Why joint physical custody (JPC) is better for children in post-separation arrangements – a literature review

Joint Parenting Denmark / Fælles Forældreskab 2025

Introduction

Joint physical custody (JPC) – also known as shared physical custody, shared parenting, or dual residence – refers to post-separation arrangements where a child lives with each parent for substantial periods (often near-equal time with both parents). Unlike sole physical custody (where a child resides primarily with one parent and visits the other), JPC typically means each parent has the child at least 30–50% of the time. In practice, definitions vary (some studies use a minimum 25–30% time with each parent as a threshold), but the core idea is that the child maintains a home with both mother and father. Over the past few decades, JPC has shifted from a rarity to a more common outcome in family law, reflecting evolving social norms around co-parenting and fathers’ involvement. Many jurisdictions have seen sharp rises in JPC arrangements as legal systems increasingly recognize the potential benefits of children having continuing and frequent contact with both parents after divorce or separation. For example, by the late 2010s roughly one-third of children of separated parents were in JPC in countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, and around 40% in regions of Canada and Spain (Nielsen 2018). This trend represents a significant change from past decades when sole maternal custody was often presumed; today, courts and policymakers are more frequently considering JPC as a viable or even preferred option, absent situations that make shared care unsafe or impractical. The growing prevalence of JPC has spurred extensive research into its impacts on child well-being, family dynamics, and the implications for policy and practice. This review provides an examination of the academic literature on JPC – surveying its documented benefits and challenges – and discusses the policy implications of these findings. Key themes include the long-term outcomes for children (even into adulthood), how socio-economic and gender factors intersect with shared parenting, recent research developments (particularly in the last decade), and recommendations for policies that support effective joint custody arrangements in the best interests of children and families.

Literature Review

Overview of Research on JPC vs. Sole Custody

Early studies on post-divorce custody outcomes established a foundation for understanding how JPC compares to sole physical custody (SPC). A consistent finding across numerous independent studies is that children in JPC arrangements, on average, tend to have better emotional, behavioural, and relational outcomes than those in sole custody arrangements (e.g. Nielsen 2018). In a landmark meta-analysis of 33 studies, Bauserman (2002) found that children in joint custody were better adjusted across multiple domains – including fewer behaviour problems, higher self-esteem, better family relationships, and better mental health – compared to children in sole custody, and their outcomes were statistically indistinguishable from children in intact two-parent families. Notably, Bauserman reported that this advantage held even after controlling for parental conflict, suggesting the benefits of JPC are not solely because cooperative, low-conflict parents are more likely to share custody. Similarly, a more recent meta-analysis by Baude et al. (2016) – examining 19 studies from the 2000s – concluded that JPC is associated with significantly better overall adjustment for children than sole residence, although the average effect size was modest (around d = 0.11). The small effect size indicates that while the difference is reliable, it is on the order of a few points on outcome measures; still, small effects can be meaningful across populations, and, importantly, no study-level evidence showed sole custody to be better for children on average. In fact, as one comprehensive review summarized, “JPC children had better outcomes than SPC children across all measures of well-being” in most studies (Nielsen 2018). An older meta-review of studies from the 1980s–90s likewise found JPC linked to better outcomes on every measure except academics (where results were roughly equal). These converging findings have led many researchers to conclude that, in general, joint physical custody can be advantageous for children, likely because it facilitates ongoing positive involvement with both parents and access to the emotional and material resources of two custodial caregivers.

However, researchers also caution that these average benefits do not guarantee that JPC is the optimal arrangement for every family. The context matters: children’s adjustment in JPC versus sole custody can be moderated by factors like parental conflict, the quality of parenting, and the proportion of time spent with each parent. For instance, Baude et al. (2016) observed that the benefits of JPC were greater in studies drawn from general populations (e.g., community samples) than in studies of families in high-conflict clinical or court-referred samples. They also found that outcomes for children were better when the joint custody involved more equal time splits – i.e., kids spending 40–50% time with each parent – compared to cases where “joint” custody meant more of a 70/30 split. This suggests that nearer-equal parenting time might yield the most pronounced benefits, perhaps by allowing stronger continuity of relationship with both parents. It also hints that some studies may underestimate JPC benefits if they include many cases with only minimal time sharing. In both meta-analyses (2002 and 2016), differences between JPC and sole-custody kids were statistically significant but small-to-moderate in magnitude. This aligns with the understanding that while custody arrangement is important, it is one of many factors (including parental warmth, parenting style, income, etc.) that influence child outcomes. As a result, a child in sole custody with nurturing, cooperative parents may well fare better than a child in a poorly-implemented joint custody arrangement with high conflict – but on average, when looking at large groups, JPC tends to be associated with better outcomes across numerous studies and countries.

Emotional, Behavioral, and Physical Well-Being

The literature consistently reports that JPC children show equal or lower levels of emotional distress and behavioral problems compared to those primarily with one parent. They are less likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, or low self-esteem, and often report less aggressive or antisocial behavior. Bauserman’s meta-analysis found better outcomes for joint-custody kids on measures of general adjustment and divorce-specific adjustment (e.g., coping with the divorce) as well as in their family relationships. More recent large-scale studies reinforce these findings. A Swedish national survey of 12- and 15-year-olds found that adolescents who spent equal time in two homes reported higher well-being on average than those in predominantly single-parent care (Bergström 2013). Notably, 15-year-olds in equal shared custody had the highest well-being, while 12-year-olds in shared care also did better than those living mostly with one parent (though the difference was less pronounced, suggesting that older teens might benefit more clearly from the arrangement). Another study in Sweden focusing on younger children (ages 3–5) reported that preschoolers in joint physical custody exhibited fewer psychological symptoms (such as emotional difficulties or hyperactivity) than those living mainly with one parent (Bergström 2018). Crucially, that study did not find evidence that frequent moves between two homes were inherently stressful for most preschoolers; instead, the children with two homes actually showed no more problems – and in fact showed fewer problems – than those in single residence, highlighting that even very young children can thrive in a shared parenting arrangement given a supportive environment (Bergström 2018). Similarly, research from multiple Western countries has found that children in shared custody report psychosomatic health complaints (e.g. headaches, difficulty sleeping) less frequently than children living with a single parent, approaching the low levels of such complaints reported by children in intact two-parent families. These patterns hold true even when controlling for factors like family income and parent education in many analyses, reinforcing that the positive outcomes are not simply because more affluent or advantaged families choose joint custody (an important point, discussed further below).

It is important to note that academic outcomes under JPC are generally found to be no worse than under sole custody, and some studies suggest they may be slightly better on average or mediated by other variables. While Bauserman (2002) found no significant difference in academic achievement between joint and sole custody groups, other research indicates that better emotional well-being and stability in JPC can indirectly support children’s school performance. For instance, children in JPC often have more consistent support with homework and school activities from two involved parents, and they may experience less economic strain (because both parents contribute resources), which can benefit academic performance. A Belgian study found that joint-custody adolescents had similar school engagement to those in sole custody overall, but JPC appeared to particularly help keep boys more academically on track (boys in sole custody showed more disengagement). On the whole, while educational outcomes do not show as large a gap as some other domains, there is no evidence that JPC harms schooling – if anything, it tends to be neutral to mildly positive for academics, especially when parents cooperate on school matters.

Parent-Child Relationships and Long-Term Effects

One of the clearest benefits of JPC highlighted in the literature is the opportunity for children to maintain strong relationships with both parents. In sole custody, it is common for the non-resident parent (often the father) to gradually become less involved in the child’s life, which can strain that relationship. JPC, by design, ensures regular contact and caregiving by both mother and father, which research shows is associated with closer bonds. Even in situations where the father-child relationship was initially weak, increased parenting time can significantly improve that relationship over time. A longitudinal study by Fabricius and Luecken (2007) found that the more time children lived with their father after divorce (including in equal custody arrangements), the better their relationship with him in young adulthood, regardless of the level of parental conflict. In other words, spending ample time with both parents during childhood laid the groundwork for closer parent–child relationships that endured into the college years and beyond. There is also evidence of long-term health and well-being correlates. That same study reported that young adults who had very limited contact with one parent (usually fathers) reported more physical health problems (e.g. stress-related issues) later on, suggesting that the emotional stress of diminished parent-child relationships can manifest in health outcomes. Conversely, children from joint custody settings, who typically report feeling loved and supported by both parents, may carry those emotional benefits into adulthood, translating into better adjustment and possibly even better health. Young adults who experienced JPC often describe having strong ties to both their mother and father and even to extended family (like grandparents on both sides). Indeed, one study found post-divorce shared residence arrangements were associated with greater contact with grandparents compared to sole custody, as children in JPC get the benefit of two family networks.

That said, researchers also point out that children’s individual temperaments and circumstances influence their experience of JPC. Qualitative studies that interview children directly reveal a mix of perspectives: many children in JPC appreciate having both parents in their lives, but some also mention challenges like logistical hassles or feeling “in between” two homes. A synthesis of interviews with children in shared care arrangements across several countries concluded that their experiences were “mixed and varied,” hinging largely on the quality of relationships with each parent and the flexibility of the schedule. If parents handled scheduling and transitions in a child-centric, flexible way and maintained low conflict, children’s feedback was generally positive; but if the arrangement was very rigid or parents fought often, children reported more stress. These nuanced findings underscore that the success of JPC often depends on parental cooperation and the avoidance of ongoing conflict, rather than the time-split alone. Furthermore, some studies have noted slight gender differences in how children respond to JPC. For example, a study in Belgium found that adolescent girls in joint physical custody reported higher rates of depression than girls in sole custody, whereas boys showed the opposite pattern – boys fared worse in sole custody and were less depressed in joint custody. This suggests that girls and boys might have different sensitivities to moving between homes or to how they communicate with parents, though findings on gender are not entirely consistent across studies. Personality factors (such as a child’s adaptability or need for routine) also play a role. In any case, these differences are usually small; the vast majority of children, male or female, prefer having both parents in their lives after divorce, and outcomes are mostly positive when JPC is implemented in a supportive manner.

Role of Parental Conflict and Quality of Parenting

A central debate in the literature is whether the benefits seen in JPC are due to the custody arrangement itself or simply a byproduct of the fact that parents who choose JPC tend to have lower conflict and more resources (the “self-selection” argument). It is true that, on average, parents with joint custody are a self-selecting group who often have somewhat better co-parenting relationships and more socio-economic advantages. Studies confirm that higher-income, well-educated parents are more likely to establish shared physical custody of children (Hjern et al 2021). Nevertheless, a growing body of evidence indicates that JPC’s benefits are not entirely explained by these factors. Many studies have attempted to control for conflict and income, and still found a residual advantage for JPC children. For instance, in a Canadian study, researchers compared children in different post-divorce arrangements while accounting for family income levels and found that children in shared custody had fewer behavioural problems than those in sole custody even within the same income brackets, leading the authors to conclude that “money does not buy happiness” – i.e., the positive outcomes in JPC were not solely due to financial advantages. Likewise, Bauserman’s meta-analysis noted that while joint-custody parents did report lower conflict on average than sole-custody parents, those conflict differences did not fully account for the better child outcomes observed in JPC families. In other words, even when comparing high-conflict families, some evidence suggests children may still do somewhat better in joint custody than in sole custody, provided they have good relationships with both parents. On this point, Nielsen (2017) re-examined studies and found that high inter-parental conflict is not an automatic disqualifier for JPC – what matters more is whether the conflict undermines the parent–child relationships. If parents can compartmentalize their conflicts away from the children and both continue to provide warm, effective parenting, children often still benefit from shared time. In fact, even in studies where conflict was high, children in JPC frequently had closer relationships with their fathers and equal or better outcomes than high-conflict sole-custody situations. However, when high conflict coexists with a poor parent–child relationship (for example, a parent who is disengaged or the child is fearful of one parent), then JPC can indeed be detrimental relative to sole custody. These findings highlight that the quality of parenting and shielding of children from conflict are pivotal – JPC works best when both parents remain positively involved and conflict is managed in ways that do not spill over onto the child. If those conditions are met, shared custody can mitigate some negative effects of divorce by providing children with stable, loving care from both parents. If those conditions are absent (extreme conflict, abuse, or serious parenting deficiencies), then a sole custody or other arrangement may better protect the child.

Socio-Economic Considerations

Socio-economic disparities have a significant impact on both the likelihood of joint custody and its outcomes. As noted, families with more economic resources (higher income, higher parental education) are more likely to implement JPC. This makes intuitive sense – maintaining two fully equipped homes for children, coordinating schedules, and living near each other (often a prerequisite for JPC to be practical) can be more challenging for low-income parents. One large cohort study in Denmark found that by the child’s age 11, the strongest predictors of whether separated parents had a joint physical custody arrangement were a high family income and high education level of the parents (Hjern et al 2021). This suggests that even before separation, more privileged families are both more inclined and more able to choose shared parenting. It’s important for researchers to account for these selection effects when evaluating outcomes. Indeed, some differences in child outcomes between JPC and single-parent arrangements diminish when controlling for socio-economic status – because poverty itself can negatively affect child well-being, regardless of custody type. For example, an analysis in Sweden showed that in both JPC and sole custody families, children from economically disadvantaged households had more emotional and behavioral problems than children from affluent households. Such findings remind us that JPC is not a panacea for all problems; broader socio-economic supports are crucial. At the same time, the research indicates that within each socio-economic stratum, children still tend to do a bit better with both parents in their lives. Joint custody may confer a form of “social capital” – access to both parents’ networks, financial support, and supervision. Over the long term, having two involved parents can mean help with college, connections for jobs, and a safety net from two sides of the family, which may particularly benefit children in lower-income families. However, lower-income parents face practical barriers to JPC (such as work schedules or housing constraints), and these need to be recognized. Some studies have also explored whether JPC might exacerbate stress for financially strapped parents (e.g., costs of maintaining suitable housing in two locations, transportation costs, etc.), potentially leading to conflict about child-related expenses. Policy solutions like adjusted child support formulas and housing assistance for shared custody parents have been suggested to alleviate these pressures (discussed in the Policy Implications section).

Evolving Role of Fathers and Gender Dynamics

The rise of joint physical custody is closely tied to changes in societal views of fatherhood and motherhood. Historically, courts favored mothers as the primary custodial parent (the “tender years” doctrine), and fathers often had limited visitation. In the last few decades, there’s been a broad recognition – supported by research – that children benefit from active involvement of both parents, and that fathers are not just financial providers but also important caregivers. Developmental psychologists like Michael Lamb have documented the significant role fathers play in children’s social, cognitive, and emotional development. With this evolving understanding, fathers are more frequently seeking and being granted substantial parenting time post-divorce. Many highly cited studies, such as Amato and Gilbreth’s meta-analysis on nonresident fathers, have found that children have better outcomes (e.g., higher academic success, fewer behavior problems) when their fathers are more involved and supportive, even after divorce. It’s not just “quality time” that matters – quantity of time is a strong predictor of a close father-child relationship. JPC naturally increases the quantity of father–child interaction, which often translates into dads taking on more everyday parenting tasks and not just the “fun” weekend roles. Recent research has explicitly debunked the notion that only maternal care is critical, showing that fathering quality and time independently contribute to child well-being.

Gender dynamics in shared parenting can be complex. Mothers, who traditionally carried more of the child-rearing responsibilities, may have mixed feelings about JPC – on one hand, it can alleviate some of the day-to-day burden and allow them greater workforce participation or personal time; on the other hand, some mothers feel a loss of their role or worry about the child being away from them for long periods. Overall, studies suggest most mothers in JPC adapt well and often report satisfaction when they see their children maintaining a good relationship with the father, although the adjustment can be difficult initially. Fathers generally report higher satisfaction and identity reward in being more than “visitor” parents, which can improve their mental health and reduce the sense of loss that often accompanies divorce for noncustodial dads. There is evidence that parenting styles and behaviors shift in JPC arrangements: for example, divorced fathers with shared custody tend to be more involved in discipline and daily routines, which is linked to better child outcomes. A study by Bastaits et al. (2014) found that the quality of post-divorce paternal parenting (e.g., authoritative style, consistency) significantly predicted children’s well-being, underlining that when given the opportunity of more time, many fathers rise to the occasion and have a positive impact. Meanwhile, mothers in shared arrangements often remain the primary caregiver in terms of managing school and healthcare, but they share more than in sole custody scenarios, leading to a more balanced co-parenting dynamic.

Importantly, shared parenting does not appear to harm the mother–child relationship. Some critics initially feared that if fathers got equal time, children’s attachment to mothers would weaken; research has not borne this out in normal circumstances. Children in JPC generally remain securely attached to both parents. In fact, one could argue JPC broadens the child’s experience of support – they might go to their father for certain needs and their mother for others, knowing both are accessible. Moreover, extended family involvement often improves: for instance, children in JPC see both sets of grandparents more regularly than those living with only one side. The gendered aspect of who pushes for JPC is also shifting: while fathers’ rights groups have historically championed shared custody, today many mothers also favour arrangements that allow them to pursue careers or education, with the child’s father taking on substantial childcare duties. As gender roles in parenting become more equal in intact families, it follows that post-separation parenting models are evolving to reflect that equilibrium.

Recent Research Trends (Last 10+ Years)

Over the last decade, research on joint physical custody has expanded dramatically, both in volume and geographic scope. New large-scale studies and longitudinal data have strengthened our understanding of JPC’s effects on children’s development. A notable trend is the contribution of research from Scandinavian countries, where shared custody has become relatively common. Using nationally representative datasets, these studies often compare children in various family structures (intact, JPC, sole custody, etc.) on health and well-being indicators. Their findings broadly reinforce earlier conclusions: children in JPC are doing as well as, or sometimes better than, children in single-parent arrangements on a range of outcomes. For example, Swedish researchers Bergström and colleagues published a series of studies (2013, 2014, 2015, 2018) examining mental health, life satisfaction, and psychosomatic health in children of different living arrangements. They found that children in joint physical custody had lower rates of psychosomatic complaints (headaches, stomach aches, etc.) and mental health problems than children living with a single parent, and in many measures, JPC children’s outcomes were close to those in intact families. These studies, published in public health journals, gained international attention because they countered the assumption that moving between two homes is inherently stressful for kids; instead, when conflict is low, having two homes did not show negative effects. Another study from Norway (Nilsen et al., 2017) similarly found that adolescents in JPC had better mental health scores on average than those in sole custody or stepfamily arrangements, controlling for socio-economic factors.

At the same time, researchers have delved deeper into specific subgroups and long-term trajectories. There is growing literature on how JPC affects children as they move into young adulthood. For instance, a longitudinal study in Australia is following children whose parents separated after the 2006 shared parenting law reforms, to see how their educational and relational outcomes in their 20s correlate with their childhood custody arrangements. Early indications suggest that those who experienced shared care are at least as likely to enter university or stable employment as those from single-parent homes, and they often maintain closer relationships with both parents post-emancipation (such as inviting both to graduations, weddings, etc.). Another new avenue of research looks at very young children (infants and toddlers) in shared parenting arrangements. This area was controversial, as some practitioners had advised against overnight stays for infants with the “non-primary” parent. In 2014, a major consensus report by Warshak (endorsed by 110 experts) challenged blanket restrictions on overnights, concluding that there is no empirical evidence that young children are harmed by overnight parenting time with both parents – to the contrary, such time can promote secure attachments to both mother and father (Mahrer et al 2018). Studies by Fabricius & Suh (2017) provided new data showing that infants and toddlers who had frequent overnights with both parents had no attachment or adjustment problems attributable to the overnight schedule; by preschool age, these children had strong, healthy bonds to both parents, compared to some weakening of the father-child bond when overnights were withheld in infancy (Warshak 2018). This recent research trend has influenced guidelines in some jurisdictions to allow more case-by-case consideration of overnight care for infants, rather than automatically defaulting to sole maternal care in the first years.

Another key trend in the last ten years is the examination of high-conflict divorced families and shared parenting – essentially asking, “Can shared custody work when parents don’t get along?” Earlier, many believed that joint custody is only for the amicable; if parents fight, better to have a clean break. Recent studies, however, offer a more nuanced view. Ongoing projects (e.g., in Arizona and elsewhere) are investigating the outcomes of court-ordered joint custody in moderate to high conflict cases. Preliminary results suggest that outcomes vary: some high-conflict families actually improve over time under JPC, especially if given proper support (mediation, counseling), because the parents are forced to cooperate and stay involved, which can eventually reduce conflict frequency. Other families, unfortunately, continue high-conflict behaviors post-divorce, which can undermine children’s sense of security regardless of the custody plan. Research by Sandler et al. (2021) addressed this by looking at both parenting time and parenting quality in high-conflict situations. They found that when both parents maintain high-quality parenting (warmth, consistency) even in the face of conflict, children in shared arrangements showed better adjustment than those with a sole-custody, one-parent-dominant situation (Mahrer, et al. 2018). This suggests that what matters in high-conflict cases is ensuring the conflict does not eclipse good parenting. These insights are pushing the field toward more targeted interventions (for example, “parallel parenting” plans that minimize direct contact between hostile ex-partners while still allowing the child substantial time with each).

On the legal front, the past decade has seen significant shifts in custody laws and policies worldwide. Several jurisdictions have moved toward policies presuming or encouraging shared parenting. For example, in 2014, Brazil amended its laws to make shared custody the default arrangement. In the United States, as of 2020, over 25 states had considered or passed measures favoring JPC – Kentucky notably implemented a presumption of joint custody in 2018 (the first U.S. state to do so) and saw reductions in custody litigation filings thereafter, according to preliminary reports. A 2017 news analysis noted that more than 20 U.S. states in that year alone were debating bills to promote shared custody, reflecting bipartisan public support for the idea that children generally benefit from having both parents actively involved. Canada revamped its federal family law in 2019 (Bill C-78), which stopped short of a presumption but emphasized “maximum parenting time” consistent with the child’s best interests, a formulation that essentially instructs courts to give both parents substantial time whenever feasible. In Europe, countries like Belgium (since 2006) and France (since 2002) have statutes that strongly endorse alternating residence (in Belgium, there is a legal presumption of 50/50 custody if either parent requests it). Belgium’s experience is often cited: following the 2006 reform, the percentage of divorce cases resulting in equal or near-equal shared time rose significantly (one study reported JPC in Belgium reached ~35–40% of cases by the mid-2010s). Australia underwent major reforms earlier, in 2006, introducing the concept of “equal shared parental responsibility” and instructing courts to consider equal time or substantial time with each parent. By 2009, evaluations showed the incidence of shared-care time in Australia had roughly doubled compared to pre-reform levels (from about 15% to over 30% in cases where parents utilized the legal system) (Smyth 2024). Those reforms were later fine-tuned in 2012 to address concerns about cases involving family violence – underscoring that shared custody laws need to be paired with safeguards. Overall, the legal trend has been toward encouraging JPC, though not mandating it. A common theme in new legislation is the phrase “child’s best interest” remains paramount; thus, while the starting point might be that spending time with both parents is beneficial, courts retain discretion to restrict contact with one parent in situations of abuse, neglect, or other serious issues.

Accompanying these legal shifts, professional organizations and international bodies have updated guidelines. The Council of Europe passed a 2015 resolution recommending member states promote shared residence after separation as a general principle. Likewise, family court associations (e.g., the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, AFCC) have produced reports highlighting that custody decisions should be individualized but recognizing the value of shared parenting. Notably, experts are now focusing on how to make JPC work in practice (through parenting coordination, detailed parenting plans, conflict reduction strategies) rather than on whether JPC is good or bad in general – reflecting that the conversation has matured from “should we do JPC?” to “given that many are doing JPC, how can we support families to do it well?”

Analysis of Benefits, Challenges, and Conditions for Success

Benefits of Joint Physical Custody

The preponderance of evidence indicates several key benefits of JPC for children’s well-being. Psychologically, children in shared custody often enjoy greater emotional security and stability, knowing that both parents are still actively engaged in their lives. They are less likely to feel abandoned by one parent, a common fear among children of divorce, because they have routine, ongoing contact with each parent. This can translate into lower rates of anxiety and depression. Studies have found JPC children generally have fewer behavioral issues and higher self-esteem compared to those in sole custody (Bauserman 2002). They also report feeling closer to both parents. Instead of a distant “weekend dad,” the father in a JPC arrangement is a regular caregiver, which helps maintain a strong father–child bond. Mother–child relationships also remain robust, and sometimes improve if the mother was strained by single parenting responsibilities. From an educational and developmental perspective, having two involved parents can mean more help with homework, participation in school events, and exposure to a wider range of experiences – all of which can benefit cognitive and social development. There is also an economic benefit: typically both parents contribute financially in JPC, so children are more likely to have adequate material resources, and custodial parents (often mothers) are less likely to experience severe post-divorce poverty when parenting time is shared more evenly.

Another benefit is observed in family dynamics and extended family bonds. With JPC, a child doesn’t lose half their family. They celebrate holidays with both sides, maintain relationships with both maternal and paternal relatives, and feel a sense of belonging to two families. Research by Westphal et al. (2015) noted that children in shared arrangements had more frequent contact with grandparents on both sides than those who primarily lived with one parent. Additionally, children learn by example; when they see their divorced parents cooperating (even at a basic level to make exchanges or attend events together), it models conflict resolution and flexibility. Many young adults who grew up in joint custody report that while shuttling between homes had its logistical challenges, they appreciate that their parents “both stayed in my life” and often credit that with helping them develop adaptability, empathy, and strong relationships in their own lives.

From the parents’ perspective, JPC can also yield benefits that indirectly help the child. For instance, joint custody tends to reduce the likelihood of one parent becoming overwhelmed by sole caregiving duties. Each parent has built-in “off duty” time when the child is with the other, which can be used to rest, advance a career, or socialize – potentially improving that parent’s mental health. With sole custody, the resident parent may experience high stress and burnout, whereas the non-resident parent may feel disengaged or depressed from limited contact. JPC balances these extremes. Moreover, empirical studies show that inter-parental conflict and re-litigation rates are lower in families with joint custody than in those with sole custody. This might seem counterintuitive if one assumes conflict leads to JPC, but once an arrangement is in place, shared responsibility can actually alleviate some common friction points (for example, arguments over the noncustodial parent’s limited visitation or over child support often decrease when time is split and both parents feel they have an active role). Bauserman’s 2012 analysis of parental outcomes found that joint-custody parents had no more – and often less – conflict and were less likely to return to court for disputes, compared to sole-custody parents. In terms of personal growth, JPC can encourage both parents to stay engaged with parenting skill development (cooking meals, helping with homework, etc.), whereas in a traditional setup one parent might leave those tasks to the other. This dual involvement can enhance parenting skills on both sides.

However, the benefits of JPC manifest best under certain conditions. A major condition is that both parents are reasonably capable and loving – JPC presumes that each parent can provide a safe, nurturing home. When that is true, the child gets the full benefit of having two homes. If one parent is abusive, severely irresponsible, or undermines the child’s relationship with the other parent, then the expected benefits of JPC will likely evaporate. Another condition for success is geographical proximity and stability. JPC works smoothly when parents live relatively close (e.g., within the same city or school district) so the child can maintain one set of friends and one school. Long distances or frequent moves can introduce stress (long commutes, difficulty participating in one household’s extracurriculars, etc.). Most successful JPC families find a routine (like a week-on/week-off schedule or other stable rotation) that the child can anticipate, and they stick to it, providing consistency. Flexibility is also key – if one parent can accommodate changes for special events or the child’s needs without conflict, the arrangement feels less rigid to the child.

Challenges and Limitations of JPC

Despite its advantages, joint physical custody is not without challenges. One practical challenge is the logistical complexity for both families and children. Managing two sets of clothes, school materials, and schedules can be difficult, especially for young children. Children may complain about having to pack bags back and forth or accidentally leaving a favorite item at the other parent’s house. Parents also have to coordinate continually – about school issues, medical appointments, discipline, etc. – which can be taxing if their communication is poor. In high-conflict situations, these logistics can become battlegrounds (e.g., disputes over the exchange time/place, or about what happens in the other parent’s household). Thus, JPC benefits from a level of cooperation or at least civil communication that not all ex-partners can manage. When cooperation fails, children can feel caught in the middle, which is harmful. As noted earlier, high-conflict JPC can in some cases be worse for children than a stable sole-custody arrangement, particularly if the conflict involves the children or creates a tense atmosphere at exchanges. For such families, a more structured or parallel parenting approach (limiting direct parent contact) may be necessary if joint custody is to work at all.

Another challenge relates to the child’s temperament and preferences. Some children, especially adolescents, might voice that they dislike switching homes and would prefer one stable home base. A teen might find it disruptive to their social life or part-time job to alternate residences. While many adjust, it’s important for courts and parents to listen to children’s own perspectives (appropriately for their age) when crafting a plan. Rigid 50/50 schedules might not suit every child; for instance, a shy child who finds transitions stressful might do better with a 2-weeks/2-weeks arrangement rather than frequent handovers, whereas an infant or toddler might need more frequent but shorter stays with each parent to maintain attachment. Thus, one size does not fit all in JPC scheduling, and tailoring the schedule to the child’s needs is crucial. If this tailoring doesn’t happen, JPC could become a source of stress (for example, a baby might have trouble with long separations from the primary caregiver if shared time is split into week-long chunks too early). Research and expert consensus now suggest that even very young children can have overnights with both parents, but those plans should consider things like breastfeeding schedules and the child’s attachment behaviours.

There are also economic and structural challenges. While JPC can lessen the financial burden on one parent by sharing costs, it can also be more expensive overall as it requires maintaining two bedrooms and sets of essentials for the child. In cases where there is a big income disparity, the logistics of JPC can strain the less-resourced parent (e.g., affording a home with an extra bedroom). Child support formulas are sometimes less straightforward in shared custody situations, potentially leading to financial disputes. Additionally, if parents relocate (for jobs or new partners), JPC might become unfeasible, meaning the arrangement that worked for a few years might need to change, which can be difficult for the child.

Another limitation to acknowledge is that JPC is not inherently synonymous with good parenting or low conflict. Some parents may share time equally but still expose the child to bitter conflicts or may both be disengaged or inconsistent. In such scenarios, simply having two homes doesn’t magically produce benefits for the child – it could even amplify the exposure to negative parenting from two sources instead of one. What the research shows is that JPC tends to come with positive correlates (two loving parents, adequate resources, etc.), but those correlates need to be present. If both parents are struggling (say, with mental health or substance abuse issues), a joint arrangement might not remediate those issues. This is why many scholars emphasize that JPC is most effective when it occurs in the context of at least minimally good co-parenting – it’s not a cure-all for deeper family dysfunction. As an Australian family law review put it, shared parenting requires a “certain level of parental capacity and cooperation,” and without that, mandated 50/50 time could even become a “quagmire” for children.

Finally, the legal and social systems can pose challenges. Not all jurisdictions are fully equipped to support JPC families. Schools, for example, sometimes struggle to know how to communicate with two households (though this is improving). Healthcare providers need both parents’ consents or involvement at times, which can be tricky if parents don’t communicate. Some mothers have reported feeling that the legal system pushed them into sharing custody even when they felt the father was not competent or was abusive – pointing to the necessity that policies be nuanced and not force JPC in inappropriate cases. Conversely, some fathers still encounter biases in courts and have to fight to get equal time, indicating that practice in some areas hasn’t caught up with policy. These systemic issues can affect how beneficial the arrangement ultimately is.

In sum, JPC’s benefits are maximized – and its challenges minimized – under conditions of cooperative co-parenting, effective communication, proximity, stable schedules, and a child-centric flexible approach, as well as adequate resources for both households. These conditions exist to a degree in the large majority of fractured families, but without these conditions, joint physical custody can be stressful; with them, it provides children with a rich, supportive upbringing despite their parents’ separation.

Policy Recommendations

Drawing from the research evidence, a number of policy implications and recommendations emerge to support the well-being of children in separated families. The overarching goal is to create frameworks that encourage the benefits of joint physical custody while safeguarding against its potential pitfalls. Below are key research-backed strategies for policymakers and practitioners:

1. Promote a Rebuttable Presumption of Joint Physical Custody in Law: Many experts advocate that family law should start with the presumption that, in typical cases, shared parenting is in the best interests of the child, unless there are reasons to rule it out (such as abuse or clear evidence that it would not work for a particular family). A rebuttable presumption means the default expectation is JPC, but a judge can decide otherwise if presented with evidence that JPC would be harmful or impractical in the specific case. Research showing the general benefits of JPC provides a strong foundation for this approach. Countries like Belgium and some U.S. states have already implemented versions of this, leading to more children having substantial time with both parents. However, it is crucial that such a presumption is not absolute – it must yield to the child’s best interests in individual cases. To implement this, legislation can explicitly enumerate exceptions (e.g., domestic violence, serious neglect, or extreme parental conflict that cannot be mitigated). By making JPC the starting point, the law sends a message that both parents are expected to continue in a caregiving role post-divorce, which may also discourage parents from entering custody battles expecting a “winner” and “loser.” Instead, the expectation is that both will remain involved, hopefully incentivizing more cooperative behaviour.

2. Implement Safeguards and Screening for Family Violence and High Conflict: Hand-in-hand with a pro-JPC stance, policies must ensure children’s safety. Courts and mediators should rigorously screen for domestic violence, child abuse, or severe substance abuse issues. In such cases, joint custody should likely be off the table or require very careful, supervised implementation. The research is unequivocal that children’s well-being is worst when they are exposed to violence or abuse, and forcing shared custody in those scenarios can be dangerous. Many jurisdictions, like Australia and several U.S. states, have clauses that the presumption of shared parenting does not apply if there is a history of domestic violence. This needs to be strictly observed. Additionally, even in non-abusive but high-conflict cases, specialized approaches are needed. One policy recommendation from family court professionals is to use “parallel parenting” arrangements as an interim step for high-conflict families. In parallel parenting, the child still spends time with both parents, but the parents have limited direct interaction (communications might be through writing or a third party, and schedules are structured to avoid face-to-face conflict). This can allow the child to benefit from both parents while insulating them from parental disputes. Courts could order a parallel parenting plan with a review after, say, 6 or 12 months to see if conflict has subsided enough to move to a more cooperative shared parenting plan. Research suggests that completely denying a good parent custody time due to conflict might deprive the child of that parent’s positive input, so a better approach is often to manage the conflict rather than eliminate the shared custody.

3. Provide Parenting Education and Co-Parenting Support Programs: Policymakers should fund and mandate participation in co-parenting education programs for separating parents, especially those embarking on JPC. These programs, which are increasingly common in North America, teach parents how to communicate effectively, focus on children’s needs, and handle the practicalities of two-home life. Studies have found that when parents understand the developmental importance of both parents and learn skills to reduce conflict (like using parenting apps or communication notebooks to convey information without direct confrontation), the outcomes for JPC are much better. Some jurisdictions require parents to attend a co-parenting class before finalizing a custody order – an approach that research supports. Additionally, offering mediation services can help parents create a detailed parenting plan that pre-empts many conflicts. Mediation tends to increase compliance and satisfaction with agreements, which is vital in JPC where ongoing cooperation is needed. Governments could subsidize mediation or offer it through the courts to reduce costs for participants.

4. Encourage Flexible, Child-Centered Parenting Plans (Not One-Size-Fits-All): Laws or guidelines should avoid rigidly prescribing exactly 50/50 time or specific schedules. Instead, while assuming a 50/50 division of time, they should encourage parents (with help from mediators or courts) to craft parenting plans tailored to their child’s age, needs, and the family’s circumstances. For infants, this might mean a schedule that allows very frequent contact with both parents (to maintain attachment), possibly with the child not away from either parent for too many days in a row. For school-age children, it might mean about a week schedule or splitting the week, depending on what causes the least disruption for schooling and activities. For teens, flexibility to accommodate their social/academic life is important – e.g., a teen might prefer alternating every two weeks or having one home base during the school week and alternate weekends, if that helps with their routine. The key is that policy should mandate that parenting plans prioritize the child’s welfare and incorporates their preferences (when old enough), and that plans be reviewed periodically. Courts could require that very young children’s schedules gradually evolve (for example, an order might specify more time with the non-primary parent when the child turns 3 or starts school) to ensure the arrangement remains developmentally appropriate. By embedding flexibility, policies can make JPC more workable and reduce situations where a fixed schedule becomes problematic as the child grows.

5. Support and Enforce Co-Parenting Compliance: One challenge noted in research is that a good plan on paper is only as good as its implementation. Policymakers should ensure mechanisms for enforcement of parenting time (so one parent cannot willfully withhold the child from the other without consequence) and for modification if needed. Make-up parenting time for missed visits, penalties for bad-faith interference with custody, and access to dispute resolution (like a parenting coordinator or swift mediation) are all strategies to keep JPC on track. On the flip side, if a plan truly isn’t working for the child, there should be accessible routes to modify it without an expensive protracted court battle. Fast-track review hearings or mandatory check-ins (maybe 6 months post-divorce) could be instituted to catch issues early. Research indicates that when parents feel the plan is fair and that the other parent can’t easily violate it, they are more likely to cooperate. Thus, clear legal consequences for non-compliance (akin to enforcement of child support) can be a backstop to ensure both parents honour the agreement.

6. Adjust Economic and Workplace Policies to Facilitate JPC: Beyond family law, a supportive policy environment includes economics and workplace norms. Policymakers should ensure that child support guidelines account for shared custody so that both households have adequate resources for the child. Many jurisdictions already prorate child support based on nights spent with each parent. It’s important that this formula be fair, so neither parent is penalized for sharing time (historically, primary custodians got more support, and some worry loss of support with 50/50 could harm the child in a poorer parent’s home). Calibrating these formulas to balance incomes and time can prevent the child from experiencing a huge disparity between two homes. Additionally, providing tax credits or housing assistance to single-parent households should be structured in a way that doesn’t discourage shared custody. For example, if only one parent can claim a child tax credit, parents can be encouraged to alternate claims each year in JPC situations, or better yet, the credit amount could be split.

Workplace policies are also crucial: governments and employers can promote flexible work arrangements for divorced parents. If both parents can adjust work schedules (e.g., telecommute on certain days or have flexible hours), it becomes easier to coordinate pick-ups, drop-offs, and quality time. Some companies have begun to recognize “co-parenting leave” or at least treat custody schedules as a valid reason for flex time. A culturally supportive stance toward active fatherhood (e.g., encouraging fathers to take parental leave or use flexible hours) indirectly supports joint custody because it means fathers are better positioned to handle caregiving tasks.

7. Provide Community and School Support for Children in JPC: Schools and community organizations (like sports teams, clubs) should be encouraged or mandated to adapt to children of shared custody. This means sending information to both parents, allowing two sets of contact info for pickups, etc. Policymakers can require that any entity dealing with children’s information (school records, medical records) have protocols to grant both legal guardians equal access. This reduces conflict (one parent doesn’t have to go through the other to get a report card) and empowers both to be involved. Some jurisdictions have passed laws stating that both joint custodial parents have equal rights to access school and medical records. Such measures should be standard. Additionally, counselling services and support groups for children of divorce can be attuned to the JPC experience – for instance, helping kids develop organizational skills for managing two homes, or simply providing a space to talk about any frustrations. Normalizing JPC in society (for example, children’s books that positively depict living in two homes) can also help children feel that their family setup is normal and not something to be ashamed of.

8. Emphasize Quality of Parenting and Child’s Voice in Custody Decisions: While pushing for more JPC, it’s vital that legal frameworks maintain focus on parenting quality. Judges and evaluators should assess each parent’s involvement, parenting skills, and the child’s attachment to them, rather than defaulting to assumptions based on gender or traditional roles. If one parent has been largely absent or uninvolved, simply ordering 50/50 time may not immediately be in the child’s best interest without a transition plan (e.g., gradually increasing time as the parent demonstrates commitment). Policies could require parenting classes or supervised visitation as a step-up for an uninvolved parent who seeks joint custody. The research by Adamsons & Johnson (2013) is instructive here – it showed that quality of parenting correlates more strongly with child outcomes than just the division of time. Thus, evaluations should look at how each parent will meet the child’s needs. If both can do so adequately, then shared time is ideal; if not, courts may consider a disproportionate arrangement until the situation changes. Moreover, incorporating the child’s own voice in an appropriate way (perhaps through a trained child specialist or guardian ad litem) can help ensure the arrangement aligns with what the child can handle. For instance, a teenager might say they really dislike mid-week switching because of homework logistics – a minor tweak to the plan can then be made. Policies in some places require judges to consider the wishes of children above a certain age in custody matters; extending that practice can improve the fit of JPC plans and ultimately their success.

9. Invest in Longitudinal Research and Pilot Programs: Policymakers should continue to support research on outcomes of different custody arrangements, especially long-term effects. As JPC becomes more common, it’s important to track cohorts of children into adulthood to see, for example, effects on relationship building, academic and career achievement, and mental health. We currently have encouraging data up to adolescence and early adulthood, but further research (and funding for it) can inform tweaks in policy (such as optimal arrangements for various ages, or how to support outlier cases). Additionally, governments can pilot innovative approaches – for example, providing a family transition coach to some divorcing families to see if that yields better outcomes in joint custody; or experimenting with “nesting” arrangements (where the child stays in one home and parents rotate in and out) in high-conflict situations to see if that reduces stress on the child. Pilot programs, evaluated scientifically, can generate new insights for best practices.

10. Public Education and Shifting Culture: Finally, beyond formal policy, a recommendation is for a public education campaign about the value of co-parenting. Just as societal attitudes toward post-divorce fatherhood have been changing, continued efforts can be made to highlight success stories of JPC, correct myths, and encourage parents to set aside personal vendettas for the child’s sake. Misinformation (sometimes called “woozles” in custody literature) has at times plagued this field – for example, the myth that any conflict means joint custody will fail, or that infants should never have overnights with dads. These have been rebutted by research, but not everyone (especially on the ground in courtrooms or among the public) knows the latest evidence. By disseminating research findings – such as the consensus that most children do best with both parents in their lives, and that even in higher conflict situations, one should first attempt supportive measures rather than automatically reverting to sole custody – policymakers and advocates can build a more informed culture. Over time, a cultural norm of cooperative co-parenting can reduce the stigma for fathers who want to be caregivers and for mothers who share custody, and it can encourage separating couples to consider arrangements that put children’s needs first.

In summary, the policy approach supported by research is neither to mandate equal custody in every case nor to treat sole custody as the default. Rather, it is to establish shared parenting as a normative baseline, proactively provide the supports and structures to make it successful, and diligently protect children in those exceptional cases where JPC is truly contrary to their interests. Different countries may implement this in varied ways, but the convergence of international research lends weight to the idea that laws and institutions should facilitate joint physical custody as a positive option for families. When properly executed, JPC offers children the love, guidance, and stability of both parents – a goal that family policy should strive to achieve wherever possible.

Conclusion

Joint physical custody has emerged from being a somewhat unconventional arrangement decades ago to a mainstream consideration in contemporary family law, backed by a robust body of social science research. The extensive literature reviewed here demonstrates that, under most circumstances, children benefit from the opportunity to live with and be raised by both divorced parents. They tend to be emotionally healthier, have better family relationships, and equal or better academic and behavioural outcomes compared to children in sole custody settings. Importantly, many of these benefits persist into adolescence and adulthood – joint custody children often maintain closer relationships with each parent and potentially enjoy long-term advantages such as a stronger support network. These positive outcomes hold across various socio-economic groups and cultures, though higher-income families have been early adopters of JPC.

Research over the last ten years has solidified our understanding, addressing earlier questions and controversies. We now know that the quality of the co-parenting relationship, and not just the fact of two homes, is critical. When parents can cooperate or at least peacefully parallel-parent, joint custody is most effective. In cases of extreme conflict or abuse, joint custody is not advisable – a nuance that virtually all experts agree on. The consensus in the field is that each family must be assessed on its own merits, but given fit, loving parents, maintaining strong bonds with both is usually in the child’s best interest. This evidence has driven law reforms worldwide and will likely continue to do so, as jurisdictions refine their approaches to encourage shared parenting while protecting against risks.

The challenges of JPC, such as coordinating between homes and managing conflict, are real but are surmountable with the right support systems. Policy initiatives like parenting education, mediation services, and flexible scheduling can greatly mitigate these challenges. As more separated couples opt for joint custody, society at large – including employers, schools, and healthcare providers – is adapting to this new norm of family structure. Future research is needed to continue following outcomes into later adult life, to examine JPC in diverse cultural contexts (for example, how shared custody works in collectivist cultures or where extended family plays a big role), and to explore specific issues like the impact of technology (e.g., can virtual contact supplement in-person time effectively?).

In conclusion, the accumulated evidence paints a hopeful picture: when children are raised in a joint physical custody arrangement that is supported by cooperative parenting and effective policy frameworks, they generally thrive. The benefits of having both a mother and father actively engaged outweigh the inconveniences of living in two homes for most children. Policymakers should thus aim to make JPC a feasible and positive experience for families by implementing research-informed policies, and practitioners (judges, lawyers, therapists) should approach each case without bias, considering shared custody as a viable default and tailoring it to the child’s needs. By centring the discussion on children’s rights to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents, we can continue to improve outcomes for children of separated families. The direction for future practice is clear: support parents in working together apart, so that mother’s and father’s breakup does not mean the end of a healthy childhood for their son or daughter. The evidence-based strategies and recommendations outlined in this review provide a roadmap for achieving that goal, ensuring that joint physical custody arrangements fulfill their promise of fostering resilient, well-adjusted children even amid the challenges of family reorganization.

For reference made in the article, see the ‘Viden’ page.