Popular culture tends to stigmatize fathers who don’t live with their children. From reality television to TikTok shaming, nonresident fathers are often thought to be absent from their children’s lives: “deadbeat dads.” The reality is quite different.
As a researcher who studies nonresident fathers, as we call fathers who don’t currently live with their minor children, I’ve seen first hand the value of their engagement in children’s lives and the importance they place on their parental role. A few years ago, as part of a large federally funded project with nonresident fathers enrolled in fatherhood programs, I learned about the struggles these men experienced in trying to stay connected or reconnect with their children—and to be the fathers they wanted to be.
One dad, covered in tattoos from head to toe, wanted to reconnect with his children, but didn’t know how or where to start. When he learned that his eight-year-old daughter was being bullied and didn’t want to go to school, something ignited in him. He vowed to take her to school and pick her up every day. He wanted other kids to see that she had a father who loved and protected her, so no one would “mess with her.” He was still not able to pay all the child support that he owed, but he could “be there” for his child.
Fathers don’t live with their children for a variety of reasons: parental separation, incarceration, and lost custody. Yet research shows that engaged, nonresident dads play a vital role in the emotional and psychological development of their kids, and that they are connected in ways that may be invisible to even their families and other adults who play a supportive role in the world of the child. While Black and Hispanic dads are more likely to be nonresident, they are also more likely to see their children than nonresident White dads. The more that everyone can recognize the importance of non-resident dads and the role that they play, the more their engagement can be supported, for the benefit of the child.
Who are nonresident fathers?
Nonresident fathers are more likely to be young; be Black or Hispanic; to lack a college education; and be unable to meet child support obligations on top of their basic living expenses, research finds.
Out of 76.7 million U.S. parents in 2021, more than 9.7 million did not live with their children, 75 percent of whom were fathers, according to the Congressional Research Service. The majority (81%) of nonresident fathers are men of color, and the majority (72%) have at most a high school diploma or GED. Just over two-thirds are younger than 34 years old. That is, most nonresident fathers are economically disadvantaged.
One simulation using modern child support guidelines found that most nonresident fathers would be unable to meet their taxes and basic expenses for food, clothing, housing, and transportation if they paid their formal child support obligations in full. Despite these difficult circumstances, Black and Hispanic nonresident fathers are more likely to see their children than white nonresident fathers, suggesting that residency may not be a requirement for paternal involvement for ethnic minority men. However, the limited human capital of most nonresident fathers, and the fact that they may be supporting several children from different households, make it challenging for these men to invest money and time equally for all their children.
What leads to more engaged fathers?
The fact that nonresident fathers do not live with their children poses obvious obstacles for staying engaged in their lives. Frequent and meaningful contact with children gives fathers the opportunity to engage as teachers, advisors, playmates, and disciplinarians. Nonresident fathers often pack as much activity as possible into the limited time available during visits.
In our own research, we have found large variability in both the quantity and quality of father engagement among nonresident fathers. Nonresident fathers’ engagement in their children’s lives depends on multiple factors that often don’t align: intentionality of birth, prenatal involvement, race and ethnicity, the quality of parental relationships, whether mothers repartner, and payment of child support.
Whether the child was planned strongly relates to fathers’ engagement with their children. Fathers’ desire to father a child influences their commitment to care for and stay involved in the baby’s life. Intentionality, however, is not the only factor that matters. The quality of the couple relationship can be key. A study of Mexican American infants and their parents revealed that mothers’ desire to have a baby, rather than fathers’ desire, was related to greater father engagement (e.g., caregiving). However, when couples disagreed about wanting the baby, fathers were more involved when they were also happy with their partners.
There is also some evidence that fathers are more likely to leave their families when they are less involved during the pregnancy period, referred to as prenatal involvement. The prenatal period is an important context for men as it is the time when they begin to think of themselves as fathers and make plans for their future child. We conducted a study and found that low-income fathers who were engaged in prenatal activities (e.g., attended prenatal classes, saw a sonogram of the growing fetus) were more likely to be involved in their child’s life at age five because they had moved into a stronger relationship with their partners, such as moving from cohabiting to married.Â
Research on frequency of contact indicates that certain demographic and psychological characteristics either facilitate or hinder contact, including ethnicity or race. A study with a nationally representative sample of babies and their parents found that Black toddlers generally have more frequent contact with their nonresident fathers than White children.
In cases where everyone is on the same page, finding opportunities to spend time with children can be relatively easy. In other situations, contentious relationships among noncustodial parents and others make it difficult. Nonresident fathers who remain in romantic relationships with the mothers of their children are more likely to be involved than other nonresident fathers. Having a positive relationship with the child’s mother—romantic or not—is an important predictor of how much time nonresident fathers are allowed to be engaged with their children.
Positive relationships often underlie some form of economic support. The ability to pay child support is an important source of conflict between parents that can diminish father–child contact. Fathers with child support arrears are less likely than those without arrears to have contact with their children or to be otherwise involved in their children’s lives. Of course, causality can be the other way around. Poorer-quality relationships with mothers explain much of the association between high arrears and lower father–child contact, and both poorer relationships and poorer paternal mental health account for much of the association between high arrears and low levels of informal support provided by nonresident fathers.
Lastly, mothers’ repartnering is a strong indicator of involvement. Recent studies focusing primarily on never-married nonresident fathers show that children are less likely to have contact with their nonresident fathers when their mothers have repartnered. However, the role that repartnering plays appears to be conditioned by fathers’ ethnicity. Latino mothers report very few changes in family structure (repartnering) compared to Black mothers.
Nonresident fathers’ involvement helps children’s development
Fathers who do not live with their children have driven much of the public policy on families because their children are more likely to live in poverty. The policy focus is on their financial contribution. However, nonresident fathers’ love and emotional support of their children is just as important as their economic support. In some states, nonresident fathers have visitation rights, but these depend on multiple factors, so it’s not always granted. In general, we define visitation and engagement as what fathers and children do when they have contact, and responsibility as the degree to which fathers take responsibility for meeting children’s basic needs.
Although research on how nonresident fathers matter to their children’s well-being is comparatively limited relative to the research on resident fathers, it has provided strong rationale and empirical evidence that all fathers, including nonresident, play a significant and long-lasting role in their children’s development. One central point: it is entirely possible to be engaged and deeply involved with children who do not live with you. Physical residence is not a necessary condition for engagement. Examining how much time, the quality of the time spent with children, and the myriad ways to be engaged helps researchers understand how fathers make a difference in their children’s lives.
Spending time with children in fun activities such as social play, or doing errands, and shopping, help fathers get to know children and develop a genuine connection with them. These activities support children’s cognitive development, as well as their social skills, executive function, and self-regulation. Exposing children to manageable stress—such as climbing a tall ladder or joining a new group of kids to play—promotes trust and gets children out of their comfort zone. Fathers are key in showing compassion, conflict resolution skills, and positive ways to deal with disappointment.
Studies involving observations of nonresident father–child interactions offer the most compelling evidence that the way nonresident fathers interact with their children promotes children’s well-being, in the quality, not just the frequency, of contact. In a study using families enrolled in Head Start, children whose fathers showed high levels of participation through activities such as reading demonstrated greater increases in mathematics readiness than children in the control group.
There is some empirical evidence that showing love and affection to children connects to better outcomes. In a study of Early Head Start children, Anderson and colleagues found that the quality of observed father–child interactions (especially fathers’ encouragement and teaching behaviors) was positively associated with children’s later language skills. Fathers’ affection, responsiveness, encouragement, and teaching during father–infant interactions were positively connected with children’s behavioral skills later. Each fathering behavior during infancy was positively associated with emotional regulation among four year old children. Finally, teaching during father interactions with three year old children was associated with stronger emotional regulation among four year old children.
An important dimension of fathering is that fathers, more than mothers, encourage their children to take risks during play, especially during rough-and-tumble play. The extent of this type of play has been measured by the degree to which father behavior, child behavior, and their dyadic interactions display warmth, control, sensitivity, winning and losing, physical engagement, and playfulness. One study selected twenty-five Early Head Start father–child dyads, both resident and nonresident, that frequently engaged in rough-and-tumble play and examined associations between the quality of interactions at two and three years and later child outcomes. It is notable that neither measure was significantly correlated with demographic characteristics, such as father’s education and residence, and, after controlling for the mother’s supportiveness and intrusiveness, both measures showed small (negative) correlations with prekindergarten aggression.
Showing warmth, affection, and joy are important ways to bond with children and make them feel cared for and loved. I’m reminded of a young white father who said that he had no problem hugging and kissing his daughter, but he expressed less physical warmth with his son. He thought his interactions with his son were warm, by saying, “Hey bud, how’s it going? Give me five!” It never occurred to him that his son also wanted to be hugged and kissed until the leader of a focus group pointed out that all children—boys and girls—need to feel loved and protected. He said when he next greeted his son with a hug and a kiss on his head, the little boy cried inconsolably and hugged him tightly. This was a powerful moment for him, when he realized that he did not have a memory of his own dad showing affection to him.
In summary, the evidence we have on how nonresident fathers show up for their children reframes the perception of these men from “deficient fathers” to “constrained but motivated caregivers.” Most barriers to nonresident father involvement are not about lack of care or love for their children—they’re about access, relationships, resources, and recognition.
The evidence challenges the stereotype of the “absent” nonresident father and instead points to a more complicated reality: many fathers remain committed to their children but face relational, structural, and economic barriers to staying engaged. Supporting their participation requires coordinated efforts across the multiple systems surrounding the child.
- Mothers and co-parents can facilitate consistent, low-conflict communication and recognize caregiving beyond financial support.
- Schools and educators can intentionally include nonresident fathers in outreach and everyday learning opportunities.
- Health care providers can engage fathers early, particularly during the prenatal period when parental identities take shape.
- At a structural level, policies that align child support obligations with fathers’ actual economic circumstances, expand access to employment and reentry programs, and protect visitation rights can reduce the trade-offs that often push fathers out of their children’s lives.
Together, these efforts shift the focus from judging fathers’ circumstances to supporting their capacity to remain present in their children’s lives in meaningful ways. This positive and sustained engagement is beneficial for fathers but especially for children, who just want their dads to love and care for them—even if they do not live with them.