with father figures were more likely to be reported to CPS than children living with a biological father or no father. Finally, Marshall found few direct effects of fathers or father figures on child health or behavior. Only in African American families was father/father figure presence associated with decreased child aggression or depression.

Not surprisingly, the question of fathers' or father figures' influence in children's lives has no simple answer. It varies. In general, certain benefits were evident, and this supports other research. In a small number of families, however, fathers, particularly non-biological father figures, may contribute to children's abuse and neglect. Because all of the LONGSCAN subjects are considered at-risk, these results may not apply to the general population of American children and fathers/father figures. More research is clearly needed to better explore the nature and meaning of father-child relationships.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Lane is a National Research Service Award Primary Care Research Fellow at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. She is a pediatrician with board certification in pediatrics and preventive medicine and completed a clinical fellowship in child abuse. Her current position involves both research on child abuse and neglect and clinical responsibilities that include work at two local child advocacy centers, inpatient child abuse consultations, and supervision of pediatric residents in their weekly continuity clinic.

References
Radhakrishna, A., Bou-Saada, I.E., Hunter, W.M., Catellier, D.J., Kotch, J.B. (2001). Are father surrogates a risk factor for child maltreatment? Child Maltreatment, 6, 281-289.

Marshall, D.B., English, D.J., Stewart, A.J. The effect of fathers or father figures on child behavior problems in families referred to child protective services. Child Maltreatment, 6, 290-299.

Dubowitz, H., Black, M.M., Cox, C.E., Litrownik, A.J., Radhakrishna, A., English, D.J., Schneider, M.W., Runyan, D.K. Father involvement and children's functioning at age 6 years: A multisite study. Child Maltreatment, 6, 300-309.

Lamb, M.E. Male roles in families "at risk": The ecology of child maltreatment. Child Maltreatment, 6, 310-313.