For fathers facing a child arrangements dispute, one question matters above all: does an arrangement giving children meaningful time with both parents, including, where suitable, close to equal time, support their wellbeing?
The research offers an encouraging answer, with important qualifications. Across many studies, children in joint physical custody (JPC) arrangements tend to do as well as, or better than, children living mostly or entirely with one parent. That is an average pattern, not a guarantee that 50/50 care will suit every child or family.
The headline finding: equal or better outcomes
Linda Nielsen’s review of 60 studies compared children in joint and sole physical custody. It found that children in JPC generally had equal or better outcomes across measures including mental health, behaviour, self-esteem, parent–child relationships and school performance. In 34 studies, JPC children did better across all measured outcomes; in 14, they did better on some measures and equally well on others; in six, the outcomes were equal (Nielsen, 2018, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage).
A key point in Nielsen’s review is that the favourable pattern was also reported in studies that accounted for factors such as family income and parental conflict. That makes it harder to explain the findings solely by saying that JPC families have more resources or less conflict. It does not, however, prove that the schedule itself caused the outcomes.
| Outcome area | What the 60-study review found for JPC compared with sole physical custody |
|---|---|
| Mental health and behaviour | Generally equal or better outcomes |
| Self-esteem | Generally equal or better outcomes |
| Parent–child relationships | Generally equal or better outcomes |
| School performance | Generally equal or better outcomes |
Summary of outcomes reviewed by Nielsen (2018), not a guarantee for an individual child or case.
What Swedish population studies found
Sweden’s large national studies provide another important perspective. In a survey of 164,580 children aged 12 and 15, those in JPC reported better wellbeing on several measures, including aspects of family life and peer relations, than children living mostly or only with one parent. A separate national survey of 147,839 pupils found fewer reported psychosomatic symptoms among children in JPC than among those living mostly or only with one parent. Neither study found that JPC children had better outcomes than children living in intact families across the board (Bergström et al., 2013, BMC Public Health; Bergström et al., 2015, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health).
There is also research on younger children. A Swedish cross-sectional study of 3,656 children aged three to five found fewer reported psychological symptoms in JPC than in arrangements where children lived mostly or only with one parent. The study drew on both parent and preschool-teacher reports. Its authors stressed that it could not establish cause and effect and that more longitudinal research was needed (Bergström et al., 2018, Acta Paediatrica).
Taken together, these Swedish studies suggest that shared care was not associated with worse average outcomes in the age groups studied. They do not show that the same arrangement is right for every child.
The consensus on very young children
Richard A. Warshak’s consensus report, published in the American Psychological Association journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, was endorsed by 110 researchers and practitioners. It cautioned against assuming that very young children need to live primarily with one parent simply because of their age. The report concluded that, in normal circumstances, parenting plans should support children’s relationships and time with both parents (Warshak, 2014, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law).
This was a consensus assessment of social-science evidence, not a trial proving that a particular schedule is best for every baby or toddler. The report itself recognised limits in the evidence, especially the lack of long-term studies directly comparing schedules that begin in early childhood.
What the systematic review adds
A systematic review by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health examined studies of children aged zero to six. It found a possible pattern: results for children over three tended to be positive or show no difference, while findings for children under three were mixed and sometimes negative. The reviewers could not combine the studies in a meta-analysis and rated confidence in the findings as very low, because the studies were observational, varied considerably and often had a risk of bias (Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 2017, What are the consequences of shared physical custody for children?).
The caveats matter
A credible reading of the evidence needs to hold on to its limits:
- Evidence is weakest for the youngest children. There is research on preschool-age children, but evidence for children under four, especially infants, is limited. High-frequency overnight or changeover schedules for infants remain debated (Bergström et al., 2018, Acta Paediatrica; Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 2017).
- Most studies are observational. Researchers compare families who already have different arrangements; they do not randomly assign children to a schedule. Families who manage shared care may differ in ways that also affect children’s wellbeing. Nielsen’s review considered findings from studies accounting for income and conflict, which helps address this concern but cannot eliminate selection effects (Nielsen, 2018, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage).
- Conflict still matters. Shared care is not a magic number. Research reviews identify parental conflict as an important factor when considering children’s outcomes. Equal time cannot, by itself, resolve ongoing conflict or remove its impact on children (Nielsen, 2018, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage; Bergström et al., 2013, BMC Public Health).
The balanced conclusion is not “50/50 is always best”. It is that meaningful time with both parents is associated with equal or better average outcomes in many studies, while a child’s age, circumstances and family context remain essential.
What this means for fathers in the UK
The studies suggest that children’s outcomes are often better in shared care than in arrangements where they live mostly or only with one parent. They do not establish a precise formula that every family should follow, or prove that moving from a particular schedule to exactly equal time will cause an improvement.
For fathers preparing to discuss arrangements, focus on the child’s needs and on a realistic plan for their care. In England and Wales, the Children Act 1989 welfare checklist includes the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings, physical, emotional and educational needs, the likely effect of changes, any risk of harm, and each parent’s capability to meet the child’s needs. The child’s welfare remains the court’s paramount consideration; the checklist does not create a presumption in favour of 50/50 care (Children Act 1989, section 1).
This is general information, not legal advice. For guidance on your individual circumstances, consult a qualified family lawyer.
Build your case around your child’s needs
The research gives fathers a reason to approach shared parenting discussions with confidence, but also with care. Be prepared to explain how a proposed arrangement would meet your child’s needs, and stay focused on practical, child-centred details rather than a percentage in isolation.
Fathers Rights offers guidance on custody battles, court preparation and community support. Visit www.fathersrights.co.uk or explore our family-law and parenting articles.
Fathers United. Rights Respected.
Every Dad Matters.
Sources
- Nielsen, L. (2018). “Joint Versus Sole Physical Custody: Children’s Outcomes Independent of Parent–Child Relationships, Income, and Conflict in 60 Studies.” Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2018.1454204
- Bergström, M. et al. (2013). “Living in two homes: a Swedish national survey of wellbeing in 12 and 15 year olds with joint physical custody.” BMC Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-868
- Bergström, M. et al. (2015). “Fifty moves a year: is there an association between joint physical custody and psychosomatic problems in children?” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-205058
- Bergström, M. et al. (2018). “Preschool children living in joint physical custody arrangements show less psychological symptoms than those living mostly or only with one parent.” Acta Paediatrica. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.14004
- Warshak, R. A. (2014). “Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000005
- Norwegian Institute of Public Health (2017). “What are the consequences of shared physical custody for children? A systematic review.” https://www.fhi.no/en/publ/2017/hva-er-konsekvensene-av-delt-bosted-for-barn-en-systematisk-oversikt/