Ross D. Parke
University of California, Riverside
Jeffrey T. Cookston
San Francisco State University
Invited Submission
Transnational Fathers: New Theoretical and
Conceptual Challenges
We propose a transactional model of risk and
resilience and ambiguous loss as theoretical
guides to understanding transnational fathering.
We also examine the risk and buffering conditions associated with each temporal aspect of
the migrant journey of transnational fathers
beginning with the initial decision to leave their
country of origin to their process of resettlement
in a destination country. In addition, we examine
the effects of the absence of transnational fathers
from their family on the fathers themselves, their
partners, and their children. We critically
explore the buffering effects of communication
at a distance as a strategy for reducing the risks
associated with the migration experience of
transnational fathers and examine the buffering
role of substitute caregivers in the home country
as a means of reducing the risk associated
with the absence of fathers on children. New
directions for future work in this area are noted.
In this era of heightened globalization, transnational lifestyles may become not the exception but
the rule. (Levitt, 2001, p. 4)
Ross D. Parke, PhD, Professor of Psychology, 900
University Avenue, University of California Riverside,
Riverside, CA 92521 (ross.parke@ucr.edu).
Key Words: family/work issues, fathers, nontraditional
family structures, transnational.
Although both mothers and fathers have chosen to leave their countries of origin in search
of a better life for themselves and their families,
most previous work has focused on the impact
of maternal migration on families and children
or on couple immigration involving both mothers and fathers (Fagan et al., 2019; Rodriguez
& Margolin, 2015). Despite the earlier focus on
female migration without their children, fathers
are still more likely than mothers to leave their
children and partners in their country of origin
(Nobles, 2013; Suărez-Orozco et al., 2002), be
separated from their children for longer periods (Dreby, 2010), and have longer times before
reunification (Suărez-Orozco et al., 2002). To
correct this imbalance, we focus on transnational
fathers who migrate but leave their partners or
wives and children in the country of origin.
The goal of this article is to outline a theoretical framework that integrates current knowledge
about transnational fathers to identify areas that
remain poorly understood and in need of further
empirical examination.
Approximately half of all adult migrants are
male, and a large percentage are fathers with
children (Zong et al., 2019). Among children
under age 15 living in Mexico, 1.3 million
(4%) have fathers living and working in the
United States, and up to 6 million are likely
to have a father in the United States during
their childhood (Nobles, 2013). Although the
Journal of Family Theory & Review (2020)
DOI:10.1111/jftr.12392
1
2
Journal of Family Theory & Review
majority of scholars have focused on transnational fathers moving from Central America and
Mexico to either the United States or Canada,
we broaden the scope of our review by including transnational fathers from not only these
countries but from other countries around the
globe. Our assumption is that general principles
outlined in our guiding model may be useful for
beginning to understand transnational fathers
globally but also caution that national/cultural
differences across both sending and receiving
countries need to be recognized. To illustrate,
there is considerable variation in migration
rates. DeWaard et al. (2018) estimated the
prevalence of transnational families in seven
Latin American countries and found the average
prevalence rate ranged from 7.1% in Peru, to
approximately 16% in Mexico, El Salvador,
Nicaragua, and Puerto Rico, to 21% in the
Dominican Republic. In five of the seven countries studied, migration is a more important
source of parental absence than union dissolution and mortality (Nobles, 2013). Thus, a focus
on fathers as transnational parents is warranted
in light of the significant numbers of families
who are affected by paternal immigration patterns. At the same time, caution is warranted in
view of the cross-country variability.
Although a complete profile of transnational
fathering includes voluntary and involuntary
immigration patterns followed by transnational
fathers, we focus on “voluntary” transnational fathers who move to a host country but
leave either their children or partner behind in
their country of origin. In light of recent U.S.
deportation policies, another group of at-risk
transnational parents has emerged, namely “involuntary” transnational fathers (and mothers)
who become separated from their children in the
destination country as a result of being deported
back to their country of origin, but the issue of
involuntary transnational parents is beyond the
scope of our review.
A Multiprocess Transactional Model
of Transnational Fathers: Risk
and Reliance and Ambiguous Loss
Theories as Guides
Figure 1 outlines a transactional model for
understanding transnational fathering and its
implications for men who migrate to the United
States and their partners and children who
remain in the country of origin. We posit that
the effect of parent–child separation due to the
rate of parental migration is best viewed as
a dynamic transactional process that unfolds
across time by altering the adjustment of both
transnational fathers and their nonmigrating
partners and children. We posit that changes in
each phase of the migration and resettlement
process affect not only the agent involved (e.g.,
the migrating father) but also the nonmigrating
family members. In turn, changes in the conditions among the nonmigrating family members
in the country of origin will also subsequently
affect the adjustment of the transnational father.
According to our model, a series of recurring or
transactional processes unfold across time and
across geographic space involving all members
of the intact—but now separated—family unit.
Several theoretical perspectives are useful in
understanding the processes that explain variations in transnational fathering. A risk and
resilience perspective provides guidance as we
consider the risks that all family members face
as a result of the decision of a family member to migrate as well as the factors that promote resilience in the form of healthy adaptation to these changes. A risk and resilience
perspective has been usefully applied to the
case of unmarried, nonresident fathers (Fagan &
Palkovitz, 2007). For an overview of the value of
a risk–resilience perspective for understanding
adaptation as a consequence of devastation due
to severe famine, conflict, or natural disasters
linked with forced migration, see Suárez-Orozco
et al. (2018). We extend this theoretical perspective to transnational fathers.
Two components are of special interest: the
form and frequency of the risks and the protective or resilience factors that either exacerbate or buffer the father and the nonmigrating
mother and child from the adverse events. On
the risk side, the process begins with an understanding of the risk conditions in the country
of origin, such as economic hardship or limited
economic and educational opportunities that, in
turn, lead to the decision to migrate to another
country (Masten & Palmer, 2019). Individual
characteristics such as difficult temperament,
risk-taking, and lower intelligence increase the
risk for poor adjustment. A further set of risk
factors that will likely exacerbate the stress
associated with the migration and resettlement
experience are considered, such as the migrant
parent’s stress during the migration experience
and after arrival in the host country. Risks for
Transnational Fathers
3
Figure 1. A Transactional Model of the Phases and Determinants of Adjustment for Transnational Fathers
Informed by Theories on Risk and Resilience and Ambiguous Loss.
transnational fathers include hostile attitudes
and discrimination toward immigrants, language
barriers, limited employment opportunities, and
limited social support from community members. Risk is further heightened when the frequency and quality of the “at-a-distance” communication between family members is impaired
due to inabilities to communicate or an interpersonal breakdown in communication patterns.
On the resilience side, several sets of protective factors appear to buffer migrating fathers
and the nonmigrating mothers and children
from risk and stress and promote coping and
favorable adjustment in the face of adversity.
Specifically, positive individual characteristics (e.g., easy temperament, high self-esteem,
intelligence, independence) are associated with
better adaptation in the face of stressful life
events (Motti-Stefanidi & Masten, 2017). A
second set of protective factors is found in a
supportive family environment; in this case,
the quality of the couple relationship and the
closeness of parent–child bonds can alter the
adverse effects associated with paternal migration (Suarez-Orozco et al., 2018). In turn, the
effectiveness of this form of familial support
will vary with the degree to which transnational
fathers are able to successfully maintain communication with their coparent and children
who remain in the country of origin. Effective
and sustained communication among separated
family members is a predictor and promoter of
adaptation and resilience among these family
members. A third set of factors involves individuals and institutions outside the family (e.g., the
formal and informal support in the community
in the new country, the supportiveness of friends
or extended family in the country of origin) will
determine the father, mother, and child coping
success. The nature of the relevant groups and
institutions will vary across host immigration
countries and countries of origin and across
actors (i.e., father, mother, children).
A risk–resilience perspective also guides
our consideration of the effects of resettlement
processes experienced by migrant fathers on
the other family members such as the nonmigrating partner and the nonmigrating children.
Risk–resilience factors that affect the nonmigrating family members include the economic
conditions in the country of origin as well as the
effects of remittances from migrant fathers on
the economic viability of the remaining family
members. Risk is lessened when economic
sustainability is achieved through financial
assistance from the transnational father, the
availability of work for the country of origin
coparent, or monetary assistance provided
4
by extended family or community members.
Similarly, successful adaptation (i.e., higher
resilience) will be evident when social support
is available from relatives and community for
the nonmigrating family members. Support
processes that mitigate risk associated with the
absence of a father include the availability of
alternative and adequate caregiving arrangements that ensue after the departure of the
father. Finally, successful adaptation in the face
of risk is determined not only by situational and
contextual factors but by the individual characteristics of both the nonmigrant coparent (e.g.,
age, educational level, work history, temperament) and the children (e.g., age, gender, IQ,
temperament, sibling relationships). Patterns of
adjustment (e.g., mental health of children and
adults, adult work stability, children’s academic
progress) will vary, in part, with these individual
differences in adult’s and children’s ability
to cope with risk and challenges (Masten &
Palmer, 2019). Taken together, this model provides an integrative map for existing literature
and aids in the specification of remaining issues
for future inquiry.
As a complement to the risk–resilience perspective, Boss’s (2016; Boss & Couden, 2002)
theory of ambiguous loss is a theoretical perspective that is useful for understanding some
of the unique aspects of transnational fathering.
According to this theory, when a parent is absent,
there is ambiguity and uncertainty concerning
the reason for the separation, the expected length
of separation, and the ambiguity about the timing of the reunion. In Boss’s terms, this situation
is one in which the father is physically absent
but psychologically present due to the child
being reminded of their father by other family
members who remain behind or as a result
of contact between the father and a child at a
distance. Boundary ambiguity is the perception
associated with ambiguous loss and “includes
the confusion about the person’s presence,
responsibility, and length of absence” (Solheim
& Ballard, 2016, p. 343). In this case, there
is perceived uncertainty concerning where the
family boundaries are drawn and therefore ambiguity about who is and who is not a member of
the family. The stress created by ambiguous loss
is partially mediated by the boundary ambiguity
it produces. Boundary ambiguity relates to “who
is perceived as in one’s family and as being there
for them, who is perceived as outside the family
and as not being there, and who is perceived as
Journal of Family Theory & Review
partly in and partly out” (Boss, 2002, p. 97). For
the transnational father, who is separated from
his partner and children, there may be uncertainty about his own degree of belonging to the
family unit as well as perceptions of uncertainty
about the father’s place in the family on the part
of his parental partner and his children. Boundary ambiguity is “a concept increasingly used
in family research to describe effects of family
membership loss over time and may be very
helpful in understanding the particularities of
losses in migration” (Falicov, 2002, p. 11). Both
of these concepts are useful for understanding
the issue of transnational parenting and are
applied here in the case of transnational fathers.
Becoming a Transnational Father:
Precursors of the Decision of Fathers
to Migrate
As noted in Figure 1 under the label of “Precursors of decision to migrate,” it is useful to
distinguish between “push” and “pull” factors in
examining the reasons for migration. Push factors, which in many cases can also be viewed
as risk factors, refer to the conditions in the
country of origin that make it difficult to maintain a safe and viable life in this context. A
variety of issues constitute push or risk conditions, such economic hardship (due to job
scarcity), chronic violence, unsafe conditions,
political unrest, and war, which, in turn, may
motivate migration. According to a recent survey
(Cookston et al., 2016), nearly 65% of transnational parents who moved from Mexico to the
United States did so to work, whereas 15%
came to improve their education. Catastrophic
conditions, especially in the wake of climate
change, such as hurricanes, monsoons, earthquakes, extended droughts, and other natural disasters, may be a further set of push or risk factors leading to migration (Stott, 2016). According to one estimate, in the past 8 years, more
than 25 million people have been displaced as a
consequence of environmental challenges across
the world (Bilak et al., 2016). These push factors, in turn, may place the migrant father at
risk for adaptation in the host country because
there may be lingering trauma associated with
the economic hardship, political unrest, and
unsafe living conditions that led to the decision to migrate. In addition, the limited educational and vocational attainment that may have
motivated the decision to migrate may place the
5
Transnational Fathers
migrant father at a disadvantage in the host country, where educational and vocational skills are
requirements for successful advancement. Pull
factors refer to opportunities afforded by the host
country, such as increased economic and educational opportunities, safer living conditions, and
fewer risks associated with climate change. The
presence of other family members already residing in a host country is a further pull factor.
These pull factors can conceptually be viewed
as contributors to resilience and successful adaption as viewed from a risk–resilience theoretical
perspective.
Postimmigration Determinants
of Transnational Fathers’ Adaptation
As outlined in Figure 1, a variety of individual
factors such as the characteristics of fathers, the
relationships between fathers and his family in
the country of origin, and the contextual factors
in a host country that help or hinder father adaptation all merit consideration as determinants of
fathers’ adaptation.
The Characteristics of Transnational Fathers
As noted in Figure 1 under the label “Characteristics of fathers,” immigrant fathers
are heterogeneous; they vary in personality,
language competency, country of origin, marital status, socioeconomic status, education,
vocational skills, job opportunities, language
competencies, degree of acculturation, relationships with their families of origin, and status of
immigration (documented vs. undocumented).
First, the individual personality characteristics
of the migrating father contribute not only to
the decision to migrate but may lead some to
adapt well to the transition to a new country
while many others struggle in their adaptation.
Some personality traits increase the likelihood
of migrating in the first place, such as higher
persistence and openness to experience (Fouarge
et al., 2019). Communal personality characteristics such as likeability, sociability, activity
level, and sensation-seeking are linked with
more successful integration and acculturation
(Schmitz & Berry, 2011). In a study of Syrian,
Iraqi, and Afghani immigrants to Germany,
those with higher risk-taking tendencies exhibited a higher likelihood of employment and
were more likely to find new social contacts,
whereas a sense of internal control and the
willingness to reciprocate in a positive way
were associated with the number of new social
contacts, greater self-esteem, life satisfaction,
and better health status (Hahn et al., 2019).
Another factor to consider is the education and
vocational readiness of some fathers that make
them strong candidates for migration and for
successful adaptation. Immigrant fathers from
Mexico and Central America are approximately
3 times as likely as native-born fathers to lack
a high school education. Almost half (47%)
of infants with immigrant fathers have fathers
without high school educations; for infants
with native fathers, this proportion is just 17%
(NRFC Quick Statistics, 2008). However, the
patterns of educational attainment of those who
immigrate to the United States vary across
countries of origin. Immigrants from South
and East Asia, Europe/Canada, the Middle
East, and sub-Saharan Africa were more likely
than U.S.-born residents to have a bachelor’s
or advanced degree. Immigrants from Mexico
(7%) and Central America (11%) were the least
likely to have a bachelor’s in contrast to 37%
for native-born Americans (Radford, 2019).
The importance of these differences is that
previous education (Potocky-Tripodi, 2003) and
language skills (Tabor et al., 2015) explained
variation in institutional, inter- and intrapersonal
adjustment.
Contextual Challenges of Relocation in Host
Country
In addition to individual and relationship factors,
contextual variables merit consideration as part
of our risk–resilience and ambiguous loss analyses (see Figure 1, “Contextual challenges of relocation in host country”).
Legal versus nonlegal status. The migration
experience itself presents a variety of risks
and stressors that flow from the relocation
and transportation challenges associated with
border crossings and resettlement in the host
country. A central issue is the legal status of
the migrant. Although some migrants enter the
host country with documentation (e.g., seasonal
farm workers), others enter without legal documentation. According to our stress–resilience
model, transnational fathers with an undocumented immigration status face higher levels of
risk. For workers lacking documentation, the
6
challenges of avoiding law enforcement, worrying about deportation, finding work, holding
down a job, and finding shelter are pervasive
and stress-inducing. In addition, the sense of
ambiguous loss is higher in the case of undocumented fathers, especially on the part of family
members in the country of origin who are uncertain about the safety and well-being of their
fathers/coparents. Arbona et al. (2010) found
that undocumented Latinx immigrants reported
the highest levels of immigration-related challenges compared with those immigrants with
documentation of immigration. Moreover,
lacking legal documentation may limit access
to public health care, which provide support
services that could lower stress.
Of relevance to our focus on transnational
fathers, men were more likely than women to
have an undocumented immigration status, to
be separated from their nuclear families, to
endorse traditional values, and to report greater
fear of deportation. Compared with immigrants
with documented immigration, those who were
undocumented were more likely to live alone
or be separated from members of their nuclear
family and to report lower proficiency in English
and higher endorsement of traditional values
related to gender-roles and family structure
(Suárez-Orozco et al., 2018). Consistent with
these gender and legal status differences, males
and immigrants lacking a documented immigration reported higher levels of extrafamilial
stress than their female and counterparts with
documentation. Even for migrant workers with
documentation, stressful experiences abound
and include racial and ethnic discrimination,
low wages, and substandard working conditions.
Finally, for fear of deportation, immigrants lacking documents of their immigration tend to be
less willing to report crimes in which they were
victims or witnesses (Messing et al., 2015). To
date we know little about how documentation
status alters either father’s own perception of
his fathering role, his partner’s perception of his
role, or children’s perception of their father’s
effectiveness.
Reception and support in host countries. Formal and informal social support is a major
determinant of the adaptation success of the
transnational father as noted in Figure 1, “Social
support.” Migrant’s perceptions of their situation
in terms of their views concerning their potential levels of support and their assessment of their
Journal of Family Theory & Review
employment opportunities—and not simply the
objective conditions—play a major role in their
coping ability and their capacity to adjust to the
demands of their new lives. For example, social
support systems act as buffers against risk and
can moderate the perceived (and objective) stress
of the new migrants. These social support systems take the form of government or employer
programs, neighborhood or community groups
devoted to supporting newcomers, and informal
social support provided by kin and nonkin from a
similar country of origin who may have migrated
earlier. Better well-being tends to be associated
with the presence of social support from within
and outside one’s community (Jasinskaja-Lahti
et al., 2006) and with a longer duration of stay
(Lebrun, 2012).
In addition, the match or mismatch between
the customs, language, religious beliefs, and
childrearing attitudes of the sending and host
countries will alter the adjustment of transnational fathers. For example, Indian families
who move to the United States may be advantaged relative to other groups, due in part to
their prior knowledge of English as a result of
British colonial rule (Raval et al., 2018). As
a further example of the mismatch problem,
Dimitrova (2018) studied the adjustment of
parents and children in Italy who moved from
Albania, Russia, Serbia, and Slovenia. The
Albanian immigrants had the most difficulty
adjusting in northern Italy, due in part to the
negative views of Albanians in Italy and the
resulting discrimination and marginalization by
members of their host country. In contrast, the
other ethnic groups had a history of migration
to Italy and well-established ethnic enclaves
already established within the host country that
aided their adaptation. Thus, the myriad ways in
which sending and receiving countries overlap
and diverge is a determinant of the degree of
risk posed by the challenge of adapting to a new
culture.
Nor are all host countries alike, and it is
important to recognize the heterogeneity of
policies, restrictions, and opportunities in place
across target countries. Some countries may
be more welcoming hosts as reflected in the
cultural attitudes and government policies concerning immigrants. In recent years, different
European countries have developed open versus
restrictive policies concerning the admissibility
of refugees from other parts of Europe and the
Transnational Fathers
Middle East. While Germany, Sweden, and Holland, for example, have been highly receptive
to receiving refugees (Kirk, 2015), Hungary,
Romania, Poland, and many others have favored
more restrictive policies to limit the acceptance
of refugees (Human Rights Watch, 2016). Similarly, in North America, there are contrasts
between policies regarding immigrants, especially refugees, between Canada and the United
States. Even though the growth of both countries
is based on historical patterns of immigration,
Canada has explicitly embraced multiculturalism as a national policy (Heritage, 2017),
whereas the United States has become more
restrictive in its immigration policies.
Another important resource available to
new immigrants in a host country is the presence of enclaves of earlier and now-settled
immigrants from the same countries as earlier
immigrants and who share a similar ethnic and
geographic heritage (Massey & Denton, 1993).
The availability of clusters of individuals who
share a common cultural background who are
already knowledgeable about the social and
economic systems of the host country can ease
the transition and adjustment of newly arriving fathers. However, the presence of earlier
waves of fellow countrymen may not always
be positive. Although these earlier groups may
be helpful to new waves of immigrants, these
same groups may resent the competition posed
by newcomers for scarce educational, social,
and economic opportunities. According to a
study of Angolan migrants in either Portugal
or the Netherlands (Mazzucato et al., 2017),
the effects of social networks on adjustment
outcomes (i.e., health and happiness scores)
varied with the employment resources. In the
Netherlands, where unemployment is low, social
network ties among immigrant populations were
positively associated with well-being (Mazzucato et al., 2017). Alternatively, in Portugal,
where unemployment among migrants is high,
social network ties are negatively related to
migrant well-being. Clearly, the social support
systems of prior waves of immigrants can affect
transnational father adaptation, but contextual
factors such as employment opportunities will
determine the nature of this impact.
Employment-related stressors. Another risk
factor that may contribute to emotional stress
pertains to employment-related challenges.
Especially in the case of fathers, where the role
7
of family economic provider may remain central
to his identity, employment opportunities are
central to successful adaptation (Dreby, 2010).
Transnational fathers may face difficulties finding employment, especially a job that is steady,
reliable, and well-paying. They may feel obligated to work hard so that they can fulfill their
obligation of sending remittances to help their
children and other family members in their home
country (Dreby, 2010). As one father put it, “my
life in the U.S. is all work” (Dreby, 2010, p. 37),
but this is part of the “migration bargain” which
involves sacrifice for the hope of improving life
for one’s family. Employment stability affects
the ability of fathers to provide material support
in the form of remittances. Remittances play an
important role in both the transnational father’s
coping and adjustment and provide economic
support for their children, coparent, or caregiver
in the country of origin. Because providing economic support for one’s distant family is a major
justification for migration, the father’s sense of
self-worth will likely be closely linked to his
ability to be a reliable remittance sender (Dreby
& Atkins, 2010). When men decrease contact,
sometimes it flows from their inability to fulfill
their culturally expected provider role by being
able to reliably send remittances (Dreby, 2010)
in the same way that nonimmigrant, unmarried
fathers may distance themselves from their
children and the mothers of their offspring due
to unemployment or underemployment (Edin
& Nelson, 2013). In terms of ambiguous loss
theory, boundary ambiguity may be greatest
when they feel they cannot fulfill their role as
breadwinner (Solheim & Ballard, 2016).
Transnational fathers who do not send
remittances are at heightened risk for poor
adjustment outcomes for themselves and may
have weaker social ties with left behind family
members (Castañeda & Buck, 2011). In turn,
loss of family contact may increase emotional
adjustment difficulties for both the transnational fathers and their families in the country
of origin (Poeze, 2018). Reliable remittance
activity can be a protective factor by ensuring
that the father will be accepted in his country of
origin should circumstances require reunification with the family (Wolff, 2019). Moreover,
poor remittance patterns may even weaken
social acceptance by other members of the
host country immigrant community in which
the transnational father resides (Peter, 2010).
Transnational fathers face a migration paradox
8
in which migration takes place for the purpose
of improving children’s economic welfare, but
is often at the cost of children’s emotional
well-being, the well-being of their partner,
and indeed their own mental health. Together,
contact and economic support determine the
fathers’ perceptions of their parental roles. By
maintaining contact and providing material
support, the satisfaction with their parental role
is likely maintained or bolstered. In terms of
ambiguous loss theory, remittances are a way
to reduce boundary ambiguity levels as they
clarify and define the role of the transnational
father as provider.
Acculturation process and adaptation. The
ability to acculturate to a host culture and the
adoption of the host language is a major determinant of successful adaptation. In part, this
allows more occupational opportunities and
improves their ability to send remittances back
to the country of origin. Moreover, men’s sense
of well-being is higher as a result of increased
acculturation (Yu et al., 2016). Acculturation
may allow fathers to move within the host country or across borders with less fear of detection in
the case of undocumented individuals. However,
the advantages that are associated with acculturation for transnational fathers may have negative
implications for their relationships with children and their partner in the form of increased
estrangement as a result of the cultural acculturation gap between transnational fathers and their
partners and children who remain in the country
of origin. Specifically, as fathers become more
acculturated to the customs and norms of their
new country, they may be less able to relate to
their family in the country of origin who do not
share the same level of cultural understanding
of the father’s new host culture. In terms of
ambiguous loss theory, the lessened degree of
shared understanding between coparents concerning their cultural frameworks and values can
increase the sense of ambiguity in the relationship (Solheim & Ballard, 2016). This acculturation gap hypothesis has received considerable
support in the case of more rapidly acculturating children and their slower-to-acculturate
immigrant parents (Telzer, 2011), but little
exploration of this acculturation gap issue in
the case of transnational fathers has been undertaken. Finally, in recognition of the domain
specificity of acculturation (Bornstein, 2017)
that rates of acculturation vary across behavioral,
Journal of Family Theory & Review
cognitive, and identity domains, it is important
to assess the various aspects of acculturation,
such as behavioral practices, cultural values and
beliefs, and ethnic identity.
Changes in Family Composition
As outlined in Figure 1 under the label “Changes
in family composition,” the social relationships
developed by the migrating fathers both before
and after migration merit consideration to understand the transnational father’s adaptation.
Relationship determinants of adaptation. The
quality of both the mother–father relationship
and the father–child relationship is a source of
either risk or protection from stress and adversity. Father migration in which his spouse is
left in the country of origin is associated with
increased risk of marital instability and divorce
(Caarls & Mazzucato, 2015), especially when
marital satisfaction is low (Li, 2018). Similarly, involvement in a nonmarital relationship
in the host country is a further risk to marital
stability and is associated with a reduction of
remittances, which, in turn, can have a negative
impact on the spouse and children who remain
in the country of origin (Luke, 2010). This nonmarital involvement would lead to increases in
boundary ambiguity for both migrant fathers
and the mother and children in the family of
origin. On the other hand, a substantial literature based on nonmigrant samples has documented the protective effects of a close couple relationship for the positive mental health
of both mothers and fathers and alternatively
the risk associated with poor couple relationships for nonoptimal adjustment, such as elevated depression and anxiety problems (Teo
et al., 2013; van Eldik et al., 2020). Couple
relationship quality is an important determinant of the adjustment of the separated family member (Rodriguez & Margolin, 2015). In
migrant samples, relationship quality is likely to
be an even more important predictor of adjustment in view of the heightened stress associated with not only separation from partner and
children but with the other migration-related
challenges and accompanying stressors. Additionally, the quality of the relationship between
the nonmigrating mother and the transnational
father will likely impact the effectiveness of the
mother to care for her children, both due to her
better adjustment as a result of higher marital
9
Transnational Fathers
satisfaction and as a result of the more reliable
flow of remittances accompanying a closer marital relationship (Luke, 2010). At the same time, a
transnational separation might also offer opportunities for relationship repair should the distance ease tensions in communication around
daily hassles and stressors (Rodriguez & Margolin, 2015). Other evidence suggests that parent relationships can improve after separation, in
part due to the autonomy afforded wives who had
more control over household decision-making
when the father was absent, especially in hierarchically oriented cultures such as Mexico and
Central America (Pribilsky, 2004). Therefore,
it is not always the case that separation is
associated with negative effects for the couple relationships. However, shifts in power and
decision-making across the couple may present
challenges and risks upon reunification because
these shifts may be associated with increases in
boundary ambiguity as perceptions about appropriate family roles for males and females become
salient upon reunion.
Patterns of Contact With Family Members
in Country of Origin
The opportunities for contact with family members (partners, children, parents) in the country
of origin play an important role in mitigating the
risk associated with migrant adjustment as well
as in the adjustment of the children and substitute caregivers in the country of origin (Masten & Palmer, 2019; see Figure 1, “Patterns of
contact between fathers and families in country of origin”). Contact is also a way to reduce
a sense of ambiguous loss as family members
are reassured that the father remains a central
actor in the family (Solheim & Ballard, 2016).
Being able to play a parental role by maintaining
contact with family reduces boundary ambiguity
(Boss, 2002) by bolstering men’s views of themselves as fulfilling their role as father, even when
it occurs across a distance that includes a border
(Dreby, 2010). Moreover,
communication technology can reduce ambiguity
about family members’ safety. For example, as
long as deployed parents remain in virtual contact,
families can presume they are safe. However, as
soon as contact ends, their safety becomes ambiguous again. Families’ access to methods of consistent contact, even when used only occasionally,
can lessen the degree of boundary ambiguity, and
thus buffer the distress due to the ambiguous loss
of separation. (Solheim & Ballard, 2016, p. 347)
When transnational fathers are in limited contact with their children, this can have a negative impact on their work success; lower contact
between fathers and children is linked to greater
job instability (Haagsman, 2018), which suggests that there may be a transactional relation
between father occupational success and child
contact.
Although visiting their children is obviously
important and according to a recent survey, 64%
of parents cited “visiting children living there”
as their primary reason for visiting their families
in Mexico, visiting their home country is often
difficult in terms of logistics and cost (Cookston
et al., 2016). Despite their motivation to see their
children, 75% of parents had not been back to
visit their children in more than a year. However, contact patterns, especially physical visitation to the country of origin, may be affected
by the documented or undocumented status of
the father. For transnational fathers, an undocumented status affects their ability to traverse the
border to physically reconnect or fulfill obligations to family. Border politics and border climate also influence how transnational fathers
engage with their children outside the United
States. Alternatively, most transnational parents
use some form of “communication at a distance”
strategy to keep in contact with their children. In
one study (Dreby, 2010), most parents—mothers
and fathers—reported calling home to Mexico
once a week. Not only the frequency of contact but the modes of communication need to
be better specified. Cookston et al. (2016) found
that 83% of parents communicated with their
children via telephone, 85% via the Internet,
and 67 % by video call. Only 24% communicated by mail. Although many questions remain
unanswered about variations in contact and their
effects on fathers, partners, and children, it is
clear that most transnational fathers make an
effort to maintain contact with their children and
partners in the country of origin. However, we
need better information on the patterns of contact between transnational fathers and their children. Little is known about how patterns of contact shift across time.
New approaches to capturing the content and
quality of the interchanges between the distant father and his partner, children, or both are
needed. To achieve this goal, a method for the
10
Journal of Family Theory & Review
assessment of father involvement across borders
that permits the monitoring of the content (e.g.,
length of contact, quality of contact) of communications between fathers and family members in the country of origin would be a helpful
advance. As an approach to capturing the content
of messages between fathers and children and
extended family members, Underwood and colleagues’ (2012, 2015) BlackBerry project serves
as a guide. Participants in the project allowed
access to stored content of the telephone communications between friends. Adoption of this
strategy to communications between transnational fathers and their children would provide
a descriptive picture of communication patterns
and would also permit an analysis of how variations in quality and frequency of contact are
linked with perceptions of the father role on the
part of men, their partners, and their children.
Consequences of Migration for the
Adaptation and Mental Health
of Transnational Fathers
As outlined in Figure 1, “Migrant father adaptation and mental health outcomes,” transnational
fathers face challenges in adjusting to their host
country. Fathers who migrate are at risk for a
variety of mental health challenges, such as sadness and loneliness due to loss of regular contact
with their children and their partner. Immigrant
Honduran men who were separated from their
children struggled with depression and severe
loneliness and often engaged in self-destructive
coping strategies, such as excessive drinking
(Worby & Organista, 2007). Similarly, among
Mexican temporary seasonal male farm workers
in Canada, many reported mental health issues,
such as depression, anxiety, and addictions, as
well as the culture-bound syndrome nervios
(McLaughlin et al., 2017). Due to restrictions
imposed by employers, temporary migrant farm
workers have few opportunities to socialize with
native Canadians, which, in turn, contributes to
increased feelings of social isolation. Transnational Angolan parents in the Netherlands, compared with nontransnational parents, changed
jobs more frequently, and job changes were
linked to lower levels of life satisfaction among
the transnational parents (Haagsman, 2018). In
a survey (Cookston et al., 2016), 45% of Mexican transnational parents were either somewhat
or extremely dissatisfied with being separated
from their children, whereas 43% were satisfied
with this situation. Although new communication technologies allow family members to stay
in touch with each other while living apart (Wilding, 2006), fathers still feel deprived of regular
face-to-face interaction with their families. The
fact that transnational fathers are often dissatisfied with the limited contact they have with
their children and that they seek to maintain relationships with them challenges the abandonment
view that has characterized transnational fathers
as distant and uncaring (Parreñas, 2005, 2008).
The Effects of Absence of Transnational
Fathers on Children in the Country
of Origin
The issue of transnational fatherhood cannot
be fully appreciated without consideration
of the impact of the father’s absence on the
children who remain in the country of origin
(see Figure 1, “Consequences for children and
families in the country of origin”). Not only is
it critical to examine the children’s adaptation
in this new family configuration with the father
absent, but it is necessary to explore the transactional effects of the children’s adaptation on the
father’s own adjustment. It is assumed that
the adjustment of the children will, in turn, alter
the father’s perception of the adequacy of his
paternal role, albeit at a distance.
Theoretically, father absence places children
at risk due to lack of paternal guidance and support. Moreover, both ambiguous loss and boundary ambiguity are higher, which increases emotional stress for the child. There are both negative
and positive effects on children as a consequence
of this arrangement. On the downside, more
than 50% of Mexican children with migrant
caregivers in their families were generally dissatisfied with being separated from their parents
(Cookston et al., 2016). However, when the
parent–child relationships were stronger, Mexican children reported greater satisfaction with
their parents living in the United States (Cookston et al., 2016). Separated children in Mexico
do worse than their peers in terms of frequency
of illness and emotional problems, having to
repeat a grade, and in reports of behavioral problems (Heymann et al., 2009). Other studies of the
effects of repeated seasonal worker separation
in Canada on children left in Mexico found that
children had poorer school performance, greater
involvement in crime, more drug and alcohol
abuse (especially among sons), and earlier
11
Transnational Fathers
pregnancies among daughters (McLaughlin
et al., 2017). Children of migrant fathers in
Indonesia and Thailand are more likely to have
poor psychological well-being compared with
children in nonmigrant households. However,
this finding was not replicated for the Philippines
or Vietnam, which suggests that cross-country
differences need to be more carefully examined
to better understand the factors that may protect
children from the adverse effects of father migration (Graham & Jordon, 2011). Perhaps as international out-migration becomes more normative
within communities, as it is in the Philippines,
which has a long tradition of parental migration,
child behavioral problems may decrease.
On the positive side, paternal migration can
contribute to meaningful gains in microenterprise, capital accumulation, and city infrastructure through the provision of remittances to the
country of origin (Heymann et al., 2009). As a
result, some children have a higher standard of
living and more educational opportunities than
children whose fathers have remained in their
home country. More definitive evidence about
the relative risks and benefits of these arrangements on children is needed.
As outlined in Figure 1, certain “Child characteristics” place children at greater risk for
poorer outcomes following immigration related
father–child separation. Children’s characteristics, such as age, gender, and temperament, as
well as their perception and understanding of
the justification for their separation from their
parent, will, in turn, modify their adjustment
(see section on “Child adjustment” in Figure 1).
Studies based on examination of the effects of
repeated seasonal worker separation in Canada
on children left in Mexico found that boys had
poorer school performance, greater involvement
in crime, more drug and alcohol abuse, whereas
earlier pregnancies were more prevalent among
girls than among nonmigrant youth (McLaughlin et al., 2017). Girls were also more likely to
be unhappy, to think about planning suicide, and
consider leaving home, whereas boys were more
likely to smoke tobacco and be addicted to the
Internet (Gao et al., 2010). Clearly, both genders
are affected but possibly in different ways.
Children’s age will modify their reaction
and adaptation to separation. Separation from
a migrant father at an early age has a greater
negative effect on depression and anxiety than
separation at older ages (Liu et al., 2009).
Although older children may comprehend
that the separation is necessary for economic
reasons, adolescents may also resent the absence
of the parent or interpret the distance as an indication of lack of parental love. However, because
Liu et al. (2009) did not examine the length of
separation from the father, it is possible that
this factor, as well as age at separation, may
have contributed to the higher levels of child
mental health problems. As Sørenson and Vammen (2014, p. 95) noted, “Age also structures
how migrant children are treated politically,
e.g. as eligible for child-centered development
programmes in the countries of origin (Carling
& Tønnessen, 2013), as dependents eligible
for family reunification (Bernhard, Landolt, &
Goldring 2009), or as unaccompanied minors
(Uehling, 2008).”
On the basis of earlier work on risk and
resilience (Lengua & Wachs, 2012; Masten,
2011), certain temperament traits, such as
impulsivity, inhibition, and negative emotionality, can serve as developmental risk factors,
whereas other temperament traits, such as
flexible self-regulation, sociability, and task
orientation, can serve to increase children’s
resilience in response to stressful events. For
example, children with positive temperaments
characterized by low emotional reactivity and
high social engagement show greater resilience
in response to stress (i.e., higher behavioral and
social competence both at home and at school;
Smith & Prior, 1995). Although no direct
assessment of the role of temperament in the
adjustment of children in transnational father
families have been reported, it is likely that
temperament will play a role in child adjustment
in these families.
Quality of Care for Children During
Paternal Absence
One of the major risk factors for both fathers and
children is the quality of care of children left
behind (see Figure 1, “Caregiving processes”).
A major determinant of how well children fare
when fathers migrate is the nature of the caregiving arrangements in the country of origin. Often
there is limited contact between transnational
fathers and children as well as a shift in caregiving responsibility to others. A determinant of
both the migrant’s perception of his parental role
and the adequacy of the child’s adjustment during separation is the quality of the caregiving
arrangements for the children in the country of
12
origin. Childcare arrangements will also influence the degree of emotional comfort experienced by absent fathers.
Transnational families rely on other family members to make this arrangement work.
When fathers migrate, women perform both
more nonfamily paid work as well as more
unpaid household work and rely on a network
of kin and nonkin, such as aunts, grandmothers,
and friends, to assist them in childcare and
household tasks (Boehm, 2012). Moreover,
traditional gender roles change as women often
adopt both maternal (e.g., nurturing, caregiving)
and paternal (e.g., outside work, discipline)
roles. A reliance on nuclear family models
is clearly inadequate to accommodate these
other caregivers; instead, to understand the
range of family forms among transnational
families requires models that incorporate these
new actors into the family mix (Mazzucato &
Schans, 2011; Parke, 2013).
Close relationships with the substitute caregivers can be both a protective factor in assisting children’s adjustment during the absence
of a paternal figure and a risk factor as these
children may struggle upon reunion with their
father. Even if children are united with their
fathers in the country of origin, they may experience depression or guilt due to separation from
their interim caregiver (e.g., grandmother, aunt)
with whom they may have developed close ties
(Dreby, 2010). According to ambiguous loss theory, children may experience boundary ambiguity as expressed in confusion about the identity
of their caregivers and who is a full member of
the family (Boss, 2002). In fact, some children
may come to view their temporary caregiver as
their “real” parent and express uncertainty about
the role of their absent biological father in the
family unit. Finally, the protective role of siblings who sometimes serve as caregivers along
with adults in the country of origin is still poorly
understood.
Variations across cultures in both the commonality and the nature of caregiving arrangements merits attention. In some regions such as
the Philippines and the Caribbean, where there
is a long history of parental migration, there are
well-established guidelines and customs concerning the network of alternative caregivers
who take responsibility (Moran-Taylor, 2008;
Parreñas, 2008). Caregivers in these societies are
often recognized formally by the government
and even enjoy social status in their caregiver
Journal of Family Theory & Review
roles (Moran-Taylor, 2008). The commonality
of these arrangements over long time spans, as
in the case of the Philippines, may explain why
children with migrant parents are not only economically better off but also physically healthier and emotionally similar to their nonmigrant
peers (Parreñas, 2008). In contrast, in societies such as Eastern Europe, China, and some
African countries where migration patterns are
less common or more recently instituted and
where less established patterns of alternative
care are available, children may be at higher risk
for adjustment problems.
Several issues concerning the documentation
of substitute care need more attention. The
nature of the substitute care needs to be more
rigorously quantified in terms of identification
of the substitute caregivers and their familial ties
with the absent father. The nature of the contractual arrangements (e.g., mutual obligations,
expectations, monetary agreements) and the
degree of satisfaction with these arrangements
on the part of both the substitute caregivers and
the absent parent need to be better understood.
Questionnaires, interviews, and observational
measures of relationship quality between substitute caregivers and children would be helpful.
The documentation of reunion between the
transnational father and his children is needed.
Observational measures of reunion episodes
would be valuable, as would tracking the course
of the father–child relationship across time after
reunion. The long-term consequences of variations in the consistency and quality of substitute
care during father–child separation are not well
understood.
Remaining Theoretical, Methodological,
and Policy Challenges
Informed by our conceptual model, we have
identified several theoretical and methodological challenges to our understanding of transnational fathering. Guided by the risk–resilience
and ambiguous loss theories, we have documented the risks and buffering conditions associated with each temporal aspect of the migrant
journey of transnational fathers from their initial
decision to leave their country of origin to their
process of resettlement in a destination country.
One of the strengths of our model is its
conceptualization of the problem as a set of
recurring transactional processes occurring
across time, contexts, and agents. By tracing
Transnational Fathers
the father’s progress across time and contexts
from country of origin to host destinations, the
cross-time challenges faced in various contexts
are illustrated. We examined the ways in which
the fathers adaptation and success in the host
country affects not only his own mental and
financial well-being but also his relationship
with his family in the country of origin. In
turn, the successful adaptation of his family
alters his own adaptation, which underscores
the dynamic and evolving nature of the transactional influences between the transnational
father and his country of origin family. By
specifying the challenges in terms of risks and
protective factors, as well as the perspective
offered by ambiguous loss theory, the framework provides a roadmap for guiding policies
aimed at improving the adaptation of fathers
themselves in the host country as well as ways
of improving the conditions of families in the
country of origin. To date, little research has
examined the cross-time transactional nature
of these changing relationships across agents
and contexts as most of the work has been
cross-sectional involving a single time point. A
clear priority for future work involves repeated
longitudinal assessments of fathers, partners,
and children across time to document the ways
in which changes in the adjustment of various
actors affect the adaptation of others in the
social system.
Although the role of individual risk and
protective factors is being well documented,
a second priority would be the systematic
assessment of cumulative risk on the adaptation of transnational fathers. For example,
studies of the combined impact of different sources of simultaneously experienced
stressors such as employment-related challenges, limited opportunities for family
communication, discrimination experiences
and non–immigration-related stressors such as
the loss of a relative in the country of origin
on father adaptation are needed to move the
field beyond the separate examination of small
numbers of stressors (Sameroff et al., 2003).
In addition, we outlined the effects of father’s
separation from their family on the father, his
partner, and his children from the perspective
of ambiguous loss theory and examined the
buffering effects of communication at a distance as a strategy for reducing the risks and
the ambiguity associated with the migration
experience. A third priority for future inquiry
13
involves more direct empirical evaluations of
the value of ambiguous loss theory for understanding transnational fathers and their families.
This step would benefit from the application of
scales with well-established psychometric properties, such as the Boundary Ambiguity Scale
(Boss et al., 1990). To better capture the concept
of boundary ambiguity, more studies of family
drawings by children with transnational parents
(Dreby, 2010) could be extended to include other
family members such as fathers, mothers, and
caregivers. Finally, the use of genograms (visual
representations of the family, including depictions of family boundaries), which are completed by various family members (transnational
fathers, as well as mothers and children in country of origin), could be used to further explore
concepts flowing from ambiguous loss theory
(Dyer et al., 2012).
As this review suggests, a final priority
for future work is the exploration of the policy implications of this issue. In light of the
impact of host country policies concerning
the level of support provided to immigrant
fathers, development of programs that offer
support and guidance for these individuals is
important to ensure the health and well-being
of these immigrant fathers. Policies to aid new
waves of transnational fathers by enlisting the
support of established immigrants who share a
similar cultural background merit examination.
On the country-of-origin side, policy makers
need to recognize the importance of supportive programs to assist nonmigrant parents and
children who may encounter economic and
psychological hardship as a result of the loss of
coparents and father figures. In turn, according
to our transactional perspective, policies that
facilitate better adjustment of non–migrating
family members would likely have beneficial
effects on the well-being of migrant fathers as
well.
Part of the challenge in understanding
transnational fathering is that much of the prior
work in this area has been qualitative and ethnographic (Boehm, 2012; Dreby, 2010). Although
this earlier qualitative work is valuable for
bringing the challenges of transnational parenting into focus and as a source of hypotheses
and policy leads, the scope and dimensions
of the issue in terms of quantitative measures remain relatively underdeveloped despite
some quantitative reports (see Massey & Denton, 1993; Nobles, 2013). This is not a call
14
for a singular focus on either qualitative or
quantitative approaches but instead a recognition that both approaches provide valuable
insights, especially in combination within a
single investigation. Similarly, the understanding of the underlying processes (e.g., paternal
beliefs and attitudes, parenting practices, and
the quality of the father–child relationship)
that account for variations in the adaptation of
fathers, mothers, and children who are part of
the transnational network is severely limited.
Nor is there adequate longitudinal evaluation
of how these processes unfold across time as
migrants settle in a host country and reunion of
separated family members ensues.
Some limitations on the generality of our
model need to be noted. Our focus has been
on fathers in cross-national migration contexts rather than on within-country migration,
whereby fathers leave their family and move
from one part of the country to another part
of the same country in search of economic
betterment. In some countries such as China,
there is an increasing movement of fathers
from rural to urban settings, resulting in 61
million children being left behind in rural areas,
accounting for 38% of rural children and 22%
of total child population (All-China Women’s
Federation, 2013). Some of the negative effects
on children without a father present (e.g., less
school attendance and school years completed,
increased smoking) are similar to results found
in studies of cross-national paternal migration
(Lee, 2011). However, the factors underlying
these effects may differ across these types of
paternal patterns because some of the risks such
as cultural and language disparities encountered
by fathers who migrate to a different country may be avoided by intracountry migrants.
Comparisons of the adaptation of fathers to
the challenges of migration across intra- and
intercountry contexts are needed.
As these transnational families illustrate,
children and adults are resilient, robust, and
creative in maintaining family relationships
despite temporal and physical separation. The
examination of transnational fathers provides
another (and perhaps unique) window into the
effects of parent–child separation on children’s
development. Finally, our focus on transnational
fathers can contribute to the understanding of
how fathering (or parenting more generally) can
be maintained at a distance in an era of new
communication technologies.
Journal of Family Theory & Review
References
All-China Women’s Federation. (2013). Report on
rural left-behind and rural-urban migrant children
in China. http://acwf.people.com.cn/n/2013/0510/
c99013-21437965.html
Arbona, C., Olvera, N., Rodriguez, N., Hagan, J.,
Linares, A., & Wiesner, M. (2010). Acculturative stress among documented and undocumented
Latino immigrants in the United States. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32(3), 362–384.
Bilak, A., Cardona-Fox, G., Ginnetti, J., Rushing, E.,
Scherer, I., Swain, M., Walicki, N., & Yonetani,
M. (2016). Global report on internal displacement. iDMC. https://environmentalmigration.iom
.int/global-report-internal-displacement
Boehm, D. A. (2012). Intimate migrations: Gender,
family, and illegality among transnational mexicans. NYU Press.
Bornstein, M. H. (2017). The specificity principle
in acculturation science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 3–45. doi:https://doi.org/10
.1177/1745691616655997
Boss, P. G. (2002) Family stress management: A contextual approach. Sage Publications.
Boss, P. G. (2016). The context and process of theory
development: The story of ambiguous loss. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(3), 269–286.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12152
Boss, P. G., & Couden, B. (2002). Ambiguous loss
from chronic physical illness: Clinical interventions with individuals, couples and families. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(11), 1351–1360.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10083
Boss, P. G., Greenberg, J. R., & Pearce-McCall, D.
(1990). Measurement of boundary ambiguity in
families. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota.
Caarls, K., & Mazzucato, V. (2015). Does international migration lead to divorce? Ghanaian couples
in Ghana and abroad. Population, 70(1), 127–151.
Castañeda, E., & Buck, L. (2011). Remittances,
transnational parenting, and the children left
behind: Economic and psychological implications.
The Latin Americanist, 55(4), 85–110.
Cookston, J. T., Parke, R. D., Vega, E., & Boyer,
C. (2016, June). Transnational fathers: New conceptual and measurement challenges. SRCD Measurement of Fathering working group, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
DeWaard, J., Nobles, J., & Donato, K. M. (2018).
Migration and parental absence: A comparative
assessment of transnational families in Latin
America. Population, Space and Place, 24(7),
e2166. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2166
Dimitrova, M. (2018). Expatriation and the
work-family interface. In K. M. Shockley,
W. Shen, & R. C. Johnson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the global work–family
interface. (pp. 479–493). Cambridge University
Transnational Fathers
Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235556
.026
Dreby, J. (2010). Divided by borders: Mexican
migrants and their children. University of California Press.
Dreby, J. (2012). The burden of deportation on children in Mexican immigrant families. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 74(4), 829–845. https://doi
.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00989.x
Dreby, J., & Adkins, T. (2010). Inequalities in
transnational families. Sociology Compass, 4(8),
673–689.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020
.2010.00297.x
Dyer, W. J., Pleck, J. H., & McBride, B. A. (2012)
Imprisoned fathers and their family relationships:
A 40-year review from a multi-theory view. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4, 20–47.
Edin, K., & Nelson, T. J. (2013). Doing the best I
can: Fatherhood in the inner city. University of
California Press.
Fagan, J., & Palkovitz, R. (2007). Unmarried, nonresident fathers’ involvement with their infants: A risk
and resilience perspective. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(3), 479–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0893-3200.21.3.479
Falicov, C. J. (2002). Ambiguous loss: Risk and
resilience in Latino immigrant families. In M. M.
Suarez-Orozco, C. Suarez-Orozco, & D. Baolian
Qin (Eds.), The new immigration: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 197–206). Taylor & Francis.
Fouarge, D., Özer, M. N., & Seegers, P. (2019).
Personality traits, migration intentions, and cultural distance. Papers in Regional Science, 98(6),
2425–2454.
Gao, Y., Li, L. P., Kim, J. H., Congdon, N., Lau,
J., & Griffiths, S. (2010). The impact of parental
migration on health status and health behaviours
among left behind adolescent school children in
China. BMC Public Health, 10(56), 1-10. https://
doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-56
Graham, E., & Jordan, L. P. (2011). Migrant parents
and the psychological well-being of left-behind
children in Southeast Asia. Journal of marriage
and the family, 73(4), 763–787. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00844.x
Haagsman, K. (2018). Do transnational child-raising
arrangements affect job outcomes of migrant parents? Comparing Angolan parents in transnational
and non-transnational families in the Netherlands.
Journal of Family Issues, 39(6), 1498–1522.
Hahn, E., Richter, D., Schupp, J., & Back, M. D.
(2019). Predictors of refugee adjustment: The
importance of cognitive skills and personality.
Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), 1–14. https://www
.collabra.org/articles/10.1525/collabra.212/
Heritage, C. (2017, August 18). Annual report on
the operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism
Act 2015–2016. Aem. https://www.canada.ca/en/
canadian-heritage/corporate/publications/plans-
15
reports/annual-report-canadian-multiculturalismact-2015-2016.html
Heymann, J., Flores-Macias, F., Hayes, J. A.,
Kennedy, M., Lahaie, C., & Earle, A. (2009).
The impact of migration on the well-being of
transnational families: New data from sending
communities in Mexico. Community, Work &
Family, 12(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13668800802155704
Human Rights Watch. (2016). EU policies put
refugees at risk. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/
11/23/eu-policies-put-refugees-risk#
Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., Jaakkola, M., &
Reuter, A. (2006). Perceived discrimination, social
support networks, and psychological well-being
among three immigrant groups. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(3), 293–311.
Kirk, A. (2015, September 15). Refugee crisis:
How do European countries’ attitudes differ
on refugees. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
uknews/immigration/11863452/Refugee-crisisHow-do-European-countries-attitudes-differ-onrefugees.html
Lebrun, L. A. (2012). Effects of length of stay
and language proficiency on health care experiences among immigrants in Canada and the
United States. Social Science & Medicine, 74(7),
1062–1072.
Lee, M. H. (2011). Migration and children’s welfare
in China: The schooling and health of children left
behind. The Journal of Developing Areas, 44(2),
165–182.
Lengua, L. J., & Wachs, T. D. (2012). Temperament and risk: Resilient and vulnerable responses
to adversity. In Handbook of temperament (pp.
519–540). Guilford Press.
Levitt, P. (2001). The transnational villagers. University of California Press.
Li, W. (2018) Migration and marital instability among
migrant workers in China: A gender perspective.
Chinese Journal of Sociology, 4, 218–235.
Liu, Z., Li, X., & Ge, X. (2009). Left too early:
the effects of age at separation from parents on
Chinese rural children’s symptoms of anxiety and
depression. American Journal of Public Health,
99(11), 2049–2054. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH
.2008.150474
Luke, N. (2010). Migrants’ competing commitments:
Sexual partners in urban Africa and remittances to
the rural origin. American Journal of Sociology,
115(5), 1435–1479.
Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the
underclass. Harvard University Press.
Masten, A. S., & Palmer, A. (2019). Parenting to
promote resilience in children. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (3rd ed., pp.
156–188). Routledge.
16
Mazzucato, V., Dito, B. B., Grassi, M., & Vivet, J.
(2017). Transnational parenting and the well-being
of Angolan migrant parents in Europe. Global
Networks, 17(1), 89–110.
Mazzucato, V., & Schans, D. (2011). Transnational
families and the well-being of children: Conceptual and methodological challenges. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 73(4), 704–712. https://doi
.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00840.x
McLaughlin, J., Wells, D., Mendiburo, A., Lyn, A.,
& Vasilevska, B. (2017). Temporary workers, temporary fathers: Transnational family impacts of
Canada’s seasonal agricultural worker program.
Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 72(4),
682–709. https://doi.org/10.7202/1043172ar
Messing, J. T., Becerra, D., Ward-Lasher, A., &
Androff, D. K. (2015). Latinas’ perceptions of law
enforcement: Fear of deportation, crime reporting,
and trust in the system. Affilia, 30(3), 328–340.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109915576520
Moran-Taylor, M. J. (2008). When mothers and
fathers migrate north: Caretakers, children, and
child rearing in Guatemala. Latin American Perspectives, 35(4), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0094582X08318980
Motti-Stefanidi, F., & Masten, A. S. (2017). A
resilience perspective on immigrant youth adaptation and development. In N. J. Cabrera &
B. Leyendecker (Eds.), Handbook on positive
development of minority children and youth (pp.
19–34). Springer Science+Business Media.
Nobles, J. (2013). Migration and father absence:
Shifting family structure in Mexico. Demography, 50(4), 1303–1314. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13524-012-0187-8
NRFC Quick Statistics: Immigrant Fathers. (2008).
National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse.
https://www.fatherhood.gov/library-resource/
nrfc-quick-statistics-immigrant-fathers
Parke, R. D. (2013). Future families: Diverse forms,
rich possibilities. Wiley-Blackwell.
Parreñas, R. S. (2005). Children of global migration:
Transnational families and gendered woes. Stanford University Press.
Parreñas, R. S. (2008). Transnational fathering: Gendered conflicts, distant disciplining and emotional
gaps. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,
34(7), 1057–1072.
Peter, K. B. (2010). Transnational family ties, remittance motives, and social death among Congolese
migrants: A socio-anthropological analysis.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 41(2),
225–243.
Poeze, M. (2018). Beyond breadwinning: Ghanaian
transnational fathering in the Netherlands. Journal
of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(16), 1–20.
Potocky-Tripodi, M. (2003). Refugee economic
adaptation: Theory, evidence, and implications
Journal of Family Theory & Review
for policy and practice. Journal of Social Service
Research, 30(1), 63–91.
Pribilsky, J. (2004). “Aprendemos a convivir”: Conjugal relations, co-parenting, and family life among
Ecuadorian transnational migrants in New York
and the Ecuadorian Andes. Global Networks, 4(3),
313–334.
Raval, V. V., Walker, B. L., & Daga, S. S. (2018).
Parental socialization of emotion and child functioning among Indian American families: Consideration of cultural factors and different modes of
socialization. In S. S. Chuang & C. L. Costigan
(Eds.), Parental Roles and Relationships in Immigrant Families: An International Approach (pp.
69–89). Springer International Publishing. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71399-1_5
Radford, J. (2019, June 17). Key findings about
U.S. immigrants. Pewresearch.org. https://www
.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/keyfindings-about-u-s-immigrants/
Rodriguez, A. J., & Margolin, G. (2015). Parental
incarceration, transnational migration, and military
deployment: Family process mechanisms of youth
adjustment to temporary parent absence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 18(1),
24–49.
Sameroff, A., Gutman, L. M., & Peck, S. C. (2003).
Adaptation among youth facing multiple risks:
Prospective research findings. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.),
Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the
context of childhood adversities (pp. 364–391).
Cambridge University Press.
Schmitz, P. G., & Berry, J. W. (2011). Structure
of acculturation attitudes and their relationships
with personality and psychological adaptation: A
study with immigrant and national samples in Germany. In F. Deutsch, M. Boehnke, U. Kühnen,
& K. Boehnke (Eds.), Rendering borders obsolete: Cross-cultural and cultural psychology as
an interdisciplinary, multi-method endeavor: Proceedings from the 19th International Congress of
the International Association for Cross-Cultural
Psychology. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/iaccp_
papers/80/
Smith, J., & Prior, M. (1995). Temperament and
stress resilience in school-age children: A
within-families study. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 34(2),
168–179.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583199502000-00012
Solheim, C. A., & Ballard, J. (2016). Ambiguous
loss due to separation in voluntary transnational
families. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(3),
341–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12160
Sørensen, N. N., & Vammen, I. M. (2014). Who cares?
Transnational families in debates on migration and
development. New Diversities, 16(2), 89–107.
Stott, P. (2016). How climate change affects extreme
weather events. Science, 352(6293), 1517–1518.
Transnational Fathers
Suárez-Orozco, C., Bang, H. J., & Kim, H. Y. (2011).
I felt like my heart was staying behind: Psychological implications of family separations & reunifications for immigrant youth. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 26(2), 222–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0743558410376830
Suárez-Orozco, C., Motti-Stefanidi, F., Marks, A.,
& Katsiaficas, D. (2018). An integrative risk and
resilience model for understanding the adaptation
of immigrant-origin children and youth. American Psychologist, 73(6), 781–796. https://doi.org/
10.1037/amp0000265
Suárez-Orozco, C., Todorova, I. L. G., & Louie, J.
(2002). Making up for lost time: The experience
of separation and reunification among immigrant
families. Family Process, 41(4), 625–643. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.00625.x
Tabor, A. S., Milfont, T. L., & Ward, C. (2015).
The migrant personality revisited: Individual differences and international mobility intentions. New
Zealand Journal of Psychology, 44(2), 89.
Telzer, E. H. (2011). Expanding the acculturation
gap–distress model: An integrative review of
research. Human Development, 53(6), 313–340.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000322476
Teo, A. R., Choi, H., & Valenstein, M. (2013). Social
relationships and depression: Ten-year follow-up
from a nationally representative study. PloS One,
8(4), e62396.
Underwood, M. K., Ehrenreich, S. E., More, D., Solis,
J. S., & Brinkley, D. Y. (2015). The BlackBerry
project: The hidden world of adolescents’ text
messaging and relations with internalizing symptoms. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(1),
101–117.
Underwood, M. K., Rosen, L. H., More, D., Ehrenreich, S. E., & Gentsch, J. K. (2012). The BlackBerry
17
project: Capturing the content of adolescents’ text
messaging. Developmental Psychology, 48(2),
295–302.
van Eldik, W. M., de Haan, A. D., Parry, L. Q.,
Davies, P. T., Luijk, M. P. C. M., Arends, L. R., &
Prinzie, P. (2020). The interparental relationship:
Meta-analytic associations with children’s maladjustment and responses to interparental conflict.
Psychological Bulletin, 146(7), 553–594. https://
doi.org/10.1037/bul0000233
Wilding, R. (2006). “Virtual” intimacies? Families
communicating across transnational contexts.
Global Networks, 6(2), 125–142.
Wolff, F. C. (2019). First-generation immigrant transfers and mobility intentions: Longitudinal evidence from France. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(10), 1813–1831.
Worby, P. A., & Organista, K. C. (2007). Alcohol use
and problem drinking among male Mexican and
Central American im/migrant laborers: A review
of the literature. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 29(4), 413–455.
Yu, J., Cheah, C. S. L., & Calvin, G. (2016). Acculturation, psychological adjustment, and parenting
styles of Chinese immigrant mothers in the United
States. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(4), 504–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/
cdp0000091
Zong, J., Batalova, J., & Burrows, M. (2019,
March 11). Frequently Requested Statistics on
Immigrants and Immigration in the United States.
Migrationpolicy.org. https://www.migrationpolicy.
org/article/frequently-requested-statisticsimmigrants-and-immigration-united-states-7