FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 1
Paternal and Household Characteristics Associated With Child Neglect and
Child Protective Services Involvement
Shawna J. Lee
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Recommended Citation:
Lee, S.J. (2013). Paternal and household characteristics associated with child neglect and Child
Protective Services involvement. Journal of Social Service Research, 39 (2), 171-187. DOI:
10.1080/01488376.2012.744618
Author Note:
Shawna J. Lee, School of Social Work and Research Center for Group Dynamics, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Please address correspondence concerning this article to:
Shawna J. Lee, University of Michigan, School of Social Work, 1080 South University Avenue,
Ann Arbor MI 48109. Phone: 734-763-6565. Fax: 734-763-3372. Email: shawnal@umich.edu.
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 2
Abstract
This study examined the association of paternal and household characteristics with householdlevel measures of child neglect and Child Protective Services (CPS) involvement, measured
when the index child was 5 years of age. Secondary analyses of the Fragile Families and Child
Wellbeing Study were conducted using a subsample of 1,089 residential, biological fathers.
Logistic regression models indicated that paternal depression was associated with greater than
doubled odds of child neglect and CPS involvement. Paternal alcohol use and parenting stress
were associated with approximately 50% increased odds of child neglect, and a scale measuring
13 caregiving tasks to reflect positive father involvement with the child was also associated with
less risk for child neglect. However, paternal alcohol use, parenting stress, and positive
involvement with the child were not associated with CPS involvement. An implication of this
study is that paternal psychosocial functioning are important to consider in conjunction with
sociodemographic factors when examining maltreatment risk in two-parent families.
KEY WORDS: fragile families, child maltreatment, abuse, child welfare, depression, father, parenting,
Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 3
Paternal and Household Characteristics Associated With Child Neglect and Child
Protective Services Involvement
The developmental ecological framework, often used to examine the etiology and
consequences of child maltreatment, proposes that risk for child maltreatment is influenced by
individual-level parental characteristics, family-level factors, and the broader context (Belsky,
1993). Numerous studies, reviewed below, have examined maternal risk for Child Protective
Services (CPS) involvement, linking factors such as poverty, father absence, and maternal
psychosocial risks to incidence of neglect and CPS involvement. Nevertheless, little attention has
been directed to individual-level parental characteristics of fathers that may be associated with
the risk for child neglect or CPS involvement among families of young children.
This gap in the research literature is problematic for many reasons. The incidence of child
maltreatment perpetrated by fathers or father surrogates is higher than expected given that fathers
spend far less time than mothers caring for young children (Yeung, Sandberg, Davis-Kean, &
Hofferth, 2011). National child welfare data have indicated that fathers or father surrogates were
implicated in more than half of all of child maltreatment fatalities in which a parent was the
perpetrator (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2011). However, other
studies have suggested that state child-protection data have likely underestimated actual father
involvement in child maltreatment fatalities. Data from the National Violent Injury Statistics
Systems indicated that 83% of beating and shaking injuries that resulted in child fatality involved
father or father surrogates as perpetrators (Fujiwara, Barber, Schaechter, & Hemenway, 2009).
Similarly, Brewster et al.(1998) found that 84% of infanticides involved father or father
surrogates as perpetrators.
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 4
The overrepresentation of fathers as perpetrators of maltreatment underscores the
importance of identifying markers of maltreatment risk in father-involved families of young
children. Failure to examine fathers’ unique and complex roles in families might hinder
identification of specific mechanisms at multiple levels that can be targeted to reduce or prevent
neglect in particular and child maltreatment more broadly. The current study sought to address
this gap in the literature by examining paternal and household characteristics associated with
household-level measures of child neglect (i.e., whether either parent was unable to meet the
child’s basic needs or whether the child was inadequately supervised; Coohey, 1998, 2003;
Dubowitz et al., 2005; English, Thompson, Graham, & Briggs, 2005; Theodore, Runyan, &
Chang, 2007) and CPS involvement (Berger, Paxson, & Waldfogel, 2009) in a community-based
sample of father-involved families with young children.
Maltreatment Risk at the Community, Family, and Individual Levels
The developmental ecological theory emphasizes that child maltreatment is determined
by multiple factors, involving an interaction of these factors at the community, family, and
individual levels (Belsky, 1993). Belsky’s (1993) model offers a distinct advantage in that it
acknowledges not only the potentiating factors that increase risk but also the compensatory
factors that minimize risk. Numerous studies, most of which have focused on mothers, have
examined relevant family and individual factors. Family-level factors that are related to
maltreatment include household economic hardship and unemployment (Berger, 2004; Slack et
al., 2004), with single-mother headed households facing high risk for maltreatment (Paxson &
Waldfogel, 1999; Theodore et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2004). A wide range of demographic and
psychosocial maternal factors for maltreatment, including young maternal age (Lee & Goerge,
1999; Wu et al., 2004), low educational achievement (Wu et al., 2004), personal history of
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 5
neglect (Lounds, Borkowski, & Whitman, 2006), alcohol or drug problems (Coohey, 1998; Dube
et al., 2001), parenting stress (Taylor, Guterman, Lee, & Rathouz, 2009), and depression
(Coohey, 1998; Taylor et al., 2009) are also related to maltreatment. Yet, from the perspective of
the developmental ecological model, to best understand child maltreatment in two-parent
families it is also necessary to extend examination beyond factors of the maternal primary
caregiver to consider (a) the aspects of household composition, (b) the interplay between mothers
and fathers, and (c) the interaction of parent and child. It is important to note that due to the
limitations of the study design, it is not possible to comprehensively assess the influence of
community factors, which are an important aspect of the developmental ecological model.
Most research has failed to examine the paternal role in neglect and child maltreatment
even though fathers or father surrogates were acknowledged as the perpetrator in 50% of all
maltreatment-related child fatalities (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
[USDHHS], 2011). To address this gap, the current study examined paternal individual-level
parenting factors potentially associated with increased risk for child maltreatment. In addition,
this investigation accounted for household variables (i.e., economic hardship and unemployment)
and variables assessing mother-father interaction as well as child characteristics that might
influence risk for maltreatment.
Maltreatment Risk in Father-Involved Families
Research has recognized the complexity of the paternal role in heightening or minimizing
family-level risk for child maltreatment (Dubowitz, 2006). Consistent with the developmental
ecological model, this research has pointed to the ways in which fathers directly and indirectly
contribute to child maltreatment. For example, a father’s absence from the household can
indirectly influence maltreatment because such absence is generally associated with fewer
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 6
household economic resources and increased rates of poverty (Guterman & Lee, 2005). The
economic contributions that fathers make to a household are likely to reduce overall household
economic strain, which might have an indirect salutary effect on maternal strain and parenting
stress. However, maltreatment risk might be heightened when fathers are present in the home,
but unemployed (Paxson & Waldfogel, 2002; Wolfner & Gelles, 1993). Therefore, to better
understand the paternal role in maltreatment risk, it is important to consider fathers’ unique
human capital contributions in the context of overall household economic strain (Slack et al.,
2004), as well as other paternal-related protective factors, such as fathers’ attendance at religious
services (e.g., Zolotor & Runyan, 2006).
Fathers also influence risk for maltreatment via the “immediate interactional context,”
which is the father’s interactions with the mother (Belsky, 1993). In general, better quality
marital relationships and positive interactions between parents “spillover” to promote enhanced
parent-child relations (Erel & Burman, 1995). In contrast, interpersonal violence and aggression
is associated with increased harsh punishment of children and child maltreatment (Taylor et al.,
2009; Thackeray et al., 2010). The quality of the parental relationship can be especially
important when examining fathers’ parenting behaviors and maltreatment of children in fatherinvolved families. Moreover, studies among diverse families have documented the ways in
which a positive parenting relationship benefits children (Cabrera, Shannon, & Tamis-LeMonda,
2007; Carlson & McLanahan, 2006; Lunkenheimer, Kittler, Olson, & Kleinberg, 2006).
The developmental ecological model also points to the importance of considering both
potentiating and compensatory factors such as the nature and context of fathers’ involvement in
caring for the child. Even in two-parent families, fathers’ involvement in daily caregiving for
young children varies more than mothers’ involvement (Yeung et al., 2011). As such, theorizing
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 7
around positive father-involvement has held such involvement is a protective factor in relation to
child-maltreatment risk (Guterman & Lee, 2005). Findings from one study have shown increased
duration of father or father surrogate involvement minimized risk of child neglect, whereas the
father’s or father surrogate’s direct involvement in child care heightened the risk for child
maltreatment (Dubowitz, Black, Kerr, Starr, & Harrington, 2000). This increased risk might be
because fathers, and especially father surrogates, are frequently called upon to provide child care
under stressful conditions. The positive effects of father involvement can also be moderated by
paternal psychosocial characteristics, with high levels of father involvement associated with
positive outcomes for children only if the father was not depressed (Kahn, Brandt, & Whitaker,
2004; Mezulis, Hyde, & Clark, 2004). Nevertheless, few studies have examined paternal
variability in caregiving for children might relate to child-maltreatment risk in father-involved
families.
Overview of the Current Study
The current study used the developmental ecological model as a framework to examine
the immediate interactional context of child maltreatment (Belsky, 1993) by focusing on
individual-level paternal and household variables potentially related to household-level measures
of child neglect and CPS involvement among father-involved families of young children with
residential biological fathers. Due to limitations of the data used for this study, it is not possible
to examine macro or community level factors that, as informed by the ecological model, are also
hypothesized to influence maltreatment risk. All variables were assessed when the target child
was 5 years or younger. Based on numerous studies that have examined and identified important
maternal risks for child neglect and maltreatment, this study’s primary research goal was to
examine the contribution of paternal psychosocial risk factors to maltreatment risk, accounting
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 8
for numerous household variables (e.g., economic conditions, unemployment), which many prior
studies have shown to raise risk for maltreatment in father-involved families of young children.
The central study hypothesis holds that poor paternal psychosocial functioning, as measured by
paternal depression, parenting stress, and alcohol use, is associated with greater risk for
maltreatment even after accounting for key family and household factors. To test this hypothesis,
models included variables that assessed the immediate interactional context, such as parental
relationship quality and child characteristics; paternal demographic characteristics; human
capital characteristics; and household economic hardship (Harris, Hilton, Rice, & Eke, 2007;
Hussey, Chang, & Kotch, 2006; Knutson, 1995; Lee & Goerge, 1999). In addition, the models
incorporated key predictor variables that assessed paternal psychosocial characteristics.
All fathers in the study sample were the biological father of the target child; this
relationship is important to consider because patterns of maltreatment perpetration differ
between men who are biologically related to the child versus men who are not biologically
related to the target child (Berger et al., 2009; Harris et al., 2007; Radhakrishna, Bou-Saada,
Hunter, Catellier, & Kotch, 2001). The study selected for families in which the mother and father
were in an ongoing relationship, therefore the sample did not include single-mother headed
households. This sampling approach was expected to bias the sample toward more advantaged
individuals (Guzzo & Lee, 2008). Thus, it was anticipated that there would be lower than
average levels of CPS involvement and neglect in this subsample of father-involved families.
Method
Procedure
The study sample was obtained from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study
(FFCWS), a community-based cohort study of new births obtained from hospitals in 20 large
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 9
U.S. cities. The original FFCWS sample (N = 4,898) was collected from 1998 to 2000; detailed
description of the FFCWS study design is available elsewhere (see Reichman, Teitler, Garfinkel,
& McLanahan, 2001). The original intent of the FFCWS was to examine parenting relationship
quality and wellbeing of children in unmarried families. Core interviews were conducted with
mothers and fathers at four time points: the birth of the index child (baseline), and when the
index child was 1-, 3-, and 5-years-old. Most baseline interviews with mothers took place at the
hospital, whereas baseline interviews with fathers were conducted either at hospitals or over the
phone (Reichman et al., 2001). Subsequent core interviews took place over the phone. When the
index child was age 3 years and 5 years, the mothers who had completed core interviews
participated in the In-Home Longitudinal Study of Pre-School Aged Children (hereafter, the InHome Study). The In-Home Study was an observational study conducted in the participants’
home with only the mother and child. In the current study, secondary analyses of the FFCWS
examined residential biological fathers, and the characteristics of these fathers that were
associated with child neglect and CPS involvement.
Participants
The FFCWS subsample used in the current study consisted of 3,299 biological fathers
who participated in the 3-year core interview. Of this subsample, 161 fathers were excluded
because they were in jail at the time of the 3-year core interview and did not complete measures
of parenting stress and involvement with the child. Of the 3,138 remaining fathers, only 1,134
were residing in the home at the time of the 5-year In-Home Study interview when mothers
completed the dependent measures of CPS involvement and child neglect. An additional 45
fathers were dropped from study inclusion because the mother had not completed the necessary
items from the In-Home Study measures, yielding a sample of 1,089 residential, biological
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 10
fathers in the sample used for the current study. It should be noted that the FFCWS sampling
design intentionally oversampled nonmarital births, a factor which contributes to the large
number of nonresidential fathers when the child was age 5 (Reichman et al., 2001).
Measures
Most variables were self-reported by the father. Items collected at the baseline core
interview included time invariant demographic variables such as father’s age at time of child’s
birth, education level, and race/ethnicity. Father-reported items collected at the 3-year core
interview included frequency of religious attendance, current employment status, all measures of
household economic hardship, paternal psychosocial characteristics, parental relationship
quality, co-parenting support from mother, and child health. Because paternal reports were not
available for all relevant study variables, some variables were taken from the mother’s
interviews, including male child and child low birth weight (collected at baseline); and child
neglect and CPS involvement (collected as part of the 5-year In-Home interview). Not all fathers
were interviewed at baseline; therefore, the parents’ marital status at time of child’s birth was
taken from the maternal report to avoid the problem of missing data.
Dependent variables: Physical child neglect and household CPS involvement. As part
of the 5-year In-Home Study, interviewers administered the revised Parent-Child Conflict
Tactics Scales (CTS-PC: Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1998) to measure any
instance of child neglect by either the father or mother within the past year (i.e., when the child
was between 4 and 5 years old). The CTS-PC asked the mother to report the number of times in
the past year she had engaged in the following situations indicating possible neglect: she had to
leave the child home alone, even though some adult should have been with the child; she was so
caught up with her own problems that she was not able to show or tell child that she loved her
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 11
child; she was not able to make sure that the child got the food child needed; she was not able to
make sure child got to a doctor or hospital when child needed medical attention; and, she was so
drunk or high she had a problem taking care of her child. Mothers were then asked the same set
of questions but pertaining to the care provided by the child’s father. Because child neglect was
infrequent, this study used a dichotomous variable to indicate whether either parent had been
involved in any instance of child neglect within in the past year (0 = none; 1 = any instance of
child neglect from mother or father in the past year).
The variable for CPS involvement was based on the question, “Since the child was born,
has Child Protective Services contacted you about any child or children in this household?”
Families that had not been contacted by CPS since the index child’s birth were coded “0” and
families with an affirmative response to this item were categorized as CPS involved and coded
“1”. Following precedent established by other researchers (Berger et al., 2009) who used the
same measure of CPS involvement as in the current study, these families were considered to be
CPS involved because CPS is unlikely to contact a family regarding a ‘‘screened-out’’ child
maltreatment report. Further, as discussed earlier in this article, the CPS involvement variable
might be subject to self-report biases similar to those encountered with other proxy measures
such as the CTS-PC. A second shortcoming of the measure for CPS involvement is that the
measure does not identify which child in the household was the focus of the CPS report, which
adults (mother, father, or someone else) were the alleged perpetrators, or which types of
maltreatment were alleged (Berger et al., 2009). Therefore, the CPS-involvement measure should
be viewed as a general indicator of household risk for CPS involvement rather than a direct
indicator of father-perpetrated maltreatment.
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 12
Paternal demographic and human capital characteristics. The study variables
representing demographic and human capital characteristics included age, education (1 = less
than high school, 2 = high school diploma or equivalent, 3 = some college or technical school, 4
= college or higher), race/ethnicity (1= White, 2 = African American, 3 = Hispanic, 4 = other),
and whether the index child’s birth was a marital birth (0 = not married, 1 = married) to account
for parental relationship status. During the 3-year core interview, fathers indicated their
frequency of religious attendance in the past year (0 = never or less than once a year, 1 = a few
times a year, 2 = a few times a month, 3 = once a week, 4 = a few times a week or every day) and
employment status (0 = no, 1 = yes), measured by whether the father had worked for pay in the
past week.
Household economic hardship. Except as noted, all measures of household economic
hardship asked about events during the 12 months before the father’s 3-year core interview. The
variable for annual household income summed household income from all sources before taxes
and deductions, which included the income of all persons living in the household. The variable
for nongovernmental financial assistance indicated receipt of money from any source, including
relatives and friends of either the father or mother, but excluded money received from the
father’s mother or financial support from any government or private agency (0 = no, 1 = yes).
Financial support from all government sources, including assistance through programs such as
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (i.e., TANF), Food Stamps, unemployment
insurance, or workers’ compensation , was represented by the dichotomous governmental
financial assistance variable (0 = no, 1 = yes). The electricity turned off variable indicated the
utility company had interrupted the household’s electrical service because of nonpayment (0=
no, 1 = yes). The household stability variable indicated the number of times the family had
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 13
moved in the 2 years before the 3-year core interview (0 = none, 1 = moved once, 2 = moved two
or more times). Another variable measured the number of children younger than 18 years old
living in the household; fathers who reported more than five children younger than 18 years
residing in the home were top-coded at “5.”
Paternal psychosocial characteristics. Assessments of paternal psychosocial
characteristics used the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1995); this
instrument used a 4-point scale (1 = strongly agree to 4 = strongly disagree) to measure the
father’s agreement with four statements such as “I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a
parent” (α = .62). A variable for involvement with the child indicated the average number of days
per week (0 = never to 7 = every day) the father provided each of 13 common types of care to the
child (e.g., sing songs or nursery rhymes with child, read stories to child, assist child with eating;
α = .89).
The Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Short Form: Section A (Kessler,
Andrews, Mroczek, Ustun, & Wittchen, 1998) was used to measure incidence of paternal
depression in the past year that lasted for 2 weeks or more, and whether the symptoms lasted for
most of the day and occurred every day of the 2-week period. Respondents were classified as
depressed if they endorsed the screening items and three or more symptoms (0 = no, 1 = yes).
The variable alcohol use was based on paternal self-report, and indicated the largest
number of alcoholic drinks the father consumed in a single day during the past 12 months (0 = no
drinks consumed in the past 12 months, 1 = one to three drinks consumed in any single day
during the past 12 months, 2 = four or more drinks consumed in any single day during the past
12 months). According to the National Institute on Alcohol and Alcoholism (2005), heavy
drinking for men is defined as five or more drinks in a single day.
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 14
Relationship with the child’s mother and child characteristics. Fathers indicated
parental relationship quality (1 = poor to 5 = excellent) as well as co-parenting support from the
child’s mother (1 = never true to 4 = always true), indicated by six items, including “You can
trust the mother to take good care of the child” and “You and the mother talk about problems that
come up raising the child” (α = .61). Variables representing child characteristics included male
child (0 = female, 1 = male) and low birth weight (0 = no, 1 = yes, child weighed < 2,500 grams
at birth). The variable for child health indicated the father’s evaluation of the child’s health and
development at age 3 years (1 = poor to 5 = excellent).
Statistical Analysis Plan
Analyses were conducted using Stata 10.1. Sample characteristics and bivariate results
with Bonferroni corrected post-hoc tests (i.e., chi-square and one-way analysis of variance) are
presented in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 examines between-group differences by comparing families
with no neglect to those in which neglect was present in the past year, measured when the child
was age 5; Table 2 between-group differences by comparing families with no CPS involvement
since the child’s birth to those with CPS involvement since the child’s birth.
-----------------------------------------------------Please place Table 1 and Table 2 about here
-----------------------------------------------------Table 3 and Table 4 present odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for
logistic regression analyses examining child neglect and CPS involvement, respectively.
Associations were tested in a stepwise fashion to examine the relative contribution of sets of
variables. In each table, Model 1 examined the associations of paternal demographic and human
capital characteristics to the dependent variable; Model 2 assessed the additional contribution of
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 15
household economic hardship variables; Model 3 added psychosocial characteristics; and Model
4 included family-level characteristics, including parental-relationship quality and child
characteristics. All regression models were adjusted for two key aspects of the FFCWS sampling
design: interview city and parental marital status at birth of the index child.
-----------------------------------------------------Please place Table 3 and Table 4 about here
-----------------------------------------------------Results
Among the data collected from the 1,089 families meeting the inclusion criteria for the
current study, variables had less than 1% missing data except: low birth weight (2.75%), coparenting support from mother (1.65%), and parental relationship quality (1.19%). Therefore, the
final analytic sample reported in Table 3 contained data from 1,016 fathers. Table 1 includes the
maternal reports of child neglect by either the mother or the father, and shows that 11.85% of
mothers reported at least one instance of neglect. Of these instances of neglect, 9% were cases of
maternal-related neglect (n = 98) and 8.26% were cases of father-related neglect (n = 90). In the
majority of cases, neglect occurred at least once from both parents (5.42%) whereas 3.58% were
mother-only and 2.85% were father-only cases of neglect.
In the regression models for CPS involvement (Table 4), none of the fathers who
identified as other race/ethnicity had been CPS involved. Given the perfect correlation between
other race/ethnicity and CPS involvement, these fathers were dropped from the analyses,
yielding a sample of 1,000 families. Of these families, 6.4% (n = 64) had been contacted by CPS
about any child in the household since the index child was born (see Table 2).
Household Child Neglect
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 16
As seen in Table 3, African American, Hispanic, and other race/ethnicity status fathers
(as compared with White) was associated with greater odds of parental neglect in Model 1;
however, these association were no longer significant for African American fathers after
accounting for household economic hardship in Model 2 or for other race/ ethnicity fathers after
accounting for paternal psychosocial characteristics in Model 3. Model 2 suggests a connection
between current employment and annual household income. Current employment was associated
with increased risk of parental child neglect.
When adding psychosocial variables in Model 3, paternal depression was associated with
more than double odds of child neglect. In addition, higher levels of paternal parenting stress and
having one to three alcoholic drinks in any one day within the past year were also associated
with greater risk for neglect. In contrast, higher levels of paternal positive involvement with the
child were protective against risk for neglect. Further, as compared with Model 2, the odds ratio
for current employment increased risk of child neglect.
Model 4 did not yield greatly altered patterns of results and none of the variables added in
Model 4 (parental relationship quality, co-parenting support, male child, child health, low birth
weight) were significantly associated with risk for parental neglect. However, Hispanic
race/ethnicity status (compared with White) was associated with a 58% increase in the odds of
child neglect. Other risk factors for neglect identified in Model 4 included current employment
and lower household income. In this final model, presence of paternal depression nearly doubled
the odds of neglect, and the parenting stress and alcohol use variables were each associated with
an approximate 50% increased odds of neglect. However, paternal involvement remained a
significant protective factor against risk of child neglect.
CPS Involvement
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 17
In Model 1, a higher level of paternal education was associated with a lower level of CPS
involvement (see Table 4). The patterns of ORs for education were similar between Model 1 and
Model 2, but achieved statistical significance only when comparing educational level of a college
degree or higher with an educational level of less than a GED. In Model 3, receipt of nongovernmental and governmental assistance were associated with increased odds of CPS
involvement. The odds associated with CPS involvement increased in relation to the number of
young children in the home. Adding variables in Model 3 and Model 4 did not change the
patterns observed in Model 2. Consistent with the results obtained for neglect in Table 3, Models
3 and 4 in Table 4 demonstrated that paternal depression was associated with more than double
the odds of CPS involvement.
Discussion
Child welfare statistics indicate that neglect is the most pervasive form of child
maltreatment in the United States. In 2008, child neglect accounted for 71.1% of all substantiated
maltreatment cases (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2010). From
the early 1990s to 2003, there was a nearly 50% decrease in substantiated cases of child sexual
abuse and 36% fewer substantiated cases of child physical abuse. In comparison, child neglect
has proven to be a far more intractable form of maltreatment, with only a 7% decrease in neglect
during that same period (Jones, Finkelhor, & Halter, 2006). Moreover, recurrence of
maltreatment is most common when neglect is the primary complaint (Hindley, Ramchandani, &
Jones, 2006).
Specifically, the intractable nature of child neglect might be due, at least in part, to the
fact that risk for maltreatment is multiply determined and no single, common factor has been
identified that can be easily targeted in interventions to prevent maltreatment. For example,
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 18
developmental ecological theory (Belsky, 1994) points to numerous community-, household-,
family-, and individual-level factors that are related to risk for child maltreatment. However, few
prior studies have examined child neglect and CPS involvement in father-involved families of
young children; this gap is problematic for two reasons: fathers are present in many households,
and research shows biological fathers are more likely to be involved in maltreatment of young
children than older children (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2005).
As anticipated, the rate of maternal-reported CPS involvement in this sample of fatherinvolved families was low, with 4% less CPS involvement than what was observed in a study
sample (Berger et al., 2009) that included dual- and single-parent households sample and that
used the same measure of CPS involvement as was used in the current study. CPS involvement
was 10.4% in a sample of 2,927 families in which the mother was in an ongoing relationship
(i.e., living with either the child’s father or another partner/ spouse, or was in a dating
relationship) or was not romantically involved; this rate is comparable to those obtained from
administrative data for similar populations (Berger et al., 2009). However, because nearly 12%
of mothers indicated that she or the father had engaged in acts of neglect (e.g., leaving the child
unsupervised, not making sure the child had enough food, or being too drunk or high to care for
the child) in the past year, the self-reported measure of CPS involvement used in this study likely
underreports actual maltreatment.
Consistent with the developmental ecological model, the results of this study (Tables 3
and 4) suggest that risk for maltreatment was determined by multiple factors in this sample of
father-involved families. In this study, individual-level parenting factors as well as demographic,
human capital, and household economic hardship variables were related to risk for neglect and
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 19
CPS involvement. The patterns among these variables differed depending on the outcome being
examined; these results are discussed in detail later in this article.
Paternal Psychosocial Characteristics
Study results confirmed a central hypothesis of the study: namely, that poor paternal
psychosocial functioning (measured by paternal depression, parenting stress, and alcohol use) is
associated with increased risk for maltreatment, even after accounting for key family and
household factors. Specifically, paternal depression was a strong risk factor for both CPS
involvement and neglect. Rates of paternal depression were more than double among the fathers
involved in child neglect and the CPS-involved fathers. Paternal depression not only doubled the
odds of child neglect but also raised the odds of CPS involvement. In addition, paternal parenting
stress and higher levels of alcohol use were associated with elevated risk for parental child
neglect (see Table 3, Model 4) but not for CPS involvement (see Table 4, Model 4).
Results also confirmed the important role of compensatory factors in child maltreatment
cases. In this study of biological, residential fathers, higher levels of father involvement in
common child-care activities was a protective factor for child neglect only (see Table 3, Model
4). This finding stands in contrast to Dubowitz et al.’s (2000) finding that more father
involvement in child care was associated with heightened risk for neglect among a sample that
included biological fathers, social fathers, stepfathers, and other male caregivers of young
children. This apparent paradox may be explained by the nature and context of father
involvement among social versus biological fathers. Social father-child relationships might be
more fraught, particularly in a high-risk sample, and especially when compared with father-child
relationships when fathers are biological and residential, as in the current study, with relatively
high and presumably more stable levels of involvement. Although participants in both the current
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 20
study and the Dubowitz et al. (2000) study were recruited from large urban areas, the rates of
neglect reported by Dubowitz et al. (2000) ranged from 11% to 30%. In comparison, on the
whole, the characteristics of the current sample of married or co-residential parents (see Table 1)
would not necessarily be considered high-risk and indeed the sampling procedure for the
FFCWS was intended to reflect urban communities rather than a high-risk sample. Moreover, the
incidence of neglect in the current study was lower than that reported by Dubowitz et al. (2000).
That father involvement was not associated with CPS involvement is consistent with other
studies that have shown father involvement was not associated with paternal physical aggression,
psychological aggression, or spanking (Lee, Guterman, & Lee, 2008; Lee, Perron, Taylor, &
Guterman, 2011). When viewed together, these studies suggest that positive paternal
involvement might be uniquely influential as it relates to the potential for child neglect, and as
underscored by the results from the current study and Dubowitz et al. (2000), the protective
benefits of father involvement may vary as a function of the nature and context of the fathering
role.
Demographic, Human Capital, and Household Economic Hardship
Demographic and household characteristics, such as more children younger than 18 years
in the home, receipt of financial assistance (from governmental and non-governmental sources)
and low paternal education were linked to CPS involvement but were not linked to neglect (see
Model 4 in Table 3 and Table 4). When comparing the final models for neglect and CPS
involvement, paternal psychosocial variables, such as parenting stress and alcohol use, stand out
as significantly associated with household parental neglect, whereas economic factors seem to
play a larger role in predicting CPS involvement. These results may suggest that having more
children in the household and relying on governmental assistance are influential in bringing
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 21
families to the attention of CPS, whereas paternal psychosocial functioning is most likely to
interfere with a father’s ability to provide basic emotional support and caregiving to his child.
Although prior research has shown that paternal unemployment could heighten
maltreatment risk, the type of maltreatment examined in some studies was either physical
aggression or unspecified (for example, see Paxson & Waldfogel, 2002; Wolfner & Gelles,
1993). The results of the current study pointed to an interesting juxtaposition of factors and
associations pertaining to fathers’ current employment, household income, and perhaps race/
ethnicity, with fathers’ current employment heightened their risk for child neglect (see Table 3).
The measure of child neglect used in this study may have been sensitive to the issue of parental
employment, since one of the five items asked about leaving the child home alone, even though
some adult should have been with the child, a phenomenon that may be more common when
parents are employed. An important direction for future research would be to further examine
how the interaction of fathers’ employment status, mothers’ employment status, and household
income are related to risk for child maltreatment and examine whether young children in families
with two working parents may be more likely to be left unsupervised or unattended.
Study Limitations
This study examined a subset of father-involved families and, therefore, the results
cannot be generalized to other types of male caregivers such as nonresidential biological fathers,
father surrogates (e.g., stepfathers) or male caregivers who are not biologically related to the
children in their care. All families were living in urban areas; therefore, the findings of this study
do not generalize to families living in nonurban areas. It is also important to note that this study
utilizes secondary data, and the original intention of the FFCWS was not to study child
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 22
maltreatment but rather to examine family structure, specifically, parenting relationship quality
and child wellbeing in unmarried families.
The selection of father-involved families biases the sample toward more advantaged
individuals (Guzzo & Lee, 2008). Prior research has extensively examined differences among
married and unmarried fathers in the FFCWS sample. Such studies have shown that as compared
with married fathers, unmarried fathers were younger at the time of their child’s birth, had lower
incomes, were less well-educated, and were less involved with their children (Carlson &
McLanahan, 2010). In turn, these characteristics of unmarried fathers contributed to relationship
instability and dissolution of cohabiting unions over the first years of a child’s life (Carlson,
McLanahan, & England, 2004).
Although the CTS-PC subscale measure of neglect used in this study is a valid and
reliable proxy measure for child maltreatment, a limitation of the CTS-PC is that the instrument
assesses only a limited set of neglectful behaviors, including physical and supervisory neglect.
Future research should examine a wider range of potential neglectful barriers (e.g., educational
neglect) to more fully inform prevention efforts (e.g., Dubowitz et al., 2005; English et al.,
2005). Moreover, this study relied on maternal reports to the CTS-PC and paternal report of
maltreatment was unavailable. However, this study included only residential fathers, and
research using the CTS-PC has indicated that in two-parent families, mothers are reliable and
accurate reporters of the fathers’ behavior toward their children (Lee, Lansford, Pettit, Dodge, &
Bates, 2012). Lee et al. (2012) compared maternal reports of fathers’ behaviors with fathers’
self-reports and found that mothers tended to underreport fathers’ negative behaviors toward the
child. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that our use of maternal report most likely resulted in
an underreporting of child neglect, which would result in conservative estimate of the influence
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 23
of predictor variables and bias the study toward null findings. As with all studies that use selfreported measures, maternal responses must be viewed as a proxy for actual behavior,
particularly when the behaviors being measured are socially undesirable acts such as a parent
failing to properly care for his or her child.
As discussed elsewhere (Berger et al., 2009), the measure of CPS involvement has
several limitations. The measure does not isolate the timing when CPS intervention occurred, nor
does it clearly identify the perpetrator(s) of maltreatment that prompted the CPS report or
whether the report was filed in reference to the study index child. Results should be interpreted
to highlight that associations were with household CPS involvement rather than fatherperpetrated maltreatment per se. Given limitations of the available data available, it is impossible
to precisely test associations of father-perpetrated CPS involvement. Although preferable to
compare the self-report CPS measure with administrative records, such data is not available.
Prior research has shown that CPS involvement is higher in neighborhoods with high
rates of poverty (Coulton, Crampton, Irwin, Spilsbury, & Korbin, 2007; Lee & Goerge, 1999).
Another important limitation of the current study is related to the structure of the FFCW study
that makes it impossible to comprehensively assess the role of community factors that are an
important aspect of the developmental ecological model. This limitation should be considered in
light of the comprehensive measurement of father, child, and household characteristics allowing
us to examine factors that may be most proximal in terms of influence maltreatment risk,
particularly of young children such as those examined in the current study. A future direction for
research is to examine how community factors, such as collective efficacy and social cohesion,
may influence paternal parenting strain and risk for maltreatment (e.g., Guterman, Lee, Taylor,
& Rathouz, 2009).
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 24
Despite these limitations, the current study represents an advance in research on paternal
parenting for several reasons. Most measures used in the study were self-reported by the fathers.
Most existing studies have focused on the highest-risk families, that is, single-parent households.
In such studies, father involvement is often crudely measured based solely on the presence or
absence of the father in the home. For a detailed discussion of issues in measuring father
involvement, c.f. Guterman & Lee, 2005 and Lee, Bellamy, & Guterman, 2009. Further, such
studies have not clarified whether the household father figure is a biological father, father
surrogate, or in some other caregiving relationship with the child. Therefore, the self-report data
and measures of father involvement used in this study (e.g., father involvement in child
caregiving activities, marital status, and presence in the home when index child was 5 years) are
an advance over prior research. In addition, the results of this study are enhanced by the nature of
the study design that allowed for prospective analyses of multiple individual-level and
household-level characteristics as well as maternal- and child-related characteristics.
Conclusions
The study findings have several implications for research and practice. Many of the
father-related risk factors for maltreatment identified in this study were similar to those observed
in studies of mothers. For example, both parenting stress and alcohol use have been identified
here and elsewhere as risk factors for child neglect. This study provided evidence that when
examining the paternal role in child maltreatment, it is imperative to consider the nature and
context of father involvement rather than simply the presence or absence of the father from the
home. Results of this study indicate that even in this sample of father-involved families, which
was presumed to have relatively high levels of father involvement given that all fathers were
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 25
married or co-residing with the child’s mother, father involvement had a salutary effect;
specifically, father involvement was related to lowered levels of child neglect.
Perhaps the strongest conclusion based on study findings is the further evidence that
paternal depression compromises the father-child relationship (Bronte-Tinkew, Moore,
Matthews, & Carrano, 2007). Much of the existing research indicates that maternal depression is
associated with numerous negative child outcomes; similarly, this study suggests that paternal
depression likewise serves as an important risk factor for maltreatment in father-involved
families. Although demographic and human capital characteristics are difficult to change in the
short-term, psychosocial risk factors are malleable. Therefore, an important implication of this
study is the need to assess and treat depression to promote optimal fathering. Thus,
recommendations include the need to screen fathers, as well as mothers, at prenatal and perinatal
clinic visits (Flaherty & Stirling, 2010), as well as to include both mothers and fathers in the
provision of evidence-based services to prevent child maltreatment in pediatric health care
settings (e.g., Safe Environment for Every Kid; Dubowitz, Feigelman, Lane, & Kim, 2009).
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 26
References
Abidin, R. (1995). Parent stress inventory (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessments
Resources.
Belsky, J. (1993). Etiology of child maltreatment: A developmental-ecological analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 413-434. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.413
Berger, L. M. (2004). Income, family structure, and child maltreatment risk. Children and Youth
Services Review, 26, 725-748. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.02.017
Berger, L. M., Paxson, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2009). Mothers, men, and child protective services
involvement. Child Maltreatment, 14(3), 263-276. doi:10.1177/1077559509337255
Brewster, A. L., Nelson, J. P., Hymel, K. P., Colby, D., Lucas, D. R., McCanne, T. R., & Milner,
J. S. (1998). Victim, perpetrator, family, and incident characteristics of 32 infant
maltreatment deaths in the United States Air Force. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 91-101.
doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00132-4
Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K. A., Matthews, F., & Carrano, J. (2007). Symptoms of major
depression in a sample of fathers of infants: Sociodemographic correlates and links to
father involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 61-99.
doi:10.1177/0192513X06293609
Cabrera, N. J., Shannon, J. D., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. (2007). Fathers' influence on their
children's cognitive and emotional development: From toddlers to pre-K. Applied
Developmental Science, 11, 208-213. doi:10.1080/10888690701762100
Carlson, M. J., & McLanahan, S. S. (2006). Strengthening unmarried families: Could enhancing
couple relationships also improve parenting? Social Service Review, 80, 297-321.
doi:10.1086/503123
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 27
Carlson, M. J., & McLanahan, S. S. (2010). Fathers in fragile families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The
role of the father in child development (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Carlson, M. J., McLanahan, S. S., & England, P. (2004). Union formation in fragile families.
Demography, 41, 237-261. doi:10.1353/dem.2004.0012
Coohey, C. (1998). Home alone and other inadequately supervised children. Child Welfare,
77(3), 291-310.
Coohey, C. (2003). Making judgments about risk in substantiated cases of supervisory neglect.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 821-840. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(03)00115-7
Coulton, C. J., Crampton, D. S., Irwin, M., Spilsbury, J. C., & Korbin, J. E. (2007). How
neighborhoods influence child maltreatment: A review of the literature and alternative
pathways. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 1117-1114. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.023
Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Croft, J. B., Edwards, V. J., & Giles, W. H. (2001).
Growing up with parental alcohol abuse: Exposure to childhood abuse, neglect, and
household dysfunction. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 1627-1640. doi:10.1016/S01452134(01)00293-9
Dubowitz, H. (2006). Where's dad? A need to understand father's role in child maltreatment.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 461-465. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.04.002
Dubowitz, H., Black, M. M., Kerr, M. A., Starr, R. H., Jr., & Harrington, D. (2000). Fathers and
child neglect. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 154, 135-141.
Dubowitz, H., Newton, R. R., Litrownik, A. J., Lewis, T., Briggs, E. C., Thompson, R., …
Feerick, M. M. (2005). Examination of a conceptual model of child neglect. Child
Maltreatment, 10(2), 173-189. doi:10.1177/1077559505275014
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 28
English, D. J., Thompson, R., Graham, J. C., & Briggs, E. C. (2005). Toward a definition of
neglect in young children. Child Maltreatment, 10, 190-206.
doi:10.1177/1077559505275178
Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations: A
meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108-132. doi:10.1037/00332909.118.1.108
Flaherty, E. G., & Stirling, J., Jr. (2010). The pediatrician’s role in child maltreatment
prevention. Pediatrics, 126, 833–841.
Fujiwara, T., Barber, C., Schaechter, J., & Hemenway, D. (2009). Characteristics of infant
homicides: Findings from a U.S. multisite reporting system. Pediatrics, 124, e210-e217.
doi:10.1542/peds.2008-3675
Guterman, N. B., & Lee, Y. (2005). The role of fathers in risk for physical child abuse and
neglect: Possible pathways and unanswered questions. Child Maltreatment, 10, 136-149.
doi:10.1177/1077559505274623
Guterman, N. B., Lee, S. J., Taylor, C. A., & Rathouz, P. J. (2009). Parental perceptions of
neighborhood processes, stress, personal control, and risk for physical child abuse and
neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 897-906. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.09.008
Guzzo, K. B., & Lee, H. (2008). Couple relationship status and patterns in early parenting
practices. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 44-61. doi:10.1111/j.17413737.2007.00460.x
Harris, G. T., Hilton, N. Z., Rice, M. E., & Eke, A. W. (2007). Children killed by genetic parents
versus stepparents. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 85-95.
doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.08.001
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 29
Hindley, N., Ramchandani, P. G., & Jones, D. P. H. (2006). Risk factors for recurrence of
maltreatment: A systematic review. Archives of Diseases in Childhood, 91, 744-752.
doi:10.1136/adc.2005.085639
Hussey, J. M., Chang, J. J., & Kotch, J. B. (2006). Child maltreatment in the United States:
Prevalence, risk factors, and adolescent health consequences. Pediatrics, 118, 933-942.
doi:10.1542/peds.2005-2452
Jones, L. M., Finkelhor, D., & Halter, S. (2006). Child maltreatment trends in the 1990s: Why
does neglect differ from sexual and physical abuse? Child Maltreatment, 11(2), 107-120.
doi:10.1177/1077559505284375
Kahn, R. S., Brandt, D., & Whitaker, R. C. (2004). Combined effect of mothers' and fathers'
mental health symptoms on children's behavioral and emotional well-being. Archives of
Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 158, 721-729. doi:10.1001/archpedi.158.8.721
Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Mroczek, D., Ustun, B., & Wittchen, H. U. (1998). The World
Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short-Form (CIDISF). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 7(4), 171-185.
doi:10.1002/mpr.47
Knutson, J. F. (1995). Psychological characteristics of maltreated children: Putative risk factors
and consequences. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 401-431.
doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.46.020195.002153
Lee, B. J., & Goerge, R. M. (1999). Poverty, early childbearing, and child maltreatment: A
multinomial analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 21, 755-780.
doi:10.1016/S0190-7409(99)00053-5
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 30
Lee, S. J., Bellamy, J. B., & Guterman, N. B. (2009). The role of fathers in risk for physical child
abuse and neglect: Possible pathways and unanswered questions. Child Maltreatment, 14,
227-231. doi:10.1177/1077559509339388
Lee, S. J., Guterman, N. B., & Lee, Y. (2008). Risk factors for paternal physical child abuse.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 846-858. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.11.006
Lee, S. J., Lansford, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2012). Parental agreement
of reporting parent to child aggression using the Conflict Tactics Scales. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 36, 510-518. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.04.005
Lee, S. J., Perron, B. E., Taylor, C. A., & Guterman, N. B. (2011). Paternal psychosocial
characteristics and corporal punishment of their 3-year-old children. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 26, 71-87. doi:10.1177/0886260510362888
Lounds, J. J., Borkowski, J. G., & Whitman, T. L. (2006). The potential for child neglect: The
case of adolescent mothers and their children. Child Maltreatment, 11, 281-294.
doi:10.1177/1077559506289864
Lunkenheimer, E. S., Kittler, J. E., Olson, S. L., & Kleinberg, F. (2006). The intergenerational
transmission of physical punishment: Differing mechanisms in mothers' and fathers'
endorsement? Journal of Family Violence, 21, 509-519. doi:10.1007/s10896-006-9050-2
Mezulis, A. H., Hyde, J. S., & Clark, R. (2004). Father involvement moderates the effect of
maternal depression during a child's infancy on child behavior problems in kindergarten.
Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 575-588. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.575
Paxson, C., & Waldfogel, J. (1999). Parental resources and child abuse and neglect. American
Economic Review, 89, 239-244. doi:10.1257/aer.89.2.239
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 31
Paxson, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Work, welfare, and child maltreatment. Journal of Labor
Economics, 20(3), 435-475. doi:10.1086/339609
Radhakrishna, A., Bou-Saada, I. E., Hunter, W. M., Catellier, D. J., & Kotch, J. B. (2001). Are
father surrogates a risk factor for child maltreatment? Child Maltreatment, 6, 281-289.
doi:10.1177/1077559501006004001
Reichman, N. E., Teitler, J. O., Garfinkel, I., & McLanahan, S. S. (2001). Fragile families:
Sample and design. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 303-326.
doi.org/10.1016/S0190-7409(01)00141-4
Slack, K. S., Holl, J. L., Lee, B. J., McDaniel, M., Yoo, J., & Bolger, K. (2004). Understanding
the risks of child neglect: An exploration of poverty and parenting characteristics. Child
Maltreatment, 9, 395-408. doi:10.1177/1077559504269193
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D. W., Moore, D. W., & Runyan, D. (1998).
Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales:
Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 22, 249-270. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00174-9
Taylor, C. A., Guterman, N. B., Lee, S. J., & Rathouz, P. (2009). Intimate partner violence,
maternal stress, nativity, and risk for maternal maltreatment of young children. American
Journal of Public Health, 99, 175-183. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.126722
Thackeray, J. D., Hibbard, R., Dowd, M. D., Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect, &
Committee on Injury, Violence and Poison Prevention. (2010). Intimate partner violence:
The role of the pediatrician. Pediatrics, 125, 1094-1100. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-0451
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 32
Theodore, A., Runyan, D., & Chang, J. J. (2007). Measuring the risk of physical neglect in a
population-based sample. Child Maltreatment, 12, 96-105.
doi:10.1177/1077559506296904
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Planning and Evaluation. (2005). Male perpetrators of child maltreatment: Findings
from NCANDS. Available from
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=210576
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], Administration for Children and
Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2010).
Child Maltreatment 2008. Available from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], Administration for Children and
Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2011).
Child Maltreatment 2010. Available from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can
Wolfner, G. D., & Gelles, R. J. (1993). A profile of violence toward children: A national study.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 197-212. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(93)90040-C
Wu, S. S., Ma, C. X., Carter, R. L., Ariet, M., Feaver, E. A., Resnick, M. B., & Roth, J. (2004).
Risk factors for infant maltreatment: A population-based study. Child Abuse & Neglect,
28, 1253-1264. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.07.005
Yeung, J.W., Sandberg, J.F., Davis-Kean, P.E., & Hofferth, S.L. (2011). Children's time with
fathers in intact families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 136-154,
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 33
Zolotor, A. J., & Runyan, D. K. (2006). Social capital, family violence, and neglect. Pediatrics,
117, 1124-1131. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1913
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 34
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables by Child Neglect at Age 5 years
Full Sample
Neglect – No
Neglect – Yes
N = 1,089 (100%)
n = 960 (88.15%)
n = 129 (11.85%)
% or M (SD)
% or M (SD)
% or M (SD)
29.42 (7.04)
29.53 (7.11)
28.64 (6.47)
Less than high school degree
25.85
25.31
29.92
High school degree or equivalent
27.52
27.30
29.13
Some college
26.69
27.20
22.83
College degree or higher
19.94
20.19
18.11
White (non-Hispanic)
32.32
33.33
24.81
African-American
35.35
35.21
36.43
Hispanic
28.56
27.81
34.11
Other
3.76
3.65
4.65
46.78
47.65
40.31
1.82 (1.37)
1.83 (1.38)
1.73 (1.36)
87.96
87.80
89.15
216.36 (91.64)
219.36 (92.66) a
194.06 (80.58) a
Nongovernmental financial assistance, y
24.77
24.35
27.91
Governmental financial assistance, y
3.49
3.23
5.47
Electricity turned off in past year, y
17.57
17.54
17.83
No moves
61.55
61.17
64.34
Moved 1 time
29.07
30.06
21.71
Moved 2+ times
9.38
8.77
13.95
2.02 (1.22)
2.02 (1.21)
2.02 (1.31)
Parenting stress (1-4)
2.04 (0.66)
2.02 (0.65) a
2.24 (0.68) a
Involvement with the child (0-6.77)
4.47 (1.09)
4.49 (1.09)
4.32 (1.11)
Variable (Range)
Father age (15-61 years)
Father education
Race/ ethnicity
Marital birth, y
Freq. of religious attendance (0-4)
Current employment status, y
Annual household income (1-1000)
Household stability *
# of children in household < 18 yrs (05)
Depression, y
Alcohol use
10.28
9.06
b
19.38 b
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 35
0 drinks in one day in past yr
30.36
31.32
23.26
1-3 drinks in one day in past yr
39.56
38.41
48.06
4+ drinks in one day in past yr
30.08
30.27
28.68
Parental relationship quality (1-5)
4.20 (0.92)
4.21 (0.86) a
4.06 (0.92) a
Co-parenting support from mother
3.86 (0.23)
3.87 (0.22) a
3.82 (0.26) a
52.07
52.50
48.84
4.61 (0.64)
4.61 (0.65)
4.62 (0.64)
7.46
6.42
1.04
(1.17-4)
Male child, y
Child health (2-5)
Child low birth weight , y
Note: Cell percents may not add to 100% due to rounding. Annual total household income was square-root
transformed for all analyses; actual mean = $53,555 (SD = $43,239), median = $43,000.
a
Paired superscripts indicate Bonferroni corrected one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), p ≤ .05.
b
Paired superscripts indicate Pearson χ2 test significantly different at p ≤ .05.
* Pearson χ2 test significant p ≤ .05 for the omnibus test.
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 36
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables by CPS Involvement (n = 1,000)
CPS Involvement – No
CPS Involvement – Yes
n = 936 (93.6%)
n = 64 (6.4%)
% or M (SD)
% or M (SD)
29.37 (7.03)
27.77 (6.10)
Less than high school degree
25.53
39.06
High school degree or equivalent
27.99
34.38
Some college
26.92
25.00
College degree or higher
19.55
1.56
White (non-Hispanic)
33.87
26.56
African American
35.58
54.69
Hispanic
30.56
18.75
Marital birth, y
47.22 a
32.81 a
Freq. of religious attendance
1.86 (1.38) a
1.46 (1.43) a
Current employment status, y
88.14
Variable (Range)
Father age
Father education*
Race/ ethnicity*
Annual household income
85.94
217.73 (89.18)
a
185.99 (67.79) a
Nongovernmental financial assistance, y
24.04 b
37.50 b
Governmental financial assistance, y
16.03 b
32.81 b
Electricity turned off in past year, y
3.10 b
7.81 b
No moves
62.50
67.19
Moved 1 time
28.85
23.44
Moved 2+ times
8.64
Household stability
9.38
a
2.59 (1.40) a
# of children in household < 18 yrs
2.02 (1.20)
Parenting stress
2.03 (0.66)
2.05 (0.56)
Involvement with the child
4.44 (1.09)
4.64 (0.94)
8.65 b
21.88 b
0 drinks in one day in past yr
30.02
31.25
1-3 drinks in one day in past yr
39.42
32.81
4+ drinks in one day in past yr
30.56
35.94
Depression, y
Alcohol use
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 37
Parental relationship quality
4.21 (0.84) a
3.95 (1.03) a
Co-parenting support from mother
3.86 (0.23)
3.84 (0.20)
52.14
42.19
Male child, y
Child health (2-5)
Child low birth weight , y
4.61 (0.64)
a
7.05
4.41 (0.75) a
10.94
Note: Cell percents may not add to 100% due to rounding. Annual total household income was square-root
transformed for all analyses. See Table 1 for the household income mean, SD, and median.
a
Paired superscripts indicate Bonferroni corrected one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), p ≤ .05.
b
Paired superscripts indicate Pearson χ2 test significantly different at p ≤ .05.
* Pearson χ2 test significant p ≤ .05 for the omnibus test.
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 38
Table 3
Logistic Regression Models of Paternal and Household Characteristics Measured at Child’s Age 3 or Earlier That Predict Child Neglect at Age 5 Years (n =
1,016)
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
OR (CI)
OR (CI)
OR (CI)
OR (CI)
Demographic & Human Capital
Characteristics
Father age (in years)
Father education
0.99 (0.97-1.02)
a
---
1.00 (0.97-1.03)
---
1.00 (0.97-1.02)
---
1.00 (0.97-1.03)
---
H.S. or equivalent
0.96 (0.49-1.90)
1.00 (0.50-1.98)
1.05 (0.52-2.13)
1.06 (0.51-2.17)
Some college
0.82 (0.47-1.43)
0.91 (0.53-1.56)
1.00 (0.59-1.70)
0.97 (0.58-1.72)
College degree or higher
1.03 (0.64-1.66)
1.38 (0.84-2.29)
1.45 (0.92-2.31)
1.50 (0.96-2.34)
Race/ ethnicity
b
---
---
---
---
African-American
1.55 (1.02-2.36)*
1.32 (0.86 -2.02)
1.33 (0.82-2.16)
1.31 (0.82-2.12)
Hispanic
1.72 (1.09-2.70)*
1.51 (0.97 -2.34)
1.55 (1.00 -2.38)*
1.58 (1.03-2.42)*
1.88 (1.07-3.31)*
1.80 (1.01-3.18)*
1.61 (0.85-3.06)
1.71 (0.87-3.34)
0.92 (0.60-1.42)
0.99 (0.62-1.56)
0.93 (0.56-1.54)
0.98 (0.59-1.63)
0.94 (0.81-1.10)
0.94 (0.80-1.10)
0.99 (0.84-1.17)
0.99 (0.84-1.17)
1.67 (1.01-2.74)*
1.92 (1.16-3.19)*
2.26 (1.38-3.71)**
2.28 (1.36-3.84)**
1.00 (0.99-1.00)*
1.00 (0.99-1.00)*
1.00 (0.99-1.00)*
1.14 (0.80-1.64)
1.08 (0.72-1.62)
1.09 (0.73-1.64)
0.86 (0.58-1.26)
0.80 (0.53-1.22)
0.79 (0.52-1.20)
1.33 (0.60-2.96)
1.30 (0.56-3.00)
1.27 (0.51-3.15)
Other
Marital birth
c
Freq. of religious attendance ‡
Current employment status
c
Household Economic Hardship
Annual household income ‡
Nongovernmental financial assistance
Governmental financial assistance
Electricity turned off in past year
Household stability
d
c
c
c
---
---
---
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 39
Moved 1 time
0.68 (0.41-1.13)
0.70 (0.41-1.18)
0.69 (0.41-1.17)
Moved 2+ times
1.25 (0.70-2.26)
1.12 (0.63-1.97)
1.31 (0.65-1.96)
1.00 (0.88-1.15)
0.98 (0.85-1.11)
0.97 (0.84-1.13)
1.49 (1.07-2.08)*
1.49 (1.07-2.07)*
0.86 (0.76-0.98)*
0.87 (0.77-0.98)*
2.18 (1.36-3.47)**
2.04 (1.22-3.42)**
# of children in household < 18 years
old
Paternal Psychosocial Characteristics
Parenting stress ‡
Involvement with the child
‡
Depression c
Alcohol use e
---
---
1-3 drinks in one day in past yr
1.56 (1.05-2.28)*
1.57 (1.07-2.31)*
4+ drinks in one day in past yr
1.26 (0.62-2.53)
1.24 (0.62-2.49)
Relationship With Child’s Mother
And Characteristics Of The Child
Parental relationship quality ‡
Co-parenting support from mother
Male child
0.93 (0.75-1.16)
‡
c
0.80 (0.40-1.63)
0.70 (0.46-1.08)
Child health ‡
1.13 (0.89-1.44)
Child low birth weight c
0.99 (0.49-2.00)
Note: OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. All models were adjusted for the father’s city at the time of the 3-year interview because this was a key variable
used in the sampling design. Household income was square root transformed for analyses. ‡ Higher scores indicate higher levels of the construct. a Reference
group is less than high school degree. b Reference group is White. c Dichotomous variable coded 0 = no, 1 = yes. d Reference group is no moves since the child’s
first birthday.
e
Reference group is no alcohol consumption in the past year.
*p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p ≤ .001.
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 40
Table 4
Logistic Regression Models of Paternal and Household Characteristics At 3 Years or Earlier Predicting Household Child Protective
Services Involvement (N = 1,000)
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
OR (CI)
OR (CI)
OR (CI)
OR (CI)
Demographic & Human Capital
Characteristics
Father age (in years)
Father education
1.00 (0.95-1.05)
a
---
0.99 (0.94-1.05)
---
1.00 (0.93-1.05)
---
0.99 (0.93-1.05)
---
H.S. or equivalent
0.55 (0.30-1.01)
0.65 (0.32-1.34)
0.60 (0.29-1.28)
0.65 (0.31-1.38)
Some college
0.41 (0.20-0.84)*
0.53 (0.24-1.18)
0.55 (0.25-1.22)
0.61 (0.27-1.41)
College degree or higher
0.04 (0.01-0.23)***
0.06 (0.01-0.46)**
0.06 (0.01-0.47)**
0.07 (0.01-0.53)*
Race/ ethnicity b
---
---
---
---
African-American
1.33 (0.63-2.82)
1.24 (0.51 -2.97)
1.49 (0.59-3.74)
1.44 (0.60-3.47)
Hispanic
0.41 (0.17-0.96)*
0.42 (0.16 -1.11)
0.52 (0.18-1.48)
0.51 (0.17-1.52)
Other
Marital birth
--c
Freq. of religious attendance
‡
Current employment status c
---
---
---
1.02 (0.52-2.01)
0.97 (0.49-1.92)
1.01 (0.49-2.11)
0.98 (0.50-1.94)
0.84 (0.68-1.04)
0.82 (0.66-1.03)
0.82 (0.66-1.03)
0.84 (0.68-1.04)
1.37 (0.52-3.59)
2.07 (0.66-6.49)
2.32 (0.73-7.45)
2.20 (0.64-7.52)
1.00 (0.99-1.00)
1.00 (0.99-1.00)
1.00 (0.99-1.00)
1.49 (1.05-2.12)*
1.39 (0.98-1.98)
1.45 (0.99-2.12)
2.22 (1.09-4.48)*
2.25 (1.17-4.35)*
2.18 (1.09-4.37)*
1.01 (0.39-2.59)
0.91 (0.33-2.49)
0.88 (0.30-2.65)
Household Economic Hardship
Annual household income ‡
Nongovernmental financial assistance c
Governmental financial assistance
Electricity turned off in past year
c
c
FATHERS, NEGLECT, AND CPS INVOLVEMENT 41
Household stability d
---
---
---
Moved 1 time
0.71 (0.40-1.28)
0.74 (0.40-1.34)
0.69 (0.37-1.32)
Moved 2+ times
0.65 (0.26-1.64)
0.54 (0.23-1.26)
0.51 (0.20-1.33)
1.35 (1.10-1.67)**
1.35 (1.10-1.65)**
1.38 (1.12-1.69)**
Parenting stress ‡
0.96 (0.68-1.33)
0.90 (0.60-1.36)
Involvement with the child ‡
1.27 (0.94-1.72)
1.30 (0.95-1.78)
Depression c
2.21 (1.03-4.74)*
2.42 (1.05-5.58)*
# of children in household < 18 years
old
Paternal Psychosocial Characteristics
Alcohol use
e
---
---
1-3 drinks in one day in past yr
0.76 (0.31-1.86)
0.75 (0.30-1.87)
4+ drinks in one day in past yr
1.38 (0.62-3.06)
1.31 (0.58-2.97)
Relationship With Child’s Mother
and Characteristics of the Child
Parental relationship quality ‡
Co-parenting support from mother
0.84 (0.64-1.09)
‡
Male child c
2.19 (0.80-6.00)
0.67 (0.48-0.94)*
Child health ‡
0.67 (0.44-1.04)
Child low birth weight
c
1.19 (0.50-2.86)
Note: OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. All models were adjusted for the father’s city at the time of the 3-year interview because this was a key variable
used in the sampling design. Household income was square root transformed for analyses. ‡ Higher scores indicate higher levels of the construct. a Reference
group is less than high school degree. b Reference group is White. c Dichotomous variable coded 0 = no, 1 = yes. d Reference group is no moves since the child’s
first birthday.
e
Reference group is no alcohol consumption in the past year.
*p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p ≤ .001.