Becoming a non-resident father: Marginalised through distress, disadvantage and disempowerment
Abstract
Issue Addressed
Becoming a non-resident father through divorce is stressful and this often results in compromised mental health and well-being. Non-resident fathers' mental well-being has been measured at very low levels which may require clinical treatment, especially when correlated with child access and family court issues. A United Nations report highlighted how non-resident fathers may be marginalised, but to date, limited literature considers the lives of non-resident fathers from their own perspective and reflecting their own voice and it has been claimed that as fathers are often absent from parenting research, this absence, they are not heard. The aim of this paper was to identify how non-resident fathers' interactions with legal and welfare services and ex-partners may result in their marginalisation and affect their mental health.
Methods
In-depth interviews with open-ended questions were conducted with 19 non-resident fathers, both long term, newly divorced or in the divorce process, so as to capture a long range view of their experiences. Thematic Analysis was used for data analysis and the generation of the themes.
Results
Three themes emerged from the data: (1) Becoming a non-resident father with two sub themes; (2) Being in a state of distress, with three sub-themes and (3) Managing distress and seeking help, with two sub-themes. Participants reported a lack of agency, lack of power in decision making and a lack of social and financial resources all contributing to the deterioration in their self-reported experiences of mental health. This impact was highlighted by the number of participants who undertook counselling or psychological assistance to deal with their perceived marginalisation, feeling of invisibility and disempowerment.
Conclusions
The implications of marginalisation for non-resident fathers' mental health, as outlined by the participants, are discussed regarding the impact of becoming a non-resident father, legal aspects, welfare service experiences and relationship with ex-partner. The chronic stress experienced by non-resident fathers who often find themselves in a situation which is difficult to resolve without major compromises to their desired outcomes must be recognised.
So What
One means of achieving better mental health for non-resident fathers is to address the impact of marginalisation and lack of agency and that court processes are resolved swiftly with a view to increasing non-resident father's agency in post-divorce decision making.
1 ISSUE ADDRESSED
Non-resident fathers, fathers not living with their children after divorce or separation, is an increasing demographic for which there is a research evidence gap, exacerbated by the inability to identify them through government data.1 Not only are they a hard to reach group, evidenced by their absence in large national surveys, but also they are said to be ‘more economically vulnerable, have more strained relationships with the mothers of their children, and see their children less frequently’.2
Furthermore, non-resident fathers remain hidden within academic writing.3 A search in scholarly search engines for ‘non-resident fathers, and children Australia’ resulted in one article,4 that focusses on ‘separating families’. In this article fathers are mentioned twice, first in relation to possible effects to child support payments and second with reference to Contact Services where ‘some separated parents [mothers] have signalled they are no longer willing for the supervision of parenting arrangements to occur at these locations’, though it is conceded that: ‘For the present it is unclear where this leaves those parents required to use Children's Contact Services, most of whom are non-resident fathers’ (p. 8). In this way, the focus is not on the non-resident father at all, but on the separated mother. Moreover, ‘… data about non-residential fathers' family relationships are often gathered from other family members, notably the resident parent of their children. While such data provide important insights into post-separation parenting, it cannot comprehensively capture paternal perspectives’.1 Mincy et al.2 say non-resident fathers are ‘hidden’, while Poole et al.1 say they are ‘a hard to reach group’, but perhaps this is due to academic writing about non-resident fathers objectifying them rather than writing from their subjective perspective. As a result, much is known about what others think of them but a lot less about what they think of themselves.
In 2011, a United Nations5 report highlighted the increase in divorce and re-partnering since the end of the 20th Century, noting the changing nature of families and that non-resident fathers may be involved in many family configurations over time increasing the potential for their marginalisation.
In Australia, there were 56 244 divorces in 2021, up 13.6% on 2020 figures and 47% of divorces in 2021 involved children under 18 years of age.6 A proportion of divorcing couples resort to the Family Court when they cannot reach agreement with regard to child and property arrangements. The Family Court of Australia was established in 1975.7, 8 Historical factors that have shaped the current structure and function of the family court in Australia include the Family Law Act 1975, the Family Law Reform Act 1995 and the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006, culminating in its abolition as a free-standing court in 2021. The Family Law Reform Act 1995 sought to include the welfare of children of couples in divorce proceedings for the first time.9 It stated that unless it was contrary to their best interests, a child had the right to be cared for by both their parents. The reforms set out the principle of shared parental responsibility as a legal requirement for parents to agree on matters relating to their children. While most divorcing couples successfully negotiated these matters between themselves with perhaps court ratification, this reform resulted in an increase of disputes between parents who repeatedly returned to court to contest the custody of their children.9
It has been claimed that ‘the psychosocial experience of divorce can be particularly painful for men, and that it can be an acute stressor with chronic consequences’10 experienced as trauma. ‘Trauma is the emotional response to experiencing or witnessing a profoundly distressing event that threatens physical or psychological well-being and challenges one's ability to cope’.11 Given that the experience of divorce is generally painful, stressful and has chronic consequences as noted above and, together with economic vulnerability, difficult relationships with the mothers of their children, and have less contact with their children (also noted above), come together to create a threat to his physical and psychological well-being resulting in a form of trauma.12 Thereby the challenge to cope may mean that becoming a non-resident father could be traumatic with long and short term effects. These may be risk of injury, social isolation and maladaptive behaviours, that is, substance abuse13 leading to compromised mental well-being. The compromised mental well-being may underpin suicide through mental illness, anxiety and depression,14-16 ‘divorced men have a greater risk of suicide’,10 though suicidality17 in men (including non-resident fathers) is understudied. Men and non-resident fathers are reported victims of intimate partner violence (IPV)18-20 and at similar rates to women,21 ‘but often report that their complaints are treated with ridicule, laughter or indifference’10 adding to stress, distress and negative mental health. One aspect that has not as yet received sufficient attention is the occurrence of IPV by proxy, that is by members, friends or other associates of the ex-partner, but is deserving of further research.
2 NON-RESIDENT FATHERS AND MENTAL HEALTH
The effects of divorce for non-resident fathers are generally negative and exacerbated by poverty, social isolation, conflict, violence and mental ill-health.10, 13 As noted above, evidence suggests that divorce is a strong risk factor for non-resident father's mental health and suicide11, 12, 16 because it has the potential to negatively impact multiple dimensions of a man's life simultaneously, including relationships, work, daily activity, housing and financial security. This can lead to the experience of trauma, which often leads to a sense of powerlessness,22 and may result in feelings of helplessness, loss of control, connection or meaning, impacting everyday life to varying degrees.23 The trauma and distress experienced by non-resident fathers includes the disruption to and effect on his relationship with his children.16, 22 Further, if the divorce is initiated by the other parent, and there is high level conflict with the other parent, this further contributes to the non-resident father's compromised mental health.13, 24
After parental divorce, regardless of the expectations or of actual greater involvement in the family, the father-child relationship is put at serious risk.25 Little social or psychological support is available to the father,10 with few specific policies or programmes to support non-resident fathers to remain engaged with their children after divorce. Joint physical custody and shared parenting have become more common options since changes in the Australian Family Law in recent years, where it was acknowledged that the child had the right to a meaningful relationship with both parents. Despite the growth in joint physical custody and shared parenting options, the mother is usually considered the resident carer with primary responsibility for the children's everyday lives.26 In practice, this means that after divorce opportunities for non-resident fathers to undertake a meaningful parenting role may be limited. Restrictive Maternal Gatekeeping is a term that has been used to describe the attitudes and behaviours which restrict the non-resident father's interaction and relationship with his children and is evidenced by ‘efforts to marginalise the other parent, refusals to communicate, and to deliver derogatory messages about the other parent in the presence of the child’.26 Reasons such as this are often cited as major factors in separated or divorced parents' conflicts over parenting time and the non-resident fathers' access to his children.27
The comprehensiveness of the effects of restricted contact with their children are caused and highlighted by the breadth of factors impacting on the non-resident father simultaneously. These are: ongoing legal negotiations, financial stress, lack of housing, work stresses and the loss of social networks, that can simultaneously result in an overwhelming experience making non-resident fathers more likely to experience on-going suicidal ideation after separation/divorce.15 Due to limitations of this paper, all the above aspects are not able to be addressed comprehensively or individually but stand to illustrate the extent and degree to which non-resident fathers may be affected. A search of academic sources yielded limited research or literature that explored the experiences of non-resident fathers from their own perspective and it has been claimed that fathers are often absent from parenting research28 and as a result of this absence, they are not heard.29 This gap in research is significant as it is vital to know what issues non-resident fathers face so that mental health promotion services and supports can be better targeted at their unique needs.
2.1 Aims of the study
The aim of this study was to identify how non-resident fathers' interactions with legal and welfare services and ex-partners may result in their marginalisation affecting their mental health.
2.2 Methods
2.2.1 Research design
This study was undertaken using a qualitative, descriptive design30 which is appropriate when seeking to answer questions about perspectives and experiences of an aspect of a person's life31 and used Thematic Analysis for analysis of the data.32
2.2.2 Approach and recruitment
Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants through online men's health forums, social media and physical flyer. After prospective participants contacted the research team, a purposive sample was recruited who met the following inclusion criteria of being separated/divorced and not having their children reside with them for more than 50% of the time. Non-resident fathers who never resided with their children were not included. Prospective participants contacted the first author via official email to discuss the project further before providing informed consent to participate. There was no predetermined sample size. Braun and Clarke33 assert that saturation does not objectively exist, therefore recruitment ceased when it was determined that the number interviewed were sufficient to provide a wide range of experiences. Participants included four4 long term divorced (more than 23 years), recent or those still involved in legal processes and different stages, three3 gay men who came out of heterosexual marriages and four4 from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds. This mix together with working within the time frame and resources available, the sample reflected and enabled a comprehensive and complex understanding of the participants reported experiences.
2.3 Data collection
This research used in-depth interviews31, 34 for data collection with 19 participants. The interviews were conducted from May to September in 2022 and interviews had a duration of between 55 min and 3 h, with a median duration of 1.15 h. The interviews were conducted by the principal researcher. The interview schedule covered topics such as becoming a non-resident father, the desired relationship with children, the desired rate of contact, the effect of becoming a non-resident father, legal issues, welfare experiences and the influence of the ex-partner, hindrances to the relationship with children and mental health issues. Interviews were video and audio recorded using Zoom, with the participants knowledge and consent and were anonymised. These were then transcribed professionally to ensure accuracy and reliability.
The interviews provided an open and safe forum in which the participants provided extended comments, detailed exploration of their ideas, challenges and experiences. The focus was not on taking a pre-determined approach to the interviews, but rather, that the method authentically reflected the interests of the participants. The in-depth interviews allowed the interviewer scope to respond to, build on, extend and clarify the participants contributions4 in a relevant and meaningful manner.
2.4 Data analysis
Thematic analysis emphasises participant input,32, 33 enabling an approach that does justice to the participants voices and the primary researcher's experience of their stories.34 The raw data were sorted into 40 codes. These codes were then grouped into common ‘threads’ or ‘domains’. These domains were relationships, legal, community, psychological/mental health and responsibilities.
2.5 Ethical considerations
The study was approved by the Western Sydney University Ethics committee. Written consent was provided by all participants, who also verbally consented for the interview to be recorded. There were no adverse outcomes, and no participants withdrew from the study. Participants were assigned pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality.
2.6 Findings
Nineteen men who were non-resident fathers participated in this study. Participants had a mean age of 42.8 years, with a mean time since separation or divorce of 4 years. The non-resident fathers had a combined total of 37 non-resident children. Non-resident fathers were from Queensland (n = 7), NSW (n = 5), Victoria (n = 5), Western Australia (n = 1) and South Australia (n = 1).
These findings have been organised into three themes: (1) becoming a non-resident father: changing relationships and responsibilities, (2) being in a state of distress: compromises to mental health, (3) managing distress and seeking help: the value of community support. Words presented within [brackets] are added by the authors to aid the clarity of the participant's narrative.
3 THEME 1: BECOMING A NON-RESIDENT FATHER
All participants in this study became a non-resident father by separating from the mother of their children. Some participants left the family home (willingly and unwillingly) and some remained in the family home while the mother and their children relocated. Most instances of separation were the result of conflict between the participant and his partner. Only one reported that his separation was the outcome of a mutual and amicable process with his ex-partner. This theme is presented using two sub-themes: The process of becoming a non-resident father and immediate impact of becoming a non-resident father.
3.1 Sub-theme 1.1: The process of becoming a non-resident father
At least three participants who had been with their partners both long and short term and who had experienced separation from their partners in recent years before their interview found their separation to be sudden and unexpected ‘… and my wife back then, told me, oh, she's going to her sister with our daughter, and then they basically never returned’ (Kaarle). Those who had been separated for longer than 3 years recalled their separation unfolding over a period of time: ‘After about six or eight weeks, she'd called me one night, said she was leaving the house and taking both kids with her’ (Neville). Separation was precipitated by a number of reasons. For example, in one instance, separation resulted from a failure to compromise. Nick spoke of the other parent wanting to limit the amount of time Nick's children from a previous relationship visited; ‘… instead of me having them the five days a fortnight, she wanted them from 9:00 AM Saturday. After [son] was born, 9:00 AM till 5:00 PM on Sundays’. When he would not agree to her limitations: ‘[My partner] left me on my birthday in 2010 …’ (Nick).
Oliver and his partner adopted a child from overseas after unsuccessful IVF. The formal agreement with the adoption agency was that the mother stayed at home for 12 months so that the child could settle in and identify with the family. Within 6 months of the adoption, ‘my wife decided to leave’ saying it was ‘not a good experience for anybody’. For two participants the marriage ended due to the ex-partners extra marital affairs and for one participant due to the ex-partner deciding not to continue with the agreed living and child care arrangements, leaving the relationship with the child without explanation. In these cases, the impact of the ex-partner leaving the relationship was experienced as an act of betrayal which caused stress, distress and conflict as well as housing and financial difficulties. Larry described his entry into non-resident fatherhood as ‘… having found out that … your partner's cheating on you and wants to spend their life with [new partner] and then your kids are suddenly taken away from you, … you go … from being such an involved parent …to not at all …’ (Larry).
Four participants came out as gay after years of marriage, which resulted in conflict that led to separation. ‘When I told my wife [that he was gay] she had a meltdown and I moved out’ (Sylvain). Only one participant reported an amicable and cooperative separation, ‘We talked about how we were going to parent, [son], my son. How we were going to make that function for him and for us’ (Barry).
3.2 Sub-theme 1.2: Immediate impact of becoming a non-resident father
Participants reported three main immediate impacts of separation: (1) sudden and unexpected separation, (2) encounters with police and (3) crisis of homelessness.
For some participants the act of separation was sudden and unexpected ‘it was like a train hitting me. I didn't expect it’. (Corey) and ‘my wife decided to leave’ (Marcus).
More recently separated participants were more likely to have encounters with the police at separation: ‘15 minutes later, two paddy wagons turned up. There are three police officers, one female. There's four in total. The female police officer came straight up to me. “I hate men like you. You're the scum of the Earth.” And this female cop just ripped shit into me’ (Craig) and ‘I've never had any experience with the justice system in Australia or anywhere in the world, …. So, when this intervention order was served on me [by the police], I thought that obviously they're going to realise it was completely unnecessary. But I've learned in a hard way that they don't really want to ask your opinion. … and 10 months later, I still haven't been able to dispute it in the front of a magistrate’ (Kaarle). Kaarle, coming from a culturally and linguistically diverse background, indicated feeling confused by the lack of investigation by the police.
A significant number of both long term and recently separated/divorced participants experienced homelessness immediately after separation, ‘I was then forced to have to find somewhere else to go’ (Marcus). Some stayed with friends ‘I just went from house, to house, to house … until I felt that I had worn out my welcome in one place, and then I'd disappear to another place’ (Neville). For another the result of inadequate housing was limited access to children. ‘I couldn't have [the children] because [my accommodation] was unsafe’ (Craig).
4 THEME 2: BEING IN A STATE OF DISTRESS
After the initial shock of separation had passed, participants described experiences of ongoing distress. Their distress is described in three sub-themes: (1) distress associated with ongoing engagement with family law court and protracted negotiation over custody of children, (2) physical and psychological distancing and (3) consequences of distress for mental health.
4.1 Sub-theme 2.1 engagement with the family court brings about distress and compromises mental health
When separation led to divorce and divorce was not amicable, participants engaged with the family court and associated legal services, sometimes for lengthy periods, which affected both the non-resident father and the children. Nick reported that the process had continued for more than 2 years without a resolution at the time of his interview: ‘To take two years to make no decision’ (Nick). His daughter was two and a half years old at the time of interview and Nick has had no contact with her since the initiation of legal action.
Lawyers, the courts and mediation sometimes had a negative impact on participants mental health: ‘on the mental health aspect, I think it was extremely detrimental to me to hear (at) every single hearing from the police to say they enforcing (sic) the full no-contact with children even though they've got zero element [evidence]to justify that’ (Kaarle). Craig spoke of the severe impact of engagement with the family court on him: ‘I've just got a lot of anger towards the family court and the legal system. I believe that the lawyers who allowed false accusations to go through, to create a false impression … To create a false idea, to create all of the things that followed, which came very, very close to destroying me’ (Craig).
Participants who were divorced the longest tended to have less engagement with the Family Court and tended to accept the status quo of the time in terms of contact arrangements with the children. This perhaps reflects the attitudes of the time, where a set formula for child contact was the norm and it was unusual to challenge it. On the other hand, younger and more recently divorced participants were more likely to undertake legal action in order to remain involved with their children. This in turn perhaps reflects the attitudes and expectations of the current environment where non-resident fathers are wanting to remain engaged with their children and it is often seen that they should have access to their children.
Legal action and interaction with the family court was financially costly, leading to financial stress, for example one participant (Larry) used all his savings, then drew on his and compromises mental health. Corey reported: ‘they quoted me 70 grand. And I didn't even have a job. So, I was like’, well, I cannot do that. ‘It cost me $500 just to talk to them for 40 minutes…’. Larry reported ‘I spent a lot of money trying to stay involved in the kids' life. I tried for (the desired contact) as long as I financially could. I couldn't afford it anyway’.
Expensive legal action had the potential to disadvantage participants in the long term. ‘I tried for as long as I financially could, which was sort of lucky at the time with the start of COVID, 2019, where the government opened up super funds, so you could access $10,000 from that. That's what I did’ (Larry).
4.2 Sub-theme 2.2 physical and psychological distancing from children
Physical distancing and psychological distancing were major factors in the reported experience of participants. Physical distancing is where there is actual physical distance between the non-resident father and his children making contact difficult. Psychological distancing is where the children are distanced from the non-resident father through words or actions which interfere with his relationship with his children. Long term divorced participants and a few short term separated participants described experiences of physical distancing, some described experiences of psychological distancing, while others described experiencing both physical and psychological distancing from their children as a result of separation and divorce.
Physical distancing came about due to housing arrangements where the non-resident father or the mother moved to another location making contact inconvenient: ‘[my son] gone down with his mother. His mother's moved …’ (Bruce). The physical distance was a challenge for some fathers in realising their aspirations to a 50/50 share of time with the children. ‘Ideally, I would like 50/50 (residency) but distance makes that quite difficult now’ (Larry). For others, long distances prohibited the conduct of a face-to-face relationship with their children ‘For me, it's nearly a 900-kilometre round trip’ (Neville). Sometimes physical distancing could be imposed on participants by the erection of a physical barrier to contact ‘… the next time that I tried to go back to the apartment, they [ex-partner and his in-laws] had changed the locks’ (Corey).
Physical distancing caused distress for some participants especially when it limited their ability to be present to their children in times of need: ‘I knew I was missing out on really important parts of their growing up … I could never be there at that moment, at those times when they need the support’ (Cameron).
More recently separated/divorced participants were more likely to report that they had been denied contact with their children because of legal action, which they experienced as distressing. ‘I was basically told on an afternoon with the Victoria police knocking on my door that an intervention order was served against me. And I was not allowed to go anywhere near my property or my kids until further notice’ (Kaarle).
Recently separated participants more likely to report a sense of psychological distancing that they attributed to the mothers' actions. For example, Eduardo reported that ‘I had children with a narcissist that used the children to control all the outcomes … she tried it [false allegations] with all of them and she's managed to succeed with the youngest one’. Steve reported that ‘my relationship with my daughter's mother has been full of gas lighting and all sorts of unpleasantness. I've never had custody of my daughter. I've only ever been allowed curated visitation’.
Both physical and psychological distancing could be experienced at the same time, causing distress. Marcus indicated a lack of intimacy with his children due to working 1500 kilometres from home and when he visited for contact, he would stay in the family home, but the mother and children did not change their routines when he visited, ‘I almost found myself sort of being isolated within my own house from the kids. The ex-partner would take them into all their activities, keep them running around and very busy…’ (Marcus).
4.3 Sub-theme 2.3 consequences of distress for mental health
The distress of becoming a non-resident father for some participants was experienced as a sense of grief for lost relationships or hope for the future. Both long term and recently separated participants experienced a sense of frustration when their attempts to repair relationships were blocked. Experiences of distress led to compromised mental health. The compromise was very severe in some cases and manifested in suicidal ideation.
Both long time and recently divorced participants reported experiencing grief, loss and brokenness, ‘Those were the toughest months. I was in the worst head space. I was so emotionally broken at the time’ (Corey). For many, this resulted in the seeming futility of continuing to fight to see their children resulted in giving up hope of ever having their desire for an ongoing, meaningful, and involved relationship with their children: ‘I had to walk away. I had to start again. I could not fight anymore. I was just mentally drained and incapable of more’ (Craig).
In some cases, false allegations of sexual and physical abuse were reportedly causes of distress for several recently separated participants: ‘but I'm just depressed that I can't see the kids. I'm having all this false information put out about me, she's caused me more mental distress by doing, she's got a restraining order on me’ (Bruce). Participants who were more recently divorced disclosed suicidal ideation as a result of divorce: ‘I was falling apart, so my initial dealings with the mental health professional was about suicide de-escalation (Neville)’.
For at least one participant, the effects of emotional distress were anticipated to be long lasting. ‘I also have anxiety from it’ (Neville) due to the separation, the experience of IPV and the financial abuse, concluding that ‘I don't know if I'll ever fucking be right again’ (Neville).
5 THEME 3: MANAGING DISTRESS AND SEEKING HELP
Recently separated/divorced participants were more likely to seek help to manage distress by accessing professional support, work related support or the support of friends and family.
5.1 Sub-theme 3.1: Professional mental health supports for managing distress
The recently separated/divorced participants more often reported turning to counsellors and psychologists for help with their mental health. However, some participants reported dissatisfaction with the service they received ‘despite repeated attempts to get help, people just laughed at me’ (Bruce), while others ‘found it difficult to get help …’ (Brad) due to the lack of service availability. One participant reported his experience of counselling as being hostile towards him ‘… I was at breaking point. … I knew I was breaking. I walked in and I see all these pamphlets of men-bashing women, and violence against women, and all this sort of stuff, and I walked in, and this psychologist said’, ‘You're a man. Suck it up’. (Craig). Craig continued ‘That was a complete negative experience, so I tried another one, and the same sort of thing happened’. Craig reported that ‘my ex brought 204 false allegations against me’.
One participants' request for professional mental health support was used in a way that could have resulted in negative consequences for him: ‘I started to see a psychologist, which once the Ex found out I was, she then tried [unsuccessfully] to use that as leverage to say I wasn't fit to parent’ (Larry).
5.2 Sub-theme 3.2: Alternative methods of managing distress
Participants reported pursuing diverse methods for managing distress. In addition to professional counselling, keeping busy at work or staying close to supportive social networks were used as management strategies.
One participant combined independent counselling with work-based counselling, which he stated was successful: ‘I was doing that also every two months, basically to alternate between the employee assistance program especially in the first six months, because that's where I probably needed it the most, but then I've gradually improved and then I've decreased a bit the support (sic)’ (Kaarle).
Often the role of family was an important part of the divorce process, ‘it was interesting because it was supported by my ex's family. Who helped with the move …’ (Barry). Friends were also highlighted as a forming part of a management strategy: ‘I was in a bad… just, I didn't have a good head space going on. So, I went out and talked to some friends’ (Corey).
Perhaps as a reflection of our times, more recently separated/divorced participants used some or all of the above in combination with online groups to gain relevant information and personal support: ‘I did join a Facebook group … and that helped me out a lot, honestly. … they were all super supportive’ (Corey).
Keeping busy at work and interacting with workmates was also reportedly a successful management strategy for some ‘my boss at work was a fantastic guy who really did everything he could to make sure that work was a really supportive and flexible place, and understood I think the complexity I was going through and was really quite a strength in that process’ (Colin).
6 DISCUSSION
The results of this study revealed three themes: Becoming a non-resident father, being in a state of distress and managing stress and seeking help. Separation from their partner was frequently sudden and unexpected which had an initial negative impact on the life circumstances of participants in this study. Their distress was compounded by prolonged engagement with the family court and the perception that they were powerless over their situation. Although in most cases participants sought help to overcome their distress, they did not always succeed in finding the help that they wanted or needed.
Patterns of help seeking behaviour by men in distress have been studied extensively. Men have been regarded as less likely than women to seek help14, 35-38 and men have been described as being reluctant to report symptoms of mental ill health.17 It is claimed that potential systemic and organisational barriers exist that prevent men from seeking help including the cost of professional support services,39 the lack of credibility of health professionals,35 the men's lack of knowledge and misinformation about services,37 the counselling process itself38 and a potential negative impact on careers.35 Other barriers included limited hours of operation by services and poor communication with health professionals.39 There have been some public health initiatives in Australia aimed at increasing men's help seeking and to reduce suicidality which have had limited success.35
Effective techniques for the support of help seeking for men in distress include receiving feedback, advice, and concrete tools, rather than focusing on understanding experiences or just being listened to.37 These techniques have been deployed in a range of ways in Australia. For example, Mates in construction, Farm link, and OzHelp Fund are workplace based initiatives that have demonstrated some beneficial effect. Participants in this study did not conform to the stereotype of the reluctant male help-seeker. They clearly articulated their need for and efforts to seek help, but also described the barriers that they encountered to receiving help. Strategies for the support men in distress that have been described previously might be effective in supporting non-resident fathers who are in distress and unable to access the help that they need. This shows that it is possible to support help seeking among men who are experiencing distress as a result of non-resident fatherhood. This can be achieved by implementing those practices that have worked in other contexts40 and to work towards breaking down the stereotypes of men's help seeking behaviour14, 36 which do not reflect their actions.
Participants in this study experienced divorce at a time when it fell under the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Whatever the good intentions of the structure and function of the Family Court, several participants in this study experienced distress because of the legal action surrounding engagement with that Court. With the abolition of the stand-alone Australian Family Court in February 2021, it remains to be seen whether the merger with Federal Circuit Court can provide greater levels of satisfactory support to a wider range of people being divorced.
7 LIMITATIONS
Although these stories are rich and powerful, they only reflect those of the men who shared them and not all separated fathers have this experience. That is, some non-resident fathers might be happy to disengage and not maintain contact with their children, and others are able to satisfactorily negotiate an outcome with the other parent that satisfies both parties' vision for shared parenthood. Similarly, some non-resident fathers in some locations might have greater success at accessing professional support or might be better support by family and other networks.
8 CONCLUSION
This study found that non-resident fathers were deeply affected by three aspects as a consequence of separation/divorce, being: Becoming a non-resident father, Being in a state of distress, and managing distress and seeking help and highlighted how these factors come together to marginalise them regarding the impact of legal, community agencies, welfare services, relationship with ex-partner and other social consequences. The extent of this impact was reflected in the number of participants who undertook counselling or psychological assistance to deal with their perceived mental distress and marginalisation. This marginalisation resulted in an invisibility in society so that non-resident fathers felt silenced and disempowered.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank all of the participants for sharing their unique stories of their journey towards gaining and/or maintaining meaningful relationships with their children after divorce. Open access publishing facilitated by Western Sydney University, as part of the Wiley - Western Sydney University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.
FUNDING INFORMATION
None.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
ETHICS STATEMENT
HREC Approval Number: H14824.
