Research - Child contact

NON-RESIDENT PARENTAL CONTACT

Based on data from the National Statistics Omnibus Survey for

The Department for Constitutional Affairs

October 2003

Alison Blackwell
&
Fiona Dawe

Final Report

Social and Vital Statistics Division
Office for National Statistics
1 Drummond Gate
London
SW1V 2QQ

Contact points
For any enquiries about this report, or the Omnibus in general contact
Alison Blackwell
Tel: 020 7533 5749
E-mail: Omnibus@ons.gov.uk

For general enquiries contact the National Statistics Enquiry Centre on 0845 601 3034 (minicom: 01633 812399)

E-mail: info@statistics.gov.uk
Fax: 01633 652 747
Letters: Room D115, Government Buildings,
Cardiff Road,
Newport
NP10 8XG

You can also find National Statistics on the Internet at www.statistics.gov.uk

About the Office for National Statistics
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is the government agency responsible for compiling, analysing and disseminating many of the United Kingdom’s economic, social and demographic statistics, including the retails price index, trade figures and labour market data, as well as the periodic census of population and health statistics. The Director of ONS is also the National Statistician and the Registrar General for England and Wales, and the agency administers the statutory registration of births, marriages and deaths there.

A National Statistics publication
Official statistics bearing the National Statistics logo are produced to high professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice. They undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs. They are produced free from any political interference.

CONTENTS

List of figures and tables 4

Notes to report 7

Summary 9

1. Introduction 13

2. Baseline figures for contact between child and non-resident parent 17

3. Frequency of contact with the non-resident parent 19

4. Satisfaction with frequency of contact 36

5. Contact arrangements with the non-resident parent 41

Appendices
A The Omnibus Survey
B Copy of the paper questionnaires
C Statistical terms and their interpretation

List of Figures

Page

Figure 3.1 Frequency of direct contact 7

Figure 3.2 Frequency of indirect contact 8

Figure 3.3 Frequency of direct and indirect contact 11

Figure 3.4 Location of contact visits 18

Figure 3.5 Frequency of overnight stay 19

Figure 3.6 How maintenance arrangements were agreed 21

Figure 4.1 Satisfaction with contact arrangements 23

Figure 4.2 Satisfaction with contact arrangements by frequency 25
of direct contact

Figure 4.3 Proportion of children whose responding parent said that 27
they would like the non-resident parent to have more contact
with the child

Figure 5.1 Type of contact arrangement 30

Figure 5.2 Type of contact arrangement by distance child lives 31
from non-resident parent

Figure 5.3 Satisfaction with contact arrangements by type of 36
contact arrangement

Figure 5.4 Improvements to contact arrangements 39

List of tables

Table 1.1 Profile of parents who responded to the survey

Table 1.2 Profile of children in the two sample groups

Table 2.1 Contact arrangements with non-resident parent

Table 2.2 Contact arrangements with non-resident parent (at least once a week and less than once a week)

Table 2.3 Direct and indirect contact with non-resident parent (at least once a week and less than once a week)

Table 2.4 Children who stay overnight with their non-resident parent at least once a week compared with children who have contact with their non-resident parent less often

Table 3.1 Frequency of direct contact

Table 3.2 Frequency of indirect contact

Table 3.3 Frequency of direct contact by frequency of indirect contact

Table 3.4 Frequency of direct contact by distance non-resident parent lives from child

Table 3.5 Frequency of indirect contact by distance non-resident parent lives from child

Table 3.6 Frequency of direct and indirect contact by distance non-resident parent lives from child

Table 3.7 Frequency of contact by length of time since parents separated

Table 3.8 Frequency of contact by age of child

Table 3.9 Relative risk ratio (RRR) for frequency of contact by distance non-resident parent lives from child and length of time since parents separated - resident parent (Model one)

Table 3.10 Relative risk ratio (RRR) for frequency of contact by distance non-resident parent lives from child and length of time since parents separated - resident parent (Model two)

Table 3.11 Relative risk ratio (RRR) for frequency of contact by distance non-resident parent lives from child and length of time since parents separated – non-resident parent (Model one)

Table 3.12 Relative risk ratio (RRR) for frequency of contact by distance non-resident parent lives from child and length of time since parents separated– non-resident parent (Model two)

Table 3.13 Frequency of contact by age of responding parent

Table 3.14 Frequency of contact by sex of responding parent

Table 3.15 Frequency of contact by responding parent’s region of residence

Table 3.16 Frequency of contact by ethnic group of responding parent

Table 3.17 Frequency of contact by socio-economic group of responding parent

Table 3.18 Frequency of contact by whether responding partner has a new partner and children with that partner

Table 3.19 Characteristics of the child’s responding parent in cases where the non-resident parent has no direct contact with the child

Table 3.20 Where direct contact takes place by frequency of contact

Table 3.21 How often child stays over night with non-resident parent

Table 3.22 Proportion of children who stay overnight with non-resident parent by (a) frequency of direct contact, (b) distance between non-resident parent’s home and that of the child, (c) length of time parents have been separated, and (d) age of child

Table 3.23 Whether non-resident parent is currently paying maintenance for the child by frequency of contact

Table 3.24 How the maintenance agreements were made by the children’s parents

Table 4.1 Satisfaction with contact arrangements

Table 4.2 Satisfaction with contact arrangements by frequency of direct contact

Table 4.3 Satisfaction with contact arrangements by distance non-resident parent lives from child

Table 4.4 Proportion of children in each sample whose responding parent said that more contact between the non-resident parent and the child would improve the contact arrangements by frequency of direct contact

Table 5.1 Type of contact arrangement

Table 5.2 Type of contact arrangement by age of child

Table 5.3 Type of contact arrangement by distance non-resident parent lives from child

Table 5.4 Type of contact arrangement by length of time since parents separation

Table 5.5 Type of contact arrangement by frequency of contact

Table 5.6 Relative risk ratio (RRR) for frequency of contact by type of contact arrangement - resident parent

Table 5.7 Relative risk ratio (RRR) for frequency of contact by type of contact arrangement - Non-resident parent

Table 5.8 Type of contact arrangement by gender of non-resident parent

Table 5.9 Type of contact arrangement by social-economic group

Table 5.10 Type of contact arrangements by ethnicity

Table 5.11 Type of contact arrangement by educational level

Table 5.12 Satisfaction with contact arrangements

Table 5.13 Satisfaction by type of contact arrangement

Table 5.14 Satisfaction by length of time since parents separation

Table 5.15 Satisfaction by whether parent has repartnered and has children with new partner

Table 5.16 Improvements to contact arrangements

Table A.1 Household level response of the Omnibus Survey for the months in which the non-resident parental contact questions were asked (April, June, July, August, September, October, November)

Table A.2 Response to the full module – April, June, July, August, September, October, November

Notes to tables

1. Very small bases have been avoided wherever possible because of the relatively high sampling errors that attach to small numbers. In general, percentage distribution are shown if the base is 30 or more. Where the base is smaller than this, actual numbers are shown within square brackets.

2. A percentage may be quoted in the text for a single category that is identifiable in the tables only by summing two or more component percentages. In order to avoid rounding errors, the percentage has been recalculated for the single category and therefore may differ by one percentage point from the sum of the percentages derived from the tables.

3. The row or column percentages may add to 99% or 101% because of rounding.

4. Unless otherwise stated, changes and differences mentioned in the text have been found to be statistically significant.


Summary

1 Introduction
• Non-resident parents are respondents who have had a child from a previous relationship which has broken down and the child lives with the other birth parent. Resident parents are respondents who live with a child from a previous relationship and the other birth parent does not live with them.
• The achieved sample comprises of 649 respondents who were resident parents and 312 respondents who were non-resident parents. There were 26 respondents who were both a resident parent and a non-resident parent.
• The majority of resident parents were female while the majority of non-resident parents were male.
• Approximately half the parent sample were aged between 31 and 40 years. A larger proportion of the resident parent sample were younger than the non-resident parent sample.
• Most parents had either one or two children from a previous relationship.
• In total, parents reported on contact arrangements for 1,506 children.

• Analysis of the data, within this report, has been carried out at the child level.

2 Baseline figures for contact between child and non-resident parent
• Contact between the non-resident parent and their child can take a number of different forms and can be divided into two categories: direct and indirect contact. For the purposes of this report direct contact is defined as face-to-face contact between the child and the non-resident parent, whilst indirect contact includes all non face-to-face contact such as telephone conversations, letters, emails, etc.
• Overall, at least half of all children had some form of contact (direct or indirect) with their non-resident parent at least once a week.
• 43% of children in the resident parent sample and 59% of children in the non-resident parent sample had direct contact with their non-resident parent at least once a week.
• A further nine per cent of children in the resident parent sample and 18% of children in the non-resident parent sample had indirect contact at least once a week.
• A fifth (21%) of children in the resident parent sample and a tenth (10%) of children in the non-resident parent sample had direct contact with their non-resident parent less than once a week.
• Less than a twentieth of children have indirect contact less than once a week (4% for children in the resident parent sample and 3% of children in the non-resident parent sample).
• A quarter (24%) of children in the resident parent sample and 10% of children in the non-resident parent sample have no direct or indirect contact with their non-resident parent.

3 Frequency of contact with the non-resident parent
• There is an apparent correlation between the frequency of direct contact and indirect contact between the child and the non-resident parent. Therefore, children who saw their non-resident parent at least once a week were most likely to also have indirect contact at least once a week.
• Distance between the non-resident parent's home and that of their child is an important factor governing the frequency with which the child has direct contact with their non-resident parent. Indirect contact between the child and their non-resident parent does not appear to be as dependant upon the distance between the non-resident parent and child's homes as direct contact.
• Non-resident parents who had been separated for three years or more were less likely to have direct contact with their child at least once a week than those who had separated from the child's other parent less than three years ago.
• Children whose parents had been separated for at least three years were also more likely to never have contact with their non-resident parent than children whose parents had separated more recently.
• The age of the child appears to have little influence over the frequency of contact between the child and the non-resident parent.
• Within the resident parent sample, contact between the child and their non-resident parent was more likely to be influenced by whether or not the responding parent had had children in their current relationship, whilst within the non-resident parent sample the frequency of contact was more likely to be affected by whether or not the responding parent was currently in a relationship.
• Respondents were asked where the non-resident parent had contact with their child. The majority of children, in both sample groups, met their non-resident parent at the non-resident parent's home.
• Contact centres were used by less than one per cent of children in both sample groups as a location to meet their non-resident parents.
• Over half of all children stay overnight with their non-resident parent. However, children whose non-resident parent responded to the survey were more likely than children whose resident parent responded to the survey to stay overnight with their non-resident parent.
• There was a large discrepancy between the two samples in the proportion of children for whom the non-resident parent was paying maintenance. Non-resident parents were paying maintenance for almost two-thirds (63%) of the children in the non-resident parent sample compared with only 39% of the children in the resident parent sample.

4 Satisfaction with frequency of contact
• Overall, the parents of children in both sample groups were satisfied with the contact arrangements with almost half saying that they were 'very satisfied'.
• Only one-in-twenty parents of children in both sample groups were 'fairly dissatisfied' with the contact arrangements.
• Responding parents of children in the non-resident parent sample were more likely to be 'very dissatisfied' with the contact arrangements than responding parents of children in the resident parent sample.
• On the whole children's parents were more likely to be 'very satisfied' with the contact arrangements if the non-resident parent saw the child frequently.
• The proportion of children whose responding parent said that they were dissatisfied with the contact arrangements increased as the frequency of direct contact fell.
• Satisfaction with the contact arrangements among the responding parents of children whose non-resident parent did not have direct contact with the child was very different in the two sample groups. Over half the responding parents in the resident parent sample were 'very satisfied' with the arrangements while only 6% of responding parents in the non-resident parent sample were 'very satisfied'.
• In general, satisfaction with contact arrangements does not appear to be influenced by the distance between the non-resident parent's home and that of the child.
• When asked how contact arrangements could be improved, the most popular contact improvement, in both sample groups, was that the non-resident parent should have more direct contact with their child.

5 Contact arrangements with the non-resident parent
• Contact arrangements between the non-resident parent and their child can be agreed in a number of ways. They can be agreed both formally or informally. Informal arrangements include the parents agreeing between themselves that the non-resident parent will have contact with the child every Saturday or parents have no set contact arrangements and deciding on a weekly basis. Formal contact arrangements are those negotiated by a mediator or lawyer or ordered by a court.
• The majority of children had the contact arrangements with their non-resident parent informally arranged. Over half of the children from both samples had the contact arrangements informally agreed between their parents.
• The nearer the non-resident parent lived to the child the more likely it was that the contact arrangements were informally agreed between the parents. This pattern is reversed for informal contact arrangements that were never agreed: the nearer the non-resident parent lives to the child the likelihood that the informal arrangements had never been agreed decreases.
• Contact arrangements are more likely to be informally agreed between parents if the parents had been separated for less than three years.
• In general, the more frequently the child has some contact with their non-resident parent the more likely it is that the contact arrangements were informally agreed between parents. This pattern is reversed for informal contact arrangements that were never agreed between the parents: the less often the child has contact with their non-resident parent the more likely it is that the informal contact arrangements have never been agreed.
• On the whole, responding parents who had informally agreed the contact arrangements between themselves were mainly satisfied.
• Satisfaction with contact arrangements that had been ordered by a court was low.
• Responding parents of children in the non-resident parent sample said the main improvement they would like to see to the contact arrangements was better communication with the other parent.

1 Introduction

This report presents the results of the module on non-resident parental contact carried out on behalf of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, as part of the Office for National Statistics Omnibus Survey.

The survey aimed to:
• Assess current levels, frequency and satisfaction with contact arrangements from the point of view of the non-resident and the resident parent.
• Provide baseline data for future comparisons.

1.1 Sample
The sample included parents of:
• children aged 15 years or younger;
• birth children;
• children separated from one parent because of relationship breakdown.

The sample excluded:
• widowed parents;
• parents of children at boarding school;
• parents separated from their children because of state intervention, for example, those in care.

Non-resident parents are respondents who have had a child from a previous relationship which has broken down and the child lives with the other birth parent. Resident parents are respondents who live with a child from a previous relationship and the other birth parent does not live with them.

1.2 Fieldwork
A module asking about non-resident parental contact was run on the National Statistics Omnibus Survey in April, June, July, August, September, October and November 2002. This module was offered as a self-completion module. The Omnibus ran to capacity in April and July which meant that the module could not be included because of the additional time it could add to the length of interview. Therefore a different approach was taken for these two months: the Omnibus Survey asked a few questions to identify the sample of interest, then follow-up telephone interviews were conducted by the ONS Telephone Unit.

The National Statistics Omnibus Survey is a multi-purpose survey based on a representative sample of adults aged 16 or over, living in private households in Great Britain. The Omnibus Survey interviewed 13,506 adults during the seven months between April 2002 and November 2002. Questions about non-resident parental contact were only asked of respondents who were non-resident or resident parents, therefore the results of this report are based on 935 adults who met the criterion. The majority of respondents used the self-completion method of answering the module of questions on the Omnibus Survey. Self-completion was used to encourage honest answers and to avoid potential embarrassment on the part of respondents.

1.3 Respondents to the module
The achieved sample comprises of 649 respondents who were resident parents and 312 respondents who were non-resident parents. There were 26 respondents who were both a resident parent and a non-resident parent.

The majority (93%) of resident parents were female while the majority of non-resident parents were male (89%). Approximately half the sample of parents were aged between 31 and 40 years (53% of resident parents and 47% of non-resident parents). A larger proportion of the resident parent sample were younger than the non-resident parent sample: 26% were aged under 30 years compared with 15% of the non-resident parent sample. Therefore a larger proportion of the non-resident parent sample were older than the resident parent sample: more than a third (38%) aged 41 years or over compared with less than a quarter (22%) of the resident parent sample.

Most parents had either one or two children from a previous relationship. Three-fifths of respondents had one child (59% of resident parent and 62% of non-resident parents) and approximately a third of respondents had two children from a previous relationship (31% of resident parents and 29% of non-resident parents). Less than one-in-ten parents had three children (8% of resident parents and 6% of non-resident parents) and only one per cent of resident parents had four children and three per cent of non-resident parents had four or more children from a previous relationship.

In total, parents reported on contact arrangements for 1,506 children. Nearly half the children were aged 11 to 16 years (49% of the non-resident parent sample and 42% of the resident parent sample). A third were aged between 6 and 10 years (32% of the resident parent sample and 35% of the non-resident parent sample). Children aged over 10 may have different contact arrangements to younger children as they may influence the contact arrangements. There was an even split of male and female children in both samples. Tables 1.1 - 1.2

1.4 Analysis
Although the survey data were collected from interviews with parents, analysis of data has been carried out at the child level. This approach has been taken because parents may have had more than one resident or non-resident child and contact arrangements may have been different for each child. Therefore parents' behaviour and attitudes are reported as characteristics of the child.

Results have been presented separately for the non-resident parent sample and the resident parent sample. It is necessary to show the results from the two samples separately because there was a possibility that the Omnibus Survey could have interviewed a child's resident and non-resident parent. Therefore if the results were combined for the two samples there would be a chance that the same child would be included twice in the data.

Logistic regression analysis has been used in the report to provide a measure of the effect of various variables on the frequency of contact between the child and their non-resident parent. Unlike the crosstabulations presented elsewhere in the report, logistic regression estimates the effect of a variable while controlling for the confounding effect of other variables in the analysis.

Details about the Omnibus Survey are given in Appendix A and the questionnaire is shown in Appendix B. Appendix C details the statistical terms used in this report and their interpretation.

2 Baseline figures for contact between child and non-resident parent

One of the primary purposes of the survey was to provide the Department for Constitutional Affairs with baseline figures for contact between the child and the non-resident parent from which levels of contact can be monitored over time. In order to effectively monitor change over time the associated 95% confidence intervals for these baseline percentages are shown in Tables 2.1-2.4. Chapter 3 'Frequency of contact with the non-resident parent' contains further analysis of the frequency of contact between the child and non-resident parent and the factors that may influence the frequency of contact.

2.1 Contact between child and non-resident parent
Contact between the child and non-resident parent can be divided into two forms: 'direct contact', that is face-to-face contact and 'indirect contact' such as contact via the telephone, mail, email etc. Data relating to frequency of contact in this chapter has been priority coded so that any form of contact at least once a week takes priority over contact less than once a week and direct contact within each time frame takes priority over any indirect contact during that period:

1. 'Direct contact at least once a week'
(for example, a child who speaks to their non-resident parent every day on the
telephone but sees them only once a week)
2. 'Indirect contact at least once a week'
(for example, a child who has two or three emails a week from their non-resident parent and sees them only in the school holidays)
3. 'Direct contact less than once a week'
(for example, a child who speaks to their non-resident parent once a fortnight on the telephone and sees them once a year on holiday)
4. 'Indirect contact less than once a week'
(for example, a child irregularly receives letters from their non-resident parent but never has direct contact with them)

Forty-three per cent of children in the resident parent sample and 59% of children in the non-resident parent sample had direct contact at least once a week with their non-resident parent. A further nine per cent of children in the resident parent sample and 18% of those in the non-resident parent sample had indirect contact at least once a week.

A fifth (21%) of children in the resident parent sample and a tenth (10%) of children in the non-resident parent sample have direct contact less than once a week with their non-resident parent and less than a twentieth of children in both samples (4% and 3% respectively) have only indirect contact less than once a week.

A quarter (23%) of children in the resident parent sample and a tenth (10%) of children in the non-resident parent sample have no direct nor indirect contact with their non-resident parent.

Overall, at least half of all children had some form of contact (direct or indirect contact) with their non-resident parent at least once a week: half (52%) of children in the resident parent sample and three-quarters (77%) of children in the non-resident parent sample. However, only three-tenths (30%) of children in the resident parent sample and just over a half (54%) of children in the non-resident parent sample had both direct and indirect contact at least once a week with their non-resident parent.
Within both sample groups, fewer than three in ten children stayed over night with their non-resident parent at least once a week: 20% of children in the resident parent sample and 27% of children in the non-resident parent sample. Tables 2.1 - 2.4

3. Frequency of contact with the non-resident parent

Contact between the non-resident parent and their child can take a number of different forms and can be divided into two categories: direct and indirect contact. For the purposes of this report direct contact is defined as face-to-face contact between the child and the non-resident parent, whilst indirect contact includes all non face-to-face contact such as telephone conversations, letters, emails, etc .

Figure 3.1 Frequency of direct contact

3.1 Direct contact
Around one in ten children had daily direct contact with their non-resident parent (8% of children whose resident parent responded and 11% of children whose non-resident parent was the respondent). A third (34%) of children whose resident parent was interviewed and just under a half (48%) of children whose non-resident parent responded saw their non-resident parent at least once a week but not every day. Slightly fewer than one in five (18% of both samples) children saw their non-resident parent at least once a month. A further twentieth of children saw their non-resident parent only in the school holidays or once every three months (4% of children whose resident parent responded and 5% of children whose non-resident parent responded to the survey). A similar proportion, 6% of children whose resident parent was the respondent and 4% of children whose non-resident parent was the respondent, saw their non-resident parent once or twice a year and 3% and 1% respectively saw their non-resident parent less often than once a year. Just over a quarter (27%) of children whose resident parent responded to the survey compared with 14% of children whose non-resident parent responded never see their non-resident parent. There is an apparent inconsistency between the two samples about the frequency with which the child has direct contact with their non-resident parent. Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2 Frequency of indirect contact

3.2 Indirect contact
The inconsistency between the two survey samples is more obvious when parents were asked about the frequency of indirect contact between the non-resident parent and their child. In some circumstances and situations the frequency of indirect contact between the non-resident parent and their child may be more difficult for the resident to assess than direct contact (for example a resident parent may not be aware of all telephone conversations or emails between the non-resident parent and their child) and this may explain some of the differences between the results from the two sample.

Amongst the sample of children whose non-resident parent responded to the survey half (53%) had indirect contact with their non-resident parent at least once a week but not every day and a further 18% had daily indirect contact. Six per cent had indirect contact with their non-resident parent once a month and one tenth (10%) had indirect contact less often than once a month. One eighth (12%) of these children had no indirect contact with their non-resident parent.

Among the children whose resident parent responded to the survey slightly more than a quarter (28%) had indirect contact at least once a week but not every day with their non-resident parent and only 12% had daily indirect contact. An eighth (13%) had indirect contact with their non-resident parent at least once a month and a further 18% of children had indirect contact less frequently than once a month. Three in ten (29%) children in this survey sample reportedly never had indirect contact with their non-resident parent. Table 3.2 and Figure 3.2

3.3 Relationship between direct and indirect contact with non-resident parent
Table 3.3 shows that there is an apparent correlation between the frequency of direct and indirect contact between the child and their non-resident parent within both samples. Therefore children who saw their non-resident parent at least once a week but not every day were most likely to also have indirect contact with them at least once a week but not daily. Among children in the resident parent sample, two thirds (67%) of children who had indirect contact with their non-resident parent at least once a week but not every day also had direct contact with them at least once a week but not daily. Similarly, half (52%) of children in the resident parent sample who had indirect contact with their non-resident parent at least once a month also had direct contact at least once a month. Among children who had no indirect contact with their non-resident parent four-fifths, in both sample groups, also had no direct contact with their non-resident parent (80% of children in the resident parent sample and 83% of children in the non-resident parent sample who never had indirect contact with their non-resident parent). Table 3.3

3.4 Distance between child's home and non-resident parent's home
Unsurprisingly, the distance between the non-resident parent's home and that of their child appears to be an important factor governing the frequency with which the child sees their non-resident parent. Consequently, children who lived within ten miles of their non-resident parent were those most likely to see their non-resident parent daily. Over an eighth of children who lived within ten miles of their non-resident parent saw them every day (14% of children whose resident parent responded to the survey and 16% of children whose non-resident parent was the respondent).

Within the non-resident parent sample the relationship between frequency of direct contact and distance between the child and the non-resident parent is much clearer than within the resident parent sample. The results from this sample suggest that frequency of contact decreases as the distance between non-resident parent and child increases. Therefore, children who lived less than 10 miles from their non-resident parent were those most likely to see their non-resident parent on a daily basis (16% compared with 6% of children who lived 10 miles but less than 50 miles from their non-resident parent and 1% of children who lived 50 or more miles from their non-resident parent). Children who lived less than 50 miles from their non-resident parent were most likely to see them at least once a week but not every day: more than six in ten (63%) children who lived under 10 miles from their non-resident parent's home and half (49%) of those who lived 10 miles but less than 50 miles from their non-resident parent's home saw them at least once a week but not every day. Children who lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident parent's home were most likely to see their non-resident parent at least once a month: the proportion of children who lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident parent's home and who saw their non-resident parent at least once a month was almost twice that of children who lived 10 miles but less than 50 miles from their non-resident parent and four times that of children who lived under 10 miles from their non-resident parent (43%, 22% and 10% respectively).

Among both sample groups children who lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident parent's home were those most likely to never see their non-resident parent. Within the resident parent sample this proportion is more than twice that of the same proportion among the non-resident sample (45% compared with 20%). Table 3.4
Perhaps unsurprisingly, indirect contact between the child and their non-resident parent does not appear to be as dependant upon the distance between the non-resident parent and child's homes as direct contact. In fact among the non-resident parent sample there would appear to be very little difference in frequency of indirect contact by distance between the child and non-resident parent other than that children who live within 10 miles of their non-resident parent are twice as likely as those who live 10 miles but less than 50 miles, or 50 miles and over from their non-resident parent to have daily indirect contact with their non-resident parent (24%, 13% and 12% respectively). However, among children in the resident parent sample a pattern was evident: children living less than 10 miles from their non-resident parent's home were more likely to have daily indirect contact than children living further from their non-resident parent; children who lived less than 50 miles from their non-resident parent were twice as likely to have weekly indirect contact with their non-resident parent than children who lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident parent; and children who lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident parent were those most likely to have no indirect contact with their non-resident parent. Table 3.5 and Figure 3.3

Figure 3.3 Frequency of indirect contact by distance child lives from non-resident parent among children in the resident parent sample

When both indirect and direct contact is taken into account, as Table 3.6 shows, children who lived less than 10 miles from their non-resident parent were more likely than children who lived further from their non-resident parent to have direct contact with their non-resident parent at least once a week (62% of children in the resident parent sample and 78% of children in the non-resident parent sample who lived less than 10 miles from their non-resident parent). However, among children who lived 10 miles but less than 50 miles from their non-resident parent the proportion who saw their non-resident parent at least once a week was still large: 41% of children in the resident parent sample and 56% of children in the non-resident parent sample. Following this pattern, (among children in the non-resident parent sample only ) children who lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident parent were less likely to have weekly direct contact with their non-resident parent than children who lived nearer to their non-resident parent, but almost six in ten (57%) had indirect contact at least once a week. Table 3.6

3.5 Factors influencing frequency of contact

Length of time since parents separated
Responding parents were asked how long they had been separated from their child's other parent and answered using the following frame:
1. Less than one year
2. One year to less than two years
3. Two years to less than three years
4. Three years and over
5. Never in a relationship with the other parent

It would appear that non-resident parents who had been separated for three years or more were less likely to have direct contact with their child at least once a week than those who had separated from the other parent less than three years ago. For example, among children in the resident parent sample only a third (32%) of those whose parents separated three years ago or more saw their non-resident parent at least once a week compared with over half of children whose parents separated less than three years ago (70% of children whose parents separated less than a year ago, 64% of children whose parents separated one year but less than two years ago, and 56% of children whose parents separated two years but less than three years ago). Whilst this pattern was similar among children in the non-resident parent sample the proportions of children who had direct contact with their non-resident parent at least once a week was much larger than the same proportion in the resident parent sample for each of the separation period groups. Therefore among children in the non-resident parent sample just over a half (53%) of those whose parents had been separated for at least three years had direct contact with their non-resident parent at least once a week compared with around four-fifths of children whose parents had separated more recently (79% of children whose parents separated less than a year ago, 84% of children whose parents separated one year but less than two years ago, and 79% of children whose parents separated two years but less than three years ago).

Children whose parents had been separated for at least three years were also more likely never to have contact with their non-resident parent than children whose parents had separated more recently. Again among children in the resident parent sample, over a quarter (28%) of children whose parents separated at least three years ago never have contact with their non-resident parent compared with around one in ten children whose parents separated less than three years ago (11% of children whose parents separated less than a year ago, 12% of children whose parents separated one year but less than two years ago, and 10% of children whose parents separated two years but less than three years ago). Furthermore, within the resident parent sample six in ten (59%) children whose parents described themselves as never having been in a relationship with the other parent never have contact with their non-resident parent. Table 3.7
Age of child
The age of the child appears to have little influence over the frequency of contact between the child and their non-resident parent. Children in each age group were most likely to have direct contact with their non-resident parent at least once a week. However, the proportion of children aged 11-16 years who had direct contact with their non-resident parent at least once a week was smaller than for younger children: for example, among children in the non-resident parent sample only half (51%) of children aged 11-16 years had direct contact with their non-resident parent at least once a week compared with two-thirds (67%) of children aged 0-5 years and 6-10 years. Within both samples the proportion of children in each age group who had no contact with their non-resident parent was very similar. Among children in the resident parent sample around a quarter of children in each age group had neither indirect nor direct contact with their non-resident parent (24% aged 0-5 years, 21% aged 6-10 years, and 25% aged 11-16 years). The proportion of children in the non-resident parent sample who had no contact with their non-resident parent was smaller, but again similar in each age group: around one tenth of children in each age group had neither direct nor indirect contact with their non-resident parent (8% aged 0-5 years, 10% aged 6-10 years, and 11% aged 11-16 years). Table 3.8

3.6 Further analysis
Logistic regression has been used in this report to produce relative risk ratios to predict the odds of a child being in a specific group as compared to a baseline group. This enables the effect of various factors on the frequency of contact between the child and their non-resident parent to be explored. The following variables were entered in the model: age of the child, distance between the homes of the child and their non-resident parent, and the length of time the child's parents had been separated. Analysis by distance between the homes of the child and their non-resident parent does not include children or parents who lived abroad as these groups were too small for any meaningful analysis. Similarly, analysis by length of separation does not include parents who had never been in a relationship because the sample group was too small.

The results from the model show that age of the child does not appear to have an impact upon the frequency of contact between the child and their non-resident parent.

Distance between the child and their non-resident parent
Results from the model show that distance between the homes of the child and their non-resident parent have a significant impact upon the frequency of contact between the child and their non-resident parent. Children who lived less than ten miles from their non-resident parent were more likely to have direct contact at least once a week than children who lived further away. Similarly, children who lived fifty miles or more from their non-resident parent were those most likely to have no contact with their non-resident parent.

Children who lived ten miles or more from their non-resident parent were more likely to have indirect contact than direct contact at least once a week than children who lived within ten miles of their non-resident parent. Within the resident parent sample, children who lived between 10 and 49 miles of their non-resident parent were four times more likely to have indirect than direct contact at least once a week than children who lived within ten miles of their non-resident parent. Similar findings were found among children in the non-resident parent sample: children who lived between 10 and 49 miles of their non-resident parent were four times more likely to have indirect than direct contact at least once a week than children who lived within ten miles of their non-resident parent. The odds of a child having indirect contact rather than direct contact at least once a week with their non-resident parent increased among children who lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident parent. Children, within the resident parent sample, who lived at least 50 miles from their non-resident parent were 30 times more likely than those who lived less than ten miles from their resident parent to have indirect contact than direct contact at least once a week. Within the non-resident parent sample the same odds were higher: children who lived at least 50 miles from their non-resident parent were 58 times more likely than those who lived less than ten miles from their non-resident parent to have indirect contact than direct contact at least once a week.

Within the non-resident parent sample only, the model also showed that there was a significant difference between the likelihood of children who lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident parent and those who lived between 10 and 49 miles from their non-resident parent having indirect contact rather than direct contact at least once a week. Children who lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident parent were 14 times more likely to have indirect contact than direct contact at least once a week than children who lived between 10 and 49 miles from their non-resident parent.

Contact less frequently than once a week would also appear to be affected by the distance between the child and their non-resident parent. Within the resident parent sample the odds of a child having contact less than once a week than having direct contact at least once a week rose as the distance between the child and their non-resident parent increased. Children who lived between 10 and 49 miles from their non-resident parent were three times as likely to have direct contact less often than once a week than direct contact once a week compared with children who lived within 10 miles of their non-resident parents. The odds of having direct contact less often than once a week than having direct contact at least once week was 23 times more likely for children who lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident parent than those who lived less than ten miles. This pattern was continued for children in the resident sample living at least 50 miles from their non-resident parent when compared with those living between 10 and 50 miles from their non-resident parent: children who lived at least 50 miles from their non-resident parent were 9 times more likely to have direct contact less than once a week and 63 times more likely to have indirect contact less than weekly than direct contact at least once a week compared with children who lived between 10 and 49 miles from their non-resident parent. Within the resident parent sample, children who lived at least 50 miles from their non-resident parent were 166 times more likely to have indirect contact less frequently than once a week than direct contact at least once a week compared with children who lived within 10 miles of their non-resident parent. The difference between children who lived between 10 and 49 miles of their non-resident parent and those who lived nearer in terms of likelihood of having indirect contact less often than once a week rather than direct contact at least once a week was not significant.

The bases of the groups of children who had direct contact less than once a week, and those who had indirect contact less than once a week were too small within the non-resident parent sample to allow the model to produce meaningful relative risk ratios and therefore for this sample group only the two groups have been combined. Within the non-resident parent sample the difference between the likelihood that children had contact with their non-resident parent less than once a week rather than direct contact at least once a week was significant only for children who lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident parent. Compared with children who lived within 10 miles of their non-resident parent, children who lived 50 miles or more were 10 times more likely to have some form of contact less often than once a week than direct contact at least once a week.

Within both samples children who lived fifty miles or more from their non-resident parent were more likely than children who lived nearer to have no contact with their non-resident parent. Among children in the resident parent sample, the likelihood of children who lived at least 50 miles from their non-resident parent to have no contact with their non-resident parent than to have direct contact at least once a week was greater when compared with children who lived within ten miles of their non-resident parent (38 times more likely) than when compared with children who lived between 10 and 50 miles from their non-resident parent (24 times more likely). Within the non-resident parent sample the difference was also significant when comparing children who lived less than 50 miles from their non-resident parent: children who lived at least 50 miles from their non-resident parent were 24 times more likely to have no contact than direct contact at least once a week with their non-resident parent when compared with children who lived within 10 miles of their non-resident parent. When compared to children who lived between 10 and 49 miles from the non-resident parent, children who lived 50 miles and over from the non-resident parent were eight times more likely to have no contact with their non-resident parent than direct contact at least once a week.

Length of time since parent's separation
Whilst the model found length of time since parent's separation to have a significant effect upon frequency of contact between children the findings were slightly different within the two sample groups. Within the resident parent sample children whose parents had been separated for three years or more were four times as likely to have direct and indirect contact less frequently than once a week than have weekly direct contact when compared with children whose parents had been separated for less than three years. Similarly, these children were five times more likely than children whose parents had separated in the last three years, to have no contact with their non-resident parent than to have direct contact at least once a week.

Within the non-resident parent sample, significant differences were only found for children who had contact with the non-resident parent less often than once a week: children whose parents had been separated for three years or more were four times as likely to have contact less frequently than once a week than have weekly direct contact when compared with children whose parents had been separated for less than three years. Children whose parents had been separated for at least three years were eight times more likely to have no contact with their non-resident parent than direct contact at least once a week when compared with children whose parents had been separated for less than three years. Tables 3.9-3.12

3.7 Characteristics of the responding parent
The frequency with which the child had contact with their non-resident parent does not appear to be related to the age of the responding parent. Additionally, sex of the responding parent would not appear to influence frequency of contact in either of the sample groups. However, it should be remembered that the composition of the two sample groups were heavily sex specific: the non-resident parent sample largely comprised of children whose non-resident parent (the responding parent) was their father, whilst the resident parent sample largely comprised of children whose resident parent (the responding parent) was their mother.

Crosstabulation by region of residence of the responding parent also showed no statistically significant differences in the frequency of contact. Similarly, ethnic group of the responding parent (which may or may not be the same as either the child or the other parent) would not on the whole appear to influence the frequency with which the child had contact with their non-resident parent. The only difference in frequency of contact by ethnic group was found among children in the resident parent sample: children whose resident parent was white were more likely than those whose resident parent was non-white to have weekly direct contact with their non-resident parent (44% compared with 32%).

In general the socio-economic group of the responding parent does not appear to influence the frequency of contact between the child and their non-resident parent. The only statistically significant difference was found among the resident parent sample where children whose resident parent was in the lower occupations socio-economic group were more likely than children whose resident parents were in the higher or intermediate occupations groups to never have contact with their non-resident parent (30% compared with 16% and12% respectively). Tables 3.13-3.17

Whether responding parent had a new partner
Respondents were asked whether or not they were currently in a relationship and if so whether they have had a child within this current relationship. Within both sample groups whether or not the responding parent currently had a new partner appeared to be a factor that influenced the frequency of contact between the child and the non-resident parent. However, the findings were different within the sample groups: contact between the child and non-resident parent were more likely to be influenced by whether or not the responding parent had had children in their current relationship within the resident parent sample whilst within the non-resident parent sample the frequency of contact was more likely to be affected by whether or not the responding parent was currently in a relationship.

Among the resident parent sample, children whose resident parent was currently in a relationship but had not had children in that relationship were as likely as those whose resident parent was not currently in a relationship to have direct contact at least once a week with their non-resident parent (47% and 48% respectively). Fewer than one in five (16%) children whose resident parent was currently in a relationship and had had a child within that relationship had direct contact at least once a week with their non-resident parent, whilst two-fifths (40%) had direct contact less than once a week with their non-resident parent (compared with 22% of children whose resident parent was currently in a relationship and had not had a child in that relationship and 14% of children whose resident parent was not currently in a relationship).

Within the non-resident sample, children whose non-resident parent was not currently in a relationship were more likely to have direct contact with their non-resident parent at least once a week than children whose non-resident parent was currently in a relationship. Three-quarters (76%) of children whose non-resident parent was not currently in a relationship saw their non-resident parent at least once a week compared with around a half of children whose non-resident parent was currently in a relationship (53% of children whose non-resident parent was currently in a relationship and had not had a child within that relationship and 48% of children whose non-resident parent was currently in a relationship and they had had a child in that relationship). Furthermore, children whose non-resident parent was currently in a relationship were three times more likely than children whose non-resident parent was not currently in a relationship to never have contact with their non-resident parent (12% of children whose non-resident parent was currently in a relationship but had not had a child in that relationship, 14% of children whose non-resident parent was in a relationship and had had a child in that relationship compared with 4% of children whose non-resident parent was not currently in a relationship). Table 3.18

3.8 Characteristics of the responding parent in situations where the non resident parent has no direct contact with their child
The parents of children who did not have direct contact with their non-resident parent were most likely to have been separated for at least three years: 73% and 83% respectively of children in the resident parent sample and non-resident parent sample who did not have direct contact with their non-resident.

Unsurprisingly, given that the child's father is most likely to be the non-resident parent, within both samples the parent that the child was no longer in direct contact with was their father.

It would seem that among the resident parent sample the presence of a new partner for their resident parent did not affect the likelihood of the non-resident parent having no contact with the child. Therefore among children in the resident parent sample who no longer had direct contact with their non-resident parent, they were almost as likely to be living with a resident parent who currently had a partner as living with one who did not (for example, 55% of these children lived with a resident parent who did not currently have a partner). Whereas the presence of a new partner for the non-resident parent appears to increase the likelihood that the child will no longer have contact with the non-resident parent: among children in the non-resident parent sample who did not have direct contact with their non-resident parent only 12% of these children had a non-resident parent who did not currently have a partner. Table 3.19

3.9 Location of direct contact
Respondents were asked where the non-resident parent had contact with their child and on the whole the findings from both sample groups were very similar. The majority of children, in both sample groups, met their non-resident parent at the non-resident parent's home (70% of children whose resident parent was the respondent and 86% of children whose non-resident parent responded). Furthermore, the non-resident parent's home remained the most popular site of contact regardless of the frequency with which the child saw their non-resident parent.

Over a quarter of children in each sample group saw their non-resident parent at their resident parent's home (28% of children in the resident parent sample and 26% of those in the non-resident parent sample). Perhaps unsurprisingly, this location for direct contact was most popular among children who saw their non-resident parent every day: over half of children who saw their non-resident parent every day met them in their resident parent's home (62% of children in the resident parent sample and 56% of those in the non-resident parent sample). The proportion of children, in both sample groups, who saw their non-resident parent in their resident parent's home more than halved between those who saw their non-resident parent every day and those who had direct contact at least once a week but not every day. For example, among children in the resident parent sample the proportion who saw their non-resident parent in their resident parent's home fell from 62% of those who had daily direct contact with their non-resident parent to only a quarter (26%) of those who saw their non-resident parent at least once a week but not every day.

Figure 3.4 Location of contact visits

A 'place of leisure' was the second most popular location for direct contact to take place between the non-resident parent and their child for both sample groups. Three in ten (29%) children whose resident parent responded and four in ten (39%) children whose non-resident parent responded to the survey met their non-resident parent at a place of leisure. One fifth of children met their non-resident parent at a relative's or friend's home (22% of children in the resident parent sample and 21% of children in the non-resident parent sample). Children whose non-resident parent responded to the survey were twice as likely as those whose resident parent responded to meet their non-resident parent at school (8% compared with 4%).

Contact centres were used by less than one per cent of children in both sample groups as a location to meet their non-resident parents. Table 3.20 and Figure 3.4

3.10 Overnight stays with the non-resident parent
Over half of all children stay overnight with their non-resident parent. However, there was a large difference between the proportion of children in both sample groups who stay overnight with their non-resident parent. The Survey found that children whose non-resident parent responded to the survey were more likely than children whose resident parent responded to the survey to stay overnight with their non-resident parent: four-fifths (81%) of children in the non-resident parent sample compared with three-fifths (60%) of children in the resident parent sample.
Slightly fewer than one third of children in both sample groups stay overnight with their non-resident parent at least once a week (28% of children in the resident parent sample and 32% of children in the non-resident parent sample).
A third (33%) of children in the non-resident parent sample stay overnight with their non-resident parent at least once a week compared with only 20% of children in the resident parent sample. Similarly, the proportions of children who stay overnight in the school holidays/every three months was much larger in the non-resident parent sample than in the resident parent sample (9% compared with 2%).

Around a twentieth of children in both sample groups stay overnight with their non-resident parent once or twice a year (7% of children in the resident parent sample and 5% of children in the non-resident parent sample). However, children in the resident parent sample were more likely to stay overnight with their non-resident parent less often than once a year than children in the non-resident parent sample (4% compared with 1%). Table 3.21 and Figure 3.5

Figure 3.5 Frequency of overnight stay

Among children in the resident parent sample those who had direct contact with their non-resident parent less than once a month were half as likely as those who saw their non-resident parent more frequently to stay overnight with them. For example, 71% of children in the resident parent sample who had direct contact with their non-resident parent every day stay overnight with them compared with only a third (32%) of those who have direct contact less often than once a month.

Within the non-resident parent sample the relationship between frequency of direct contact and likelihood that the child stays overnight with the non-resident parent is not as clear. Whilst the smallest proportion of children that stay overnight with their non-resident parent were those who have direct contact with their non-resident parent less often than once a month (62%) the differences between this proportion and those for children who had direct contact more frequently were not statistically significant . However, children in the non-resident parent sample who have direct contact with their non-resident parent at least once a week but not every day were those most likely to stay overnight with them . Almost nine in ten (87%) children who saw their non-resident parent at least once a week but not every day also stay overnight with them compared with, for example, 71% of children who have direct contact with their non-resident parent every day.

In general the likelihood of a child staying overnight with their non-resident parent does not appear to be influenced by the distance between the non-resident parent's home and that of their child. The exception to this being that children in the resident parent sample who lived less than 10 miles from their non-resident parent were more likely than those who lived 50 miles or more from their non-resident parent to stay overnight with them (65% compared with 50%). This difference was not evident within the non-resident parent sample.

The length of time that the child's parents had been separated had no effect on the likelihood that they stay overnight with their non-resident parent.

Within the non-resident parent sample there would appear to be a relationship between the age of the child and whether they stay overnight with their non-resident parent. Just under two-thirds of children aged six and over, in the resident parent sample, stay overnight with their non-resident parent (63% aged 6-10 and 64% aged 11-16) compared with only a half (51%) aged 0-5. Whilst a similar pattern appears within the non-resident parent sample the difference between the proportions of children aged 0-5 and six and over are not as large and not statistically significant. Table 3.22

3.11 Maintenance payment
There was a large discrepancy between the two samples in the proportion of children for whom the non-resident parent was paying maintenance. Non-resident parents were paying maintenance for almost two-thirds (63%) of the children in the non-resident parent sample compared with only 39% of the children in the resident parent sample. This discrepancy between the samples may be caused by the parent's perception of 'maintenance payment'. It is possible that respondents who were the resident parent may have perceived 'maintenance payment' to mean a formal regular payment made by the non-resident parent whilst non-resident parent respondents may have been more likely to define 'maintenance payment' more broadly to include irregular contributions, gifts etc. made either to the resident parent or directly to the child.

Children who had direct contact at least once a week with their non-resident parent were more likely to receive maintenance payments from them than children who had direct contact less often. For example, among children in the resident parent sample, 53% of those who had direct contact at least once a week with their non-resident parent had maintenance paid for them compared with only 41% who had direct contact less than once a week. Within both samples the differences between the proportions of children who had indirect contact at least once a week and whose non-resident parent was paying maintenance for them and the corresponding proportions of children who had direct contact with their non-resident parent either weekly or less often were not statistically significant.

Children who had no contact with their non-resident parent were those least likely to be receiving maintenance payments. Only one tenth (9%) of children in the resident parent sample and a quarter (25%) of those in the non-resident parent sample who had no contact with their non-resident parent received maintenance payments from their non-resident parent.

At present any resident parent who is claiming state benefit (other than child benefit which is paid to all parents irrespective of income) is required to use the Child Support Agency to acquire maintenance payments from the child's non-resident parent. State benefit was being claimed by four in five (80%) parents of children in the resident parent sample. Table 3.23

Figure 3.6 How maintenance arrangements were agreed

Despite the difference in the proportions in both samples reporting that the non-resident parent pays maintenance for the child there was agreement between the two samples in how the arrangements for maintenance were agreed. Over half (56% of both samples) of all maintenance agreements were made informally between the child's parents. Around three in ten maintenance agreements were made through the Child Support Agency (28% of children in the resident parent sample and 30% of children in the non-resident parent sample for whom maintenance was paid). Slightly more than an eighth of each sample had their maintenance agreements made through a lawyer or a court (14% of children in the resident parent sample and 13% of children in the non-resident parent sample for whom maintenance was paid). One per cent of children in each sample had had the maintenance payments made by their non-resident parent agreed through the Family Mediation Service.
Table 3.24 and Figure 3.6

4. Satisfaction with frequency of contact

Respondents to the survey were asked how satisfied they were with the current contact arrangements between the non-resident parent and their child. They were asked to answer using the following frame:

1. Very satisfied
2. Fairly satisfied
3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4. Fairly dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied

The categories 'fairly dissatisfied' and 'very dissatisfied' have been combined because of the small bases associated with them.

Although the survey data were collected from interviews with parents, analysis of data is carried out at the child level. This approach has been taken because parents may have had more than one resident or non-resident child and different contact arrangements for each. By carrying out analysis at a child level, contact arrangements for all children can be included. Therefore parents' behaviour and attitudes have been analysed separately for each child.

Figure 4.1 Satisfaction with contact arrangements

4.1 Satisfaction with contact arrangements
Over all, the parents of children in both sample groups were satisfied with the contact arrangements: almost a half of both groups saying that they were 'very satisfied' with the arrangements (47% of parent responses in the resident parent sample and 45% of those in the non-resident parent sample). Similarly, the proportion of children whose responding parent said that they were 'fairly satisfied' with the contact arrangements were very similar in both sample groups (25% of children in the resident parent sample and 24% of children in the non-resident parent sample).

Only one in twenty parents of children in both sample groups were 'fairly dissatisfied' with the contact arrangements (6% of parent responses in the resident parent sample and 5% of parent responses in the non-resident parent sample). However, responding parents of children in the non-resident parent sample were more likely to be 'very dissatisfied' with the contact arrangements than responding parents of children in the resident parent sample (17% compared with 12%). Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1

4.2 Relationship between satisfaction with contact arrangements and
frequency of contact
There would appear to be a relationship between the frequency of direct contact between the non-resident parent and their child and the responding parent's satisfaction with the contact arrangements. On the whole children's parents were more likely to be 'very satisfied' with the contact arrangements if the non-resident parent saw the child frequently. Therefore the proportion of children, in both sample groups, whose responding parent said that they were 'very satisfied' with the contact arrangements fell with frequency of contact. For example, among children in the resident parent sample, the proportion whose responding parent said that they were 'very satisfied' with the arrangements fell from three-quarters (75%) of those who saw their non-resident parent every day to only a quarter (24%) who saw their non-resident parent less often than once a month. However, the percentage rose to 58% for children who never saw their non-resident parent.

Within the resident parent sample, the responding parent of a third of children who saw their non-resident parent less frequently than every day said that they were 'fairly satisfied' with the contact arrangements: 33% of children who saw their non-resident parent at least once a week but not every day, 35% of those who saw their non-resident parent at least once a month, and 32% who saw their non-resident parent less often than once a month. This finding was also reflected in the non-resident parent sample.

Unsurprisingly, this pattern is reversed for the proportion of children whose responding parent said they were 'dissatisfied' with the contact arrangements. Consequently, the proportion of children whose responding parent said that they were 'dissatisfied' with the contact arrangements increased as the frequency of direct contact fell. Within the non-resident parent sample, for example, the proportion of children whose responding parent said that they were 'dissatisfied' with the contact arrangements rose from 6% of those who saw their non-resident parent every day to 36% of those who saw their non-resident parent less frequently than once a month. The same pattern was found among children in the resident parent sample.
Satisfaction with the contact arrangements among the responding parents of children whose non-resident parent did not have direct contact with the child was very different in the two sample groups. Among children in the resident parent sample group who never saw their non-resident parent over half (58%) of their responding parents (the resident parent) said that they were 'very satisfied' with the contact arrangements. Among children in the non-resident parent sample, where the non-resident parent was the respondent, only 6% of the responding parents of those children who never saw their non-resident parent were 'very satisfied' with the contact arrangements. Conversely, the responding parents of children in the non-resident parent sample who never saw their non-resident parent were almost three times as likely to say that they were 'dissatisfied' than the responding parents of the same group of children within the resident parent sample (60% compared with 22%). Furthermore the responding parents of children in the non-resident parent sample who never saw their non-resident parent were at least three times as likely to be 'dissatisfied' with the contact arrangements as the responding parents of children who saw their non-resident parent at least once a month or more frequently. These parents were also just under twice as likely to be 'dissatisfied' with the contact arrangements as the responding parents of children who saw their non-resident parent less frequently than once a month Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2

Figure 4.2 Satisfaction with contact arrangements by frequency of direct contact


4.3 Relationship between satisfaction with contact arrangements and distance non-resident parent lives from child
In general, satisfaction with contact arrangements does not appear to be influenced by the distance between the non-resident parent's home and that of the child, the only difference was found within the non-resident parent sample. Responding parents of children in the non-resident parent sample who lived less than ten miles from their non-resident parent were more likely to say that they were 'very satisfied' with the contact arrangements than the responding parents of children who lived a greater distance from their non-resident parent. Of children who lived less than ten miles from their non-resident parent 53% of their responding parents were 'very satisfied' with the contact arrangements compared with just over a third of children who lived further from their non-resident parent (36% of children who lived ten miles but less than 50 miles and 37% of children who lived 50 miles or over from their non-resident parent). Table 4.3

4.4 Improvements to current contact arrangements
Responding parents who said that they were neither 'very satisfied' nor 'fairly satisfied' with the contact arrangements were asked how the contact arrangements with their child (and the non-resident parent) could be improved. Respondents' answers were recorded verbatim and a coding frame developed once all the data had been collected. Included in this frame were the following improvements associated with frequency of contact between the non-resident parent and their child:
• The non-resident parent should see their child
• The non-resident parent should see their child more often
• The non-resident parent should contact their child more often
• The non-resident parent should have their child to stay overnight more often
(Further analyses of all the answers given at this question are included in Chapter 5 of this report.)

The most popular contact improvement, in both sample groups, was that the non-resident parent should have more direct contact with their child. Parents of children in the resident parent group were twice as likely as parents of children in the non-resident parent sample to mention that increased direct contact would improve the current contact arrangements (34% compared with 17%). A tenth of the responding parents of children in both samples said that if the non-resident parent was to see their child this would be an improvement to the current contact arrangements (11% of both samples). Responding parents of children in the resident parent sample were almost three times as likely as the responding parents of children in the non-resident parent sample to say that their contact arrangements would be improved if the non-resident parent had more frequent indirect contact with their child (11% and 4% respectively). Four per cent of responding parents of children in the resident parent sample and nine per cent of those in the non-resident parent sample thought that the arrangements would be improved if the non-resident parent had their child to stay over night more often.

Among children in the resident parent sample, responding parents of those who never saw their non-resident parent were least likely to think that the contact arrangements could be improved by the non-resident parent seeing their child more often (for example, 17% compared with 52% of children who saw their non-resident parent at least once a month). Children who saw their non-resident parent less frequently than once a month were those most likely to have a responding parent who thought that the contact arrangements could be improved by the non-resident parent having more indirect contact with their child (23% compared with less than one in ten children who either saw their non-resident parent more frequently or never saw them at all). Unfortunately the non-resident parent sample is too small to cross-tabulate improvements to contact arrangements by frequency of contact.
Table 4.4 and Figure 4.3

Figure 4.3 Proportion of children whose responding parent said that they
would like the non-resident parent to have more contact with the child

5. Contact arrangements with the non-resident parent

Contact arrangements between the non-resident parent and their child can be agreed in a number of ways. They can be agreed both formally or informally. In this report, contact arrangements have been divided into the following categories:

1. Informally-agreed contact arrangement - e.g. parents agreed between themselves that the non-resident parent will have contact with the child every Saturday.
2. Informal contact arrangement, not agreed - e.g. parents have no set contact arrangements and decide on a weekly basis etc. when the non-resident parent will have contact.
3. Formal contact arrangement negotiated by a mediator or lawyer.
4. Formal contact arrangement ordered by a court

These contact arrangements include both direct contact (face-to-face contact) and indirect contact (all non face-to-face contact such as telephone conversations and letters). The contact arrangements are inclusive of situations where the child has no contact with their non-resident parent.

Although the survey data were collected from interviews with parents, analysis of data is carried out at the child level. This approach has been taken because parents may have had more than one resident or non-resident child and contact arrangements may have been different for each child. Therefore parents' behaviour and attitudes are reported as characteristics of the child.

5.1 Type of contact arrangement with the non-resident parent
The majority of children had the contact arrangements with their non-resident parent arranged informally (85% of children whose resident parent responded and 81% of children whose non-resident parent responded). Furthermore, over half of the children (60%) from the resident parent sample and half of the children (50%) from the non-resident parent sample had these contact arrangements informally agreed between their parents. Approximately a third of children (35%) whose resident parent responded and one fifth (21%) of children whose non-resident parent responded had never agreed the informal arrangements.

A small number of the sample had the contact arrangements formally agreed. One-in-twenty children had the contact arrangements with their non-resident parent negotiated by mediators or lawyers (6% of children whose resident parent was the respondent and 5% of children whose non-resident parent was interviewed). Over one-in-ten children (13%) whose non-resident parent was the respondent and just under one-in-ten children (9%) whose resident parent responded had the contact arrangements ordered by court.

There is an inconsistency between the two samples about whether informal contact arrangements were agreed. When compared to the non-resident sample, it appears that the resident parent sample were more likely to say that the informal contact arrangements were not agreed and less likely to say that the informal contact arrangements were agreed between their parents. However when both types of informal arrangements are combined, the same proportion of both samples (four-fifths) said that the contact arrangements were informal. Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1

Figure 5.1 Type of contact arrangement

5.2 Age of child
Table 5.2 shows that older children from the resident parent sample were less likely to have had their contact arrangements informally agreed between parents but more likely than younger children to have never had their informal contact arrangements agreed between their parents. Over two-in-five children (42%) aged 11 to 16 years had their arrangements informally agreed between their parents compared with 55% of children aged under 11 years. However, 41% of children aged between 11 and 16 years had not had their informal contact arrangements agreed compared to one-in-three (31%) children aged under 11 years. This pattern is not evident among the sample of children whose non-resident parent responded.

Children aged 5 years and younger whose resident parent responded to the survey were less likely than older children to have had the contact arrangements ordered by a court (4% compared with 10% for children aged 6 years and over). Again, this finding was not apparent within the non-resident parent sample. Younger children in the non-resident sample were less likely to have had the contact arrangements negotiated by mediators or lawyers however this finding is not significantly significant. Table 5.2

5.3 Distance between child's home and non-residents parent's home
The nearer the non-resident parent lived to the child the more likely it was that the contact arrangements were informally agreed between parents. However, this pattern is reversed for informal contact arrangements that were never agreed: the nearer the non-resident parent lives to the child the less likely it is that the informal arrangements had never been agreed.

Figure 5.2 Type of contact arrangement by distance child lives from non-resident parent

Around two-thirds of children whose non-resident parent lived less than 10 miles away had the contact arrangements informally agreed between parents (60% of children whose resident parent responded and 65% of children whose non-resident parent was the respondent).
The further the non-resident parent lived from the child the more often the informal contact arrangements were never agreed. A quarter (25%) of children from the resident sample who lived less than 10 miles away from their non-resident parent had never had their informal contact arrangements agreed compared with half the children (50%) who lived 50 miles or over from their non-resident parent. This pattern is mirrored among children whose non-resident parent was the respondent however the differences are not statistically significant for this sample.

Among the resident parent sample, the informal contact arrangements for children whose non-resident parent either lived abroad or the resident parent did not know where the non-resident parent lived were most likely to have never been agreed between the parents (60% of children in this sample group). The base of the non-resident parent sample is too small to allow comparisons with the resident parent sample. Table 5.3 and Figure 5.2

5.4 Length of time since parents separated
Contact arrangements are more likely to be informally agreed between parents if the parents had been separated for less than three years. Two-thirds of children whose parents had separated less than three years ago had their contact arrangements informally agreed between their parents (67% for children whose resident parent responded to the survey and 68% for children whose non-resident parent was the respondent).

Children in the resident parent sample whose parents had separated 3 years ago or more were more likely to have had the contact arrangements ordered by the court than children whose parents had separated less than three years ago (13% and 2% respectively). This pattern was evident for children from the non-resident sample but was not statistically significant. Table 5.4

5.5 Frequency of contact
In general, the more frequently the child has some contact with their non-resident parent the more likely it is that the contact arrangements were informally agreed between parents. This pattern is reversed for informal contact arrangements that were never agreed between the parents: the less often the child has contact with their non-resident parent the more likely it is that the informal contact arrangements have never been agreed.

Just under three quarters of children who have direct contact with their non-resident parent at least once a week had the contact arrangements informally agreed between their parents (73% of both samples). Whereas, children who had no contact with their non-resident parent were less likely to have the contact arrangements informally agreed between parents (12% of children whose resident parent responded and 33% of children from the non-resident sample).

The less often contact took place, the more likely it is that the informal contact arrangements were never agreed between the parents. Nearly half the children (47%) from the resident parent sample who had indirect contact with the non-resident parent less than once a week had never had the informal contact arrangements agreed between their parents compared with 19% of children in the same sample who had direct contact at least once a week. Children who had no contact with the non-resident parent were those most likely to have never had the informal arrangements agreed between their parents: nearly three-quarters (72%) of children whose resident parent was the respondent and nearly half (49%) the children whose non-resident parent was the respondent.

Formal contact arrangements were more likely to have been made for children who had either direct or indirect contact with their non-resident parent less than once a week. Among the non-resident parent sample, a quarter (26%) of children who had contact less than once a week with their non-resident parent had the contact arrangements ordered by a court compared with one-in-ten children (11%) who had contact with their non-resident parent at least once a week. Similarly among the resident parent sample, 15% of children