Journal of Aging Studies 27 (2013) 377–386

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Aging Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaging

The experiences of grandparents who have limited or no contact with their grandchildren Margaret Sims a,⁎, Maged Rofail b a b

University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia Grandparent Council, Queensland, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 6 June 2013 Received in revised form 15 August 2013 Accepted 5 September 2013 Keywords: Intergenerational relationships Family issues Qualitative research methods Grandparenting

a b s t r a c t Purpose of the study: The matrilineal advantage theory suggests that paternal grandparents are more at risk of having little or no contact with their grandchildren. However, there is significant family diversity within Australia and we wished to understand the experiences of a wide range of grandparents in order to determine if the matrilineal theory can be effectively used in practice to identify those grandparents most at risk for estrangement. Design and methods: A convenience group of grandparents with little or no contact with grandchildren (n = 38) told their stories in their own words using narratives obtained through interview or writing. Results and implications: We found that paternal grandparents, as per the matrilineal advantage theory, were more likely to be estranged from their grandchildren when their son divorced, particularly when he was not the resident parent or when he re-partnered. However, in contrast, we found that maternal grandparents who experienced conflict in their relationship with their daughter were also at risk for estrangement. This occurred even when grandparents had previously been highly involved in the lives of their grandchildren. Some estrangements appeared to result from a cultural bias towards the nuclear family form. We argue that practitioners need not only to expand their understanding of the risk categories for estrangement, they also need to actively support parents and grandparents in creating and maintaining wider family support networks in order to improve family resilience. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction In the western world nuclear families are positioned as children's primary caregivers and other members of the extended family, such as grandparents, are perceived as of secondary importance. In this context, in countries such as Australia, the Family Court prioritises relationships between children and their parents above relationships between children and other family members (Cashmore et al., 2010; Kaspiew et al., 2009). As a consequence, some grandparents find themselves unable to establish relationships with their ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 6773 3823. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Sims), [email protected] (M. Rofail). 0890-4065/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2013.09.002

grandchildren, despite their desire to do so. This study aimed to forefront the voices of grandparents in this situation (grandparents who have little or no contact with their grandchildren). In undertaking the study the researchers were aware of a range of theories addressing inter-generational relationships. The construct of inter-generational solidarity is considered problematic by Hammarström (2005) who argues that it does not adequately address issues of tension and conflict across generations. Attachment theory has also been used to address intergenerational relationships (Merz, Schuengel, & Schulze, 2007) as it adds not only a life-course perspective, but also the potential for conceptualising conflictual relationships. The work of Crittenden (2008) for example demonstrates how parent/child interactions shape future child behaviours into

378

M. Sims, M. Rofail / Journal of Aging Studies 27 (2013) 377–386

adulthood, and thus impact on the adult child's parenting behaviours, transferring impact to the subsequent (grandchild) generation. Whilst acknowledging these theoretical approaches, this study focused on one impact that poor grandparent/adult child relationships had on the grandparents themselves: estrangement from their grandchildren. The focus of the study is on grandparents' stories through which they share their understanding of their lack of grandchild contact. In doing so issues around grandparent/parent relationships arose but these were an outcome of the study, not our primary focus in undertaking the research. We used the matrilineal advantage theory (Thomese, Silverstein, & Uhlenberg, 2008) to frame our analysis of the data. The strong presence in the literature of grandmothers' influences on intergenerational relationships suggested that this framing would most effectively guide our analysis. The matrilineal advantage theory arose from studies of evolutionary biology and was first proposed by Williams (1957) as the “grandmother hypothesis”. Williams, and later theorists (for example Peccei, 2001) argued that longer post-reproductive lifespans enabled women to more successfully rear a smaller number of offspring, and to assist those adult offspring rear their children, increasing their evolutionary success. Grandmothers can be certain that the children of their daughters are genetically related to them, but can be less sure about the children of their sons. Thus, theory proposes that grandmothers are more likely to invest time in the children born to their daughters (Jamison, Cornell, Jamison, & Nakazato, 2002). The advantages of grandmother involvement have been identified across human history (Hawkes & Blurton Kones, 2005) and a range of contemporary cultures (for example Sear, Mace, & McGregor, 2000). The evidence for this comes from a number of studies of cross generational relationships (for example Werner, Buchbinder, Lowenstein, & Livni, 2005) and of divorced parents, where the literature agrees that maternal grandparents are more likely to maintain contact with their grandchildren than paternal grandparents (Centre for Community Child Health, 2010; Deblaquiere, Moloney, & Weston, 2012; Doyle, O'Dywer, & Timonen, 2010; Families Australia, 2007; Qu et al., 2011; Soliz, 2008). Where the father is non-resident he is less likely to have contact with his children, and his parents are even less likely to be able to maintain contact with their grandchildren (Ochiltree, 2006). Paternal grandparents are thus often reliant on the father to keep his relationship with his children in order to maintain a relationship with their grandchildren (Timonen & Doyle, 2012). When the grandfather himself was divorced from the grandmother, the risk is very high that he will be isolated from his grandchildren (Timonen & Arber, 2012). An additional risk to grandparent–grandchild relationships accrues when either of the parents re-partners (Cleveland, Allen, Jackson, & Terrell, 2008). Cleveland and colleagues argue that it is not uncommon for the non-resident/non-custodial father to grow further apart from the children of his first marriage when he re-partners and has children with his second partner. When the father fails to maintain relationships with his children, the ability of his parents to maintain contact is limited. A similar risk occurs when the resident/custodial mother re-partners. In this latter situation, the paternal

grandparents are often perceived as disruptive to, and a threat to, the new family. Ochiltree (2006), invoking the matrilineal advantage theory, argues that the relationship between the mother and maternal grandmother is particularly important in ensuring good grandparent–grandchild relationships. This is supported by Monserud (2008) who positions the mother's relationship with the maternal grandmother as more influential than the father's relationship with his parents. This places parents, and particularly mothers, as “gatekeepers” (Doyle et al., 2010; Fingerman, 2004; May, Mason, & Clarke, 2012; Uhlenberg, 2004); their relationship with their parents mediates the relationship between their parents and the grandchildren. The matrilineal advantage theory, whilst heavily supported in the international literature, is challenged by a review of the Family Law Act in Australia (Kaspiew et al., 2009). This review reported that a significant number of Australian grandparents claimed they had limited or no contact with their grandchildren, and that this lack of access generally was instigated by the mother. In other words, mothers, not fathers, were limiting their parents' access to grandchildren. This suggests that relationships between mothers and daughters/daughters-in-law, whilst potentially supporting grandparent contact with grandchildren, can also be a key factor in inhibiting such relationships. We need to explore this apparent contradiction in more depth, particularly given Deblaquiere et al.'s (2012) warning that there are risks in making assumptions based on “broad based analyses” (p. 70) about the role sons and daughters play in shaping their parents access to grandchildren. We argue that these assumptions, if translated into practice, may mean that the needs of some grandparents are overlooked because they do not fit into the risk categories identified by matrilineal advantage theory. Thus, this study was designed to forefront the voices of both maternal and paternal grandparents (we use these terms to identify the grandparent relationship with the estranged grandchild) who have little or no contact with their grandchildren in order to enhance understanding and ultimately, support practice for those working in family mediation/family support. Our research question is: What are grandparents' understandings of the factors influencing their estrangement from their grandchildren?

Methodology In developing our theoretical framework we accept the challenge posed by May et al. (2012, p. 154) to undertake “… more qualitative approaches in addressing the complexities and ambivalences of contemporary grandparenting.” We used an interpretive epistemology (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005b; Sarantakos, 1998) informed by phenomenology (Crotty, 1996; van Manen, 1988) and a narrative approach (Chase, 2005; Wahler & Castlebury, 2002) as a framework: this parallels constructivist interpretivism as identified by Denzin and Lincoln (2005a). [Note that whilst some argue that narrative research represents a paradigm on its own, we are using it in this context as a methodology as is more commonly applied (Spector-Mersel, 2010).] This allowed us

M. Sims, M. Rofail / Journal of Aging Studies 27 (2013) 377–386

to focus on the experiences of our participants, eliciting their stories in their own words. This epistemology posits that each individual creates his/her own reality and that the focus of research is on co-construction/developing a shared understanding of those realities (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). Our conceptual framework focused on relationships: in other words we were interested in exploring the various relationships grandparents experienced between themselves and their grandchildren and between themselves and their children and the way these relationships impacted on grandparent/grandchild contact. Thus our overall framework explored participants' experiences of these intergenerational relationships. Context Families are defined in Australia as (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011, p. 1 of 10 downloaded): □ two or more persons, one of whom is at least 15 years of age, who are related by blood, marriage (registered or de facto), adoption, step or fostering; and □ who are usually resident in the same household. Of Australia's 8.4 million households in 2009–10, 6.2 million consisted of one or more families and 96% of these consisted of one family only. Australia thus has a high proportion of nuclear families and it is the norm for grandparents to live in a different household than their adult children and grandchildren. Relationships between grandchildren and grandparents therefore require the ability to visit (in reality or virtually) in order to spend time together. Eighty percent of children living in couple families with their biological mother do manage to have contact with their maternal grandparents. Slightly smaller numbers of children living in couple families with their biological father (75%) manage to have contact with their paternal grandparents (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). This study focuses on the small numbers of grandparents who are not able to establish and/or maintain contact with their grandchildren. The research team consisted of the two named authors. The first named author undertook all the interviews and analysis. Analysis checking was undertaken by the second author. Participant recruitment Given the epistemology underpinning the study, our sample selection was one of convenience and not intended to be representative of all grandparents. We specifically sought grandparents who, for whatever reason, had limited or no contact with grandchildren and identified this in the selection criteria in the letter of information. This limited or no contact was not grandparent initiated, nor was it the result of what might be considered normal grandchild maturation (i.e. as grandchildren grow into their teens they might be expected to spend less time with grandparents. In the data collection we were able to check this self identification through their narratives but the initial selection was based on participant judgement. Given the epistemology of the study we imposed no further selection criteria. We did

379

not specify a requirement for maternal or paternal grandparents in the inclusion criteria. All the grandparents were the biological or adoptive parents of the adult children from whose children they were estranged. We used various media sources to advertise the study. A journalist published a story in a local newspaper and an article was published in the Seniors' Newspaper. We also had information online on the grandparent site (the organisational affiliation of the second author). This information asked people to make contact if they were interested in participating. Existing participants passed on information to their friends and acquaintances, allowing us to use a snowball sampling technique. People who initiated contact were sent (via email or snail mail as they chose) the information letter and consent form which contained information about the study, the researchers' involvement and qualifications. Only on receipt of formal consent was further contact pursued. Participants Eighty five grandparents/grandparent couples initiated contact and 38 followed through with formal consent (see Table 1). We did not pursue those who did not respond to the formal information letter for ethical reasons, so do not know if they decided they did not meet our criteria, or if they changed their minds. Ethics Ethical clearance was obtained from the University's Human Ethics Committee which follows the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 — Updated 2009 developed in accordance with the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992 (http:// www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/e72). Note that in this paper pseudonyms are used for all names to preserve the anonymity of our participants. In addition, we have not identified participant geographical location within Australia, age, or ethnicity for the same reason. Method Data was elicited through narratives. Narratives are a way of capturing the participants' interpretation of links between their experiences. “Narrative research issues claims about the meaning life events hold for people. It makes claims about how people understand situations, others, and themselves”

Table 1 Final composition of participant group. Maternala grandmother Paternal grandmother Maternal grandfather Paternal grandfather Maternal grandparent couple Paternal grandparent couple Paternal great grandmother Paternal and maternal grandmother — i.e. estranged from grandchildren of at least 2 children

16 10 2 3 1 3 1 2

a Our identification of maternal and paternal grandparent refers to the relationship of the grandparent to the estranged grandchild(ren).

380

M. Sims, M. Rofail / Journal of Aging Studies 27 (2013) 377–386

(Polkinghorne, 2007, p. 476). Through narrative participants “strive to achieve the most internally consistent interpretation of the past-in-the-present, the experienced present and the anticipated-in-the-present future … (Sandelowski, 1991, p. 165). Participants were given the option of choosing how they would like to submit their stories: in writing (with guiding questions provided — 7 participants) or via a phone interview (30 participants). One couple elected to travel (and stay in town overnight) in order to have a face-to-face interview. All interviews were undertaken by the first named researcher who has extensive experience in community work with families and with research relating to families. We provided 4 guiding questions for all participants: • Tell me about your grandchildren and their parents — who are they, where do they live in relation to you, what are their circumstances? • What relationship do you have with your grandchildren? Has this changed at some point or has it always been this way? Is it different for different sets of grandchildren? Explain. • Who are the grandchildren about whom you have concerns? Tell me your story — what is it like for you as a grandparent to these grandchildren? How does that make you feel? Give me some examples of the things that are happening that concern you? • What would make things better for you as a grandparent? Interviews were informal and participants were encouraged to give examples to illustrate the points they made to check the veracity of statements made. Participants were encouraged to tell their story, and the questions were not asked verbatim as written but rather introduced naturally into the conversation where needed to support the storytelling. Probes were used to elicit more detail as needed. Interviews were recorded so the interviewer could focus on the participant, the words said and the voice intonation in order to judge when appropriate to probe further or elicit further explanations. Immediately after each interview, the interviewer wrote notes relating to the interview, particularly to capture emotional tones and perceived key elements. In this paper participants' words and research notes are clearly differentiated when presented as quotes. Information gathered from the interviews was more likely provide more in-depth information than were written submissions. Written submissions were not followed up for more detail where this was lacking because we believed that participants, having made a choice to provide information in writing, were clearly identifying the boundaries of where they felt comfortable to share and where they did not, and that ethically we needed to respect that choice. None of the written submissions actually answered each of the guiding questions separately: the submissions were all written in narrative form as participants shared their stories using the format and words with which they felt most comfortable. A number of participants initiated additional contact with both researchers subsequent to the data collection, and sent extra and updated information, but this was excluded from the analysis because we felt that our initial information letters and consent forms did not clearly specify its inclusion.

Analysis A recording of each interview was stored for review and checking purposes. Transcriptions of interviews were completed. A constant comparison approach to analysis (Boeije, 2002; Glaser, 1965) was taken within each group (paternal and maternal grandparents) to review the notes, transcriptions, recordings and written stories, and themes were developed. As described by Glaser, themes were developed by coding each incident with as many codes as possible, and comparing each incident with others coded in that category. From this constant comparison theoretical properties of the category or theme arose. The analysis was guided by our focus on relationships as per our conceptual framework. In particular, the theory of matrilineal advantage influenced our relationship focus, so that we actively sought themes in the data related to matrilineal and patrilineal relationships. Once this coding was completed, additional perusal of data was undertaken seeking themes that were not related to relationships. Quotes to illustrate the content and boundaries of each theme were appended. As themes in the data were identified, contradictory evidence to those themes was also actively sought to facilitate fairness (authenticity) in the analysis. Once themes were identified and defined within the maternal and paternal grandparent categories, the data were re-analysed to look for connections between the themes across the two groups as described by Dey (1993). Data analysis was undertaken by the first author and checking of themes was undertaken by the second. A process of triangulation was used to examine the relationship of emerging patterns to what is known in the literature. Data quality “Storied evidence is gathered not to determine if events actually happened but about the meaning experienced by people whether or not the events are accurately described… Storied texts serve as evidence for personal meaning, not for the factual occurrence of the events reported in the stories” (Polkinghorne, 2007, p. 479). Thus data quality does not rest on a judgement of the ‘truth’ of the stories but rather about determining fairness and authenticity (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Fairness requires that participants' voices be heard clearly in the text and that their range of perspectives be clearly represented with the aim of preventing marginalisation of any voice/perspective. We have presented our themes using the voices of participants as much as possible within word limits imposed. In addition, drafts of themes were sent to participants who had the opportunity to comment on how these reflected their individual perspectives. This member checking ensured that themes were accepted by participants as valid and reasonable. In our study, authenticity is established through a rigorous search, not only for data that support the evolving categories as they emerge from the data, but for contradictory data. The reader may also judge fairness and authenticity based on an understanding of current perspectives arising from the literature review, and the presentation of voices that counter current interpretations and understandings. Thus, whilst triangulation attempts to link emerging themes

M. Sims, M. Rofail / Journal of Aging Studies 27 (2013) 377–386

to extant understandings, authenticity in research also requires a presentation of views counter to these. Again, there is no claim that these views are representative, or those of the majority; instead the intent of constructivist research is to share all voices and perspectives. We indicate in our results where a theme is shared by other grandparents and where a perspective is unique.

Results and discussion Eight of our maternal grandparents and 13 of our paternal grandparents had absolutely no contact with their grandchildren (the children of their daughter or their son respectively), the remainder of the grandparents had limited contact. Limited contact in this context was variable and defined by the grandparents themselves who identified it as insufficient. In one case this self-identified limited contact was mandated by the courts as a monthly visit of a few hours, but for others who had limited contact, contact was as little as once every few years. Degrees of contact changed significantly over time, so the extent of contact was based on grandparent experiences at the time of the interview. In the following section we illustrate the diversity of family experiences. We begin with a discussion of those grandparents who perceived the most significant contributing factor to their limited (or no) contact with grandchildren arose from their divorce. We specifically interrogated the data in relation to maternal and paternal grandparent experiences (as per our conceptual framework) in order to determine the similarities and differences in their experiences. This is followed with a discussion of those grandparents who perceived that their estrangement resulted from separation/ divorce in the parental generation. Again we interrogated the data for maternal and paternal grandparents separately in order to determine similarities and differences. Separation/divorce was not the only contributing factors to grandparent estrangement. We found that some grandparents felt they were excluded from the lives of their grandchildren because of a high value placed on maintenance of the nuclear family: inclusion of extended family members was perceived as threatening that. There were also families where grandparent conflict with the parental generation (with their child or child-in-law) was perceived as a contributing factor to estrangement. Finally there were grandparents who perceived that their estrangement was related to the extent in which they were needed to support the family: when they were needed they were involved, but when needs changed and they were no longer of use, they were excluded. Each of these contributing factors to grandparent exclusion is discussed in the following sections.

Grandparent divorce A number of the grandparents talked about the impact their divorce had on their relationships with their children. This impact was sustained over time. The matrilineal advantage theory suggests that grandfathers are the most likely to be isolated from their families because of their divorce and we found this in our data:

381

After my wife and I got broke and divorced, they seem to join her team so I thought that was the end of it … they never came to see me … (Ronald — maternal grandfather). Ronald experienced his divorce at a time in Australian history when children most often resided with the mother after divorce. His experience of estrangement from his own children is probably typical of many men of his generation. Certainly in Australia as late as the 1990s, the majority of children post divorce lived with their mothers, and it was common for them to have little or no contact with their fathers (Smyth & Wolcott, 2004). However, reflecting the diversity of family experiences, we found that one grandmother was also in this situation: I was a battered wife … I finished up, I had to go to a women's refuge … he sort of got me to sort of remarry him again … the kids were 9 and 12 … the kids went with him … He was ordered by the Court to bring the children to me because he had the car. He only did it whenever he felt like it which was only about 2 or 3 times in 7 years (Megan — maternal grandmother). Megan's experience runs counter to the usual Australian experiences of her generation however her situation is evidently complicated with issues around family violence. Later in her narrative Megan talked about how she now attempted to travel a significant distance to see her grandchildren but was hindered by her lack of finances and a feeling that she was not wanted. Megan demonstrates in her narrative her feelings of rejection over her daughter's unwillingness to attempt to rebuild their relationship but also her pride in the work she has done to improve her own life. Parental separation/divorce Paternal grandparents' experiences The literature suggests that paternal grandparents are more at risk of estrangement from their grandchildren after divorce than are maternal grandparents (Timonen & Doyle, 2012). In this study more of the paternal than maternal grandparents were estranged from their grandchildren because of separation/divorce of the parents. Where their son had limited contact with the children they also had limited or no contact. This data reflects the matrilineal advantage theory: When [grandchild] was born they were living in … but they split up, he stayed and she came down to … when he [grandson] was five, he just disappeared. She took him away (Terri — paternal grandmother). Some grandparents felt they were being punished by their daughter-in-law for the perceived transgressions of their son: The marriage broke down … the problem was that our son at the time of their breakdown had another lady friend. So the mother was really very, naturally angry about that … unfortunately the mother has made it very difficult to have

382

M. Sims, M. Rofail / Journal of Aging Studies 27 (2013) 377–386

any contact for our son the father with the child or with us of course (Kevin — paternal grandfather). It is not uncommon for paternal grandparents to have limited contact with their grandchildren when the father himself has limited contact (see, for example, Timonen & Doyle, 2012). However, Timonen and Arber (2012) argue that relationships between grandparents and parents (both their child and child-in-law) influence grandparent/grandchild relationships post divorce. In this study, strong paternal grandparent relationships with their daughter-in-law were seen to facilitate contact post-separation/divorce: The relationship with my son broke down and — but I was still able to see the kids and she used to come over, bring them over, and I'd still have them, you know, overnight, weekend (Denise — paternal grandmother). Re-partnering of their son often resulted in reduced paternal contact with the children, and thus reduced paternal grandparent contact: He's remarried and I think the mother of the grandchild that we're estranged from blames our son's new wife for all of this (Kevin — paternal grandfather). Re-partnering of their daughter-in-law also tended to result in reduced contact for paternal grandparents: She met another man, and at first, everything seemed okay. He's seemed quite comfortable with us around. And then, it was this opposition … when she fell pregnant again, to him, they got really peculiar, and I wasn't — I was only allowed to see the children with supervision … and then it got to this stage where I'm never allowed to see the children at all (Denise — paternal grandmother). Re-partnering introduces step-grandparents and potentially step-grandchildren into already complex family dynamics. There is little extant research on step-grandparenting (Pryor, 2008) but there is no doubt that the introduction of additional grandparents will complicate a potentially already complex situation. Reduced contact for both maternal and paternal grandparents is one outcome. Another is the request for paternal grandparents to become step-grandparents to the step-children. This is something that not all grandparents in this situation are likely to want (Pryor, 2008) as illustrated by Mariette in this study: And on top of that she had two sons herself, and she expected us just to take them, they'd replace our two beautiful granddaughters with her two boys we didn't know (Mariette — paternal grandmother). Maternal grandparents' experiences The majority of estrangement related to parental divorce impacted on paternal grandparents. In this study these was only one family where the limited maternal grandparent contact was linked to divorce of the parents. After the divorce I would beg her to get the children to stay in touch with me by answering my letters. Once when I was

visiting them, I asked one of my granddaughters why she hadn't replied to a special letter I sent her. I could tell she was being truthful when she said she hadn't seen it. When I said to my daughter that it was important the children received my letters, she turned and said: “What makes you think you're important” and walked away (Jessie — maternal grandmother). However, in looking at Jessie's story, it is clear that, in her eyes she was never allowed to develop a loving relationship with her grandchildren, even before the parental divorce. I would visit… whenever I could but was never able to be a normal Grandma. I wasn't allowed to take the children out for a walk or shopping or to a movie. I always had to ask permission if I could play board gamers or cards with them. I never sat down at the table to eat with them (Jessie — maternal grandmother). In Jessie's case, relationship issues with her daughter and consequently her grandchildren pre-dated parental divorce, and Jessie's subsequent estrangement from her grandchildren is likely more closely related to these than to the parental divorce. Thus so far, the experiences of our grandparents are similar to many of those found in the literature. The relationship between grandchildren and paternal grandparents are generally more at risk following divorce or separation in the parental generation, supporting the matrilineal advantage theory. Maintaining the middle generation nuclear family There were also occasions when a son limited contact with his parents in order to avoid conflict within the marriage/partnership. This was perceived as an attempt to keep the marriage going for the sake of the children, for as long as possible, and grandparents respected that decision and did not want to “rock the boat”: Because you cannot force the issue. Otherwise we feel we'd be — you know — we'd be creating problems for our son and bringing about an early demise of his marriage, which he feels is gone, it's just a matter of when … I just feel we've got our hands tied. Till our son finally leaves her, he will get more of his daughter, and we will (David — paternal grandfather). In another case, following the death of his wife when their child was 2 months old, the father remarried, and cut contact with his first wife's parents in order to build a new family without pressure from his deceased wife's family: After a visit with grandmother (mother of the deceased wife) where the grandchild had asked about her mother, the stepmother rang up and said how dare she tell the child about her mother. The stepmother said the grandmother is not allowed to see the child again. The father supported this and said he would only allow her to talk on the phone if he felt like it. He said “I'm just trying to make a family” with his new wife her children, his daughter and their baby. He sees

M. Sims, M. Rofail / Journal of Aging Studies 27 (2013) 377–386

the grandmother as interfering in that (Research notes — Jeanne — maternal grandmother). Sometimes this was not openly about avoiding conflict in the family, but simply that some of the grandparents justified their exclusion by claiming their son/daughter owed primary responsibility to his/her partner. This was positioned as a demonstration of primary loyalty to the nuclear family unit: But his loyalty is like mine. His loyalty ultimately is to her, isn't it (Richard — paternal grandfather). This data indicates the importance the middle generation places on the maintenance of the nuclear family. Grandparents are positioned as a potential threat to that, rather than as a resource that can be used to enrich. Some grandparents accepted this as they placed the preservation of the nuclear family above their own feelings. Clearly this reasoning would not apply across different cultural groups where different values around nuclear and extended family forms are held. Australia is strongly influenced by traditional western culture, despite having a high proportion of immigrants, and despite the relatively open official definition of a family used by official government statistics (cited above). Conflict with child/child-in-law Conflict with the child-in-law was a common theme evident across both paternal and maternal grandparents: We used to have our firstborn granddaughter, we used to have her every weekend … we had a few run-ins with [sonin-law] … They then started to say that we didn't respect him [son-in-law] … we didn't do what they wanted … and he told Neville that as long as we live, we'll never have the children (Neville and Jane — maternal grandparents). Grandparents talked about their attempts to build a positive relationship with their child-in-law and their struggles when this was challenging. Certainly they recognised their ability to fulfil their expectations of the appropriate grandparent role depended on these relationships. They experienced particular challenges when they were uncomfortable with their child-in-laws' parenting behaviours. Richard (paternal grandfather) spoke about agonising for months about what to do after his grandson told him he was regularly hit with the wooden spoon by his mother, but chose to let things be. A considerable time later Richard witnessed his son being very verbally aggressive with his grandson and again agonised over what to do for a considerable time. I thought about it and thought about over and over again about this … so I rang him and I said mate, and I tried to do it as diplomatic and as, sort of, unobtrusive as possible, I said mate, I said he is not one of your employees. He is not a soldier either … he is just a little boy (Richard — paternal grandfather). Richard and his son had, prior to the son's marriage, a strong relationship. After the marriage Richard and his wife

383

had always struggled to maintain a positive relationship with their daughter-in-law and this discomfort spilled over into their relationship with their son. The relationship between the two couples remained strained until Richard's confrontation with his son. This precipitated a complete break. Whilst Richard is devastated not to have further contact with his grandson (“I didn't think I would be — my wife and I could be so devastated by this … I didn't think I could be so touched by this little boy”) in some ways he feels his son is correct in putting his wife (Richard's daughter-in-law) before his parents (Richard and his wife). In Richard's case, conflict with the child-in-law spilled over into conflict with his son. Conflict with the biological child was a common theme across both paternal and maternal grandparents: He [son] does not want us to see them, send photos to them and says we are no longer part of his family. His words were: “… This is my family and you are no longer part of it. Do not ring or contact us. Let us get on with our lives as a family.” (Louise and Daniel — paternal grandparents). Some of the grandparents had a history of conflict with their biological child and their estrangement from the grandchild(ren) represented another step in an ongoing battle. For some, this conflict initially exploded during their child's teenage years, and was associated with issues such as managing teenage rebellion (including substance abuse). We [grandmother and teenage daughter] became estranged when she was about 15 almost 16 years of age … the reason she ended up being out of home is because her behaviour had become so bad that I needed to feel safe in my own home (Carinna — maternal grandmother). For others, grandparents had concerns about their child's mental health prior to the birth of their grandchildren. It certainly appears that involving grandchildren in already conflictual relationships does not help to ease the situation, but rather to exacerbate it. No longer needed There were occasions where grandparents felt they were excluded because they were no longer needed by the parents. Grandparents had previously been heavily involved in babysitting/caring for the child, and in offering financial and/or emotional support to the parents but changing circumstances made this support no longer necessary and the parental generation blocked contact with the grandchildren. This led to grandparents feeling they had been exploited by their children, a feeling claimed by both paternal and maternal grandparents: When the children were little and they were difficult, you know what children are like, sticky fingers, they need a lot of attention and care. We were good to look after them. Now they're older so they can basically look after themselves, and she's got [the money] we're not needed (Josie and George — paternal grandparents).

384

M. Sims, M. Rofail / Journal of Aging Studies 27 (2013) 377–386

While both paternal and maternal grandparents talked about babysitting their grandchildren, more of our maternal grandparents were undertaking this role: She [daughter] was working only part-time so I was minding him and taking him to wherever she was working so she could breastfeed …she wasn't working for very long … then I got a phone call saying we just wanna be a family, do it ourselves … (Genevieve — maternal grandmother). Two of the maternal grandparents had, at one point, moved from babysitting to formal custody of their grandchildren. Their consequent lack of contact was perceived by them as their daughter taking revenge: It came to the point where the drugs and the alcohol became more important to her than what the baby did. So she would bring her to me. Or we would go up and we would pick her up while [daughter] was unconscious on the bed. She would be unclean, you name it — oh the bruising was phenomenal … we had her for 90% of the time …then we went to Court and I got custody of [grandchild] … I had her for seven years … (Raewyn's words). The child was eventually returned to her mother (Raewyn's daughter). At this point the daughter was in another relationship and appeared to be sober. Raewyn's daughter wrote to her saying: “I am going to destroy you in [child's] eyes. She is going to hate you, absolutely hate you. She will filth you” (research notes) (Raewyn — maternal grandmother). In contrast, paternal grandparents were the ones who talked about making a significant financial contribution to the lives of their son and grandchildren prior to being excluded from their lives: … we had helped them out so many times before we were getting a bit fed up with this … so this time we offered them money in monthly instalments and they seemed quite happy with that at the time, at Easter, but then a week or so later we got a phone call from [son] saying we were treating him like a child, giving him an allowance like it's pocket money … there were harsh words said but we just said it's up to you, you take it or leave it as it stands and he put the phone down and that was the last we ever heard (Jocelyn — paternal grandmother).

Conclusion This study illustrates how the changes in modern society as they operate in Australia both support and challenge extant understanding of grandparenting and the factors that impact on the ability of grandparents to establish secure relationships with their grandchildren. In our study, we have a similar number of paternal and maternal grandparents who are estranged from their grandchildren. Many of the paternal grandparents were excluded from the lives of their grandchildren following the breakdown of the parental relationship. This supports the theory of matrilineal advantage. Our study also suggests that whilst some paternal grandparents are able to maintain relationships with their ex-daughter-in-law after the separation/

divorce, the introduction of a new partner often causes additional tensions that lead to a fracturing of the relationship. Whilst paternal grandparents are particularly vulnerable when the parental generation separate/divorce, there are few occasions when maternal grandparents are also excluded from the lives of their grandchildren following the dissolution of the parental relationship. These are often associated with previous stresses in the parent/daughter relationship and thus reflect a life history of relationship conflict. Both sets of grandparents are at risk of being estranged from their grandchildren because of difficulties in their relationship with their child, and in this area we found little support for matrilineal advantage. In some cases these difficulties originated in childhood/adolescence so pre-dated the birth of the grandchildren. Both maternal and paternal grandparents who have poor relationships with their child-in-law are also at risk for limited contact with their grandchildren. Some parents and grandparents prioritised the maintenance of the nuclear family over relationships with grandparents, a reflection of western values around the nuclear family. Primary loyalties are seen to lie with the marriage partner, even if this meant exclusion of grandparents. It is possible that this is strongly influenced by cultural values, given that the Australian culture is western in its orientation, and perhaps such experiences would not be typical in cultures where the extended family is more highly valued. However, it is worth considering what could be gained from a more holistic view of families. Grandparents have much to offer their adult children and their grandchildren. For example in the US, Bengston, Biblarz and Roberts (2002) argue that grandparents remain important in the lives of their grandchildren. It is unfortunate that narrow views of what constitutes a family in Australia are constraining grandparental ability to contribute. Relationships are not stable; they change significantly over time. Many of our grandparents told stories of their significant involvement in, and support of, their children and grandchildren. This support included extensive financial support, babysitting and child care, and in some cases even full custody of the grandchildren for a period of time (2 maternal grandmothers). In our sample, maternal grandparents were the ones most likely to offer extensive babysitting, whilst paternal grandparents were the ones offering financial support. Changing circumstances in the lives of parents (and in some cases the grandparents) served to stress relationships, leading to exclusion of grandparents from the lives of grandchildren. This exclusion of previously engaged grandparents left them feeling used and exploited. They felt that when their support was needed they were heavily involved, but when parents felt they no longer needed the support, grandparents were excluded. We wonder if parents who use grandparent support feel they are in some way failing to meet western societal expectations relating to independence of the nuclear family (a position we argue is particularly strong in Australia), and thus are likely to reject grandparents as reminders of their failure once they are in a position to manage on their own. Our data suggests that the matrilineal advantage theory, whilst having some explanatory power, does not cover all the

M. Sims, M. Rofail / Journal of Aging Studies 27 (2013) 377–386

situations of grandparent estrangement from grandchildren. In support of the theory, we see that paternal grandparents are less likely to have contact with grandchildren, particularly when fathers are non-resident or have little contact themselves with their children but we note that maternal grandparents can also be vulnerable at this life transition. The relationship maternal grandparents have with their daughter is crucial to the maintenance of their relationship with grandchildren, and this appears to operate independently of the status of the middle generations' marriage/cohabitation arrangements. Western society values around the importance of the nuclear family also seem to function to limit grandparent involvement in the lives of their grandchildren. This is not reflected in matrilineal advantage theory. The nuclear family itself consists of specific roles assigned by patriarchy and one could argue that the matrilineal advantage theory is also linked to patriarchy as it contains elements such as the importance of the mother–daughter bond and the role of women as “kin keepers” (Brown & DeRycke, 2010; Timonen & Arber, 2012). The “kin-keeper” role requires women to do the work required to bind a family together but in mainstream Australian society, that family is positioned as the nuclear one not the extended family version evident in other cultures. Thus, the exclusion of grandparents can be seen as a cultural response aimed at strengthening the nuclear family and grandparents are the victims of this positioning. Strength and limitations Our study reports the experiences of a convenience sample of grandparents. Kaspiew et al. (2009) suggest that between 5.6% (maternal parents of daughter in a couple relationship) and 21.6% (parents of a non-resident father) of grandparents have limited contact with grandchildren. This leads us to infer that the numbers of grandparents experiencing this is not insignificant, however we do not claim that our sample is representative of this group (we did not collect demographic data in order to protect our participants) and are unable to imply that our data is generalisable. We acknowledge that the data was collected using either oral or written narratives. Certainly it is clear that narratives, in whatever form they are communicated, are limited by the ability of each participant to use language in a way that reflects the concepts they wish to share (Polkinghorne, 2007). Using examples and illustrations of experiences helps communicate complex experiences and in this study, participants were encouraged to do so in both forms of data gathering. However, despite this, the ability to bring into consciousness, and thus communicate, experienced meaning is partially dependent on sensitive interviewing (Polkinghorne, 2007), and this was not available to those participants who shared their experiences in writing. Therefore, the data in this study is limited in that a small number of participants (7 of 38) who contributed written narratives, did not have the opportunity to interact with the interviewer and perhaps develop a greater conscious awareness of their experienced meaning. Despite these limitations, the study shares the narratives of a group of grandparents, attempting to share their experienced meanings. The use of narrative inquiry means

385

that participants were able to select, either consciously or unconsciously, from the events of their remembered life history (Spector-Mersel, 2010) and relate what they selected as important to them. This approach stresses the “celebratory” rather than analytic nature (Spector-Mersel, 2010, p. 214) of the data, something that is not well represented in the current literature on grandparent/grandchild estrangement. Thus the study makes an important contribution to our understanding in a manner that has not previously been addressed.

Implications Given the strong focus in Australia on the nuclear family, and the concomitant assumptions relating to the role of mothers (linked to matrilineal advantage theory) we propose that there is a risk that practitioners working with grandparents may not be aware that estrangement from grandchildren is not solely a phenomena experienced by paternal grandparents, nor does it only arise out of the breakdown of the middle-generation family. Our data reflects the diversity of modern families and reminds us that practitioners need to be open to this diversity. In Australia, the phrase “It takes a village to raise a child” is often used, but rarely supported in practice. Children are the sole responsibility of their parents and wider family networks are seen as less important. However, international wisdom reflected in the phrase suggests that these wider family networks are important, and, we argue, are a key element in family resiliency. Wider family networks can offer support (in our study through babysitting, child care and financial support) that can help parents create more positive child rearing environments. We argue that practitioners have a role in helping families establish wider family support networks (a concept in the early childhood literature called the ‘circle of security’ — Dolby, 2007; Hoffman, Marvin, Cooper, & Powell, 2006) that improve family resiliency and ultimately improve outcomes for children. Such support can be offered through a range of services extant in Australia including Child and Family Centres and Family Relationship Centres. Grandparents are a rich resource of support and practitioners have a role in helping them maintain positive relationships with their children so that support is available and used. This preliminary report of our research illustrates the importance of understanding grandparenting in context. Whilst our study supports much of the literature, we also identify quite different experiences that run counter to existing theories of matrilineal advantage. If we are to develop programmes and systems that function effectively to support modern families, it is essential that we understand the variances and complexities in family experiences.

References Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011). 4442.0 — Family characteristics, Australia, 2009–10. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government. Bengston, V., Biblarz, T., & Roberts, R. (2002). How families still matter: A longitudinal study of youth in two generations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

386

M. Sims, M. Rofail / Journal of Aging Studies 27 (2013) 377–386

Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity, 36(4), 391–409. Brown, L., & DeRycke, S. (2010). The kinkeeping connection: Continuity, crisis and consensus. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 8(4), 338–353, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2010.520616. Cashmore, J., Parkinson, P., Weston, R., Patulny, R., Redmond, G., Qu, L., et al. (2010). Shared care parenting arrangements since the 2006 family law reforms: Report to the Australian Government Attorney-General's Department. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales. Centre for Community Child Health (2010). The changing role of grandparents. Policy Brief, 19, 4. Chase, S. (2005). Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches, voices. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 651–680) (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cleveland, D., Allen, R., Jackson, M., & Terrell, J. (2008). Disenfranchised by divorce: The implications of parental alienation on grandparents. The Gerontologist, 48, 558–559. Crittenden, P. (2008). Raising parents. Attachment, parenting and child safety. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing. Crotty, M. (1996). Phenomenology and nursing research. South Melbourne: Churchill Livingstone. Deblaquiere, J., Moloney, L., & Weston, R. (2012). Parental separation and grandchildren. Family Matters, 90, 68–76. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005a). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. Introduction. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32) (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis. London: Routledge. Dolby, R. (2007). The circle of security: Roadmap to building supportive relationships. Canberra, ACT: Early Childhood Australia. Doyle, M., O'Dywer, C., & Timonen, V. (2010). “How can you just cut off a whole side of the family and say move on?” The reshaping of paternal grandparent– grandchild relationships following divorce or separation in the middle generation. Family Relations, 59(5), 587–598, http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00625.x. Families Australia (2007). Grandparenting: Present and future. Family issues series. (pp. 43)Barton, ACT: Families Australia, 43. Fingerman, K. (2004). The role of offspring and in-laws in grandparents' ties to their grandchildren. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 1026–1049, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192513X04265941. Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative data analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 191–215) (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hammarström, G. (2005). The construct of intergenerational solidarity in a lineage perspective: A discussion on underlying theoretical assumptions. Journal of Aging Studies, 19(1), 33–51, http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.jaging.2004.03.009. Hawkes, K., & Blurton Kones, N. (2005). Human age structures, paleodemography, and the grandmother hypothesis. In E. Voland, C. Athanasios, & W. Schiefenhovel (Eds.), Grandmotherhood. The evolutionary significance of the second half of female life (pp. 118–140). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Hoffman, K., Marvin, R., Cooper, G., & Powell, B. (2006). Changing toddlers' and preschoolers' attachment classifications: The circle of security intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(6), 1017–1026.

Jamison, C., Cornell, L., Jamison, P., & Nakazato, H. (2002). Are all grandmothers equal? A review and a preliminary test of the “grandmother hypothesis” in Tokugawa Japan. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 119(1), 67–76, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10070. Kaspiew, R., Gray, M., Weston, R., Moloney, L., Hand, K., Qu, L., et al. (2009). Evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. May, V., Mason, J., & Clarke, L. (2012). Being there yet not interfering: The paradoxes of grandparenting. In S. Arber, & V. Timonen (Eds.), Contemporary grandparenting (pp. 139–158). Bristol, UK: The Policy Press. Merz, E. -M., Schuengel, C., & Schulze, H. -J. (2007). Intergenerational solidarity: An attachment perspective. Journal of Aging Studies, 21(2), 175–186, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2006.07.001. Monserud, M. (2008). Intergenerational relationships and affectual solidarity between grandparents and young adults. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 70(1), 182–195. Ochiltree, G. (2006). Grandparents, grandchildren and the generation in between. Camberwell Vic: ACER Press. Peccei, J. (2001). A critique of the grandmother hypothesis. American Journal of Human Biology, 13, 434–452. Polkinghorne, D. (2007). Validity issues in narrative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(4), 471–486, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800406297670. Pryor, J. (Ed.). (2008). The international handbook of stepfamilies: Policy and practice in legal, research and clinical environments. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. Qu, L., Moloney, L., Weston, R., Hand, K., Deblaquiere, J., & De Maio, J. (2011). Grandparenting and the 2006 reforms. Family Matters, 88, 42–50. Sandelowski, M. (1991). Telling stories: Narrative approaches in qualitative research. Image — The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 23(3), 161–166. Sarantakos, S. (1998). Social research (2nd ed.). South Melbourne: MacMillan Education Australia. Sear, R., Mace, R., & McGregor, I. (2000). Maternal grandmothers improve nutritional status and survival of children in rural Gambia. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 267(1453), 1641–1647. Smyth, B., & Wolcott, I. (2004). Parent–child contact and post-separation parenting arrangements. Australian Institute of Family Studies research report no. 9, 8 (page downloaded). Soliz, J. (2008). Intergenerational support and the role of grandparents in post-divorce families: Retrospective accounts of young adult grandchildren. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 9(1), 72–80, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17459430802400373. Spector-Mersel, G. (2010). Narrative research: Time for a paradigm. Narrative Inquiry, 20(1), 204–224. Thomese, F., Silverstein, M., & Uhlenberg, P. (2008). Exchange between grandparents and grandchildren: Cross-fertilization of evolutionary and social science perspectives. The Gerontologist, 48, 714. Timonen, V., & Arber, S. (2012). A new look at grandparenting. In S. Arber, & V. Toimonen (Eds.), Contemporary grandparenting (pp. 1–24). Bristol, UK: The Policy Press. Timonen, V., & Doyle, M. (2012). Grandparental agency after adult children's divorce. In S. Arber, & V. Timonen (Eds.), Contemporary grandparenting (pp. 159–180). Bristol, UK: The Policy Press. Uhlenberg, P. (2004). Historical forces shaping grandparent–grandchild relationships: Demography and beyond. Annual Review of Gerontology & Geriatrics, 24, 7–98. van Manen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wahler, R., & Castlebury, F. (2002). Personal narratives as maps of the social ecosystem. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 297–314. Werner, P., Buchbinder, E., Lowenstein, A., & Livni, T. (2005). Mediation across generations: A tri-generational perspective. Journal of Aging Studies, 19(4), 489–502, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2004.12.002. Williams, G. (1957). Pleiotropy, natural selection and the evolution of senescence. Evolution, 11, 32–39.