https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1828-0595
![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Mobile phones have become an essential part of modern family life. Their proliferation has been accompanied by a diverse range of apps, including apps for separated parents. Family law professionals are increasingly being asked about post-separation parenting apps by clients. Yet the empirical evidence about their potential benefits and risks is sparse. The present study draws on qualitative data from an online survey of 344 family law professionals in Australia and New Zealand about their attitudes to co-parenting apps. Three broad potential benefits of co-parenting app functions were identified: accountability, convenience and containment. Drawing on a realist evaluation framework, we find that the same app functions were identified as posing a variety of potential risks, including technology-facilitated abuse, depending on context. We argue that family law professionals need a good understanding of the potential benefits and risks of co-parenting apps, along with the contextual factors that can determine outcomes.
Acknowledgments
This research was conducted with financial support from the Australian Research Council (LP200100413), with additional support from the Australian National University Centre for Social Research & Methods, Relationships Australia Canberra & Regions and Relationships Australia Victoria. We are grateful to the family law professionals who participated in the study, and to members of the project reference group. The views expressed in this article may not reflect those of affiliated organisations involved in the research.
Disclosure statement
We do not believe we have any conflicts of interest to declare. However, during the course of our research, one of the team, Glenn Althor, moved from Relationships Australia Canberra & Regions to Relationships Australia New South Wales, which owns a post-separation app. Althor withdrew from components of the project involving app evaluation and did not conduct data analysis for this study but contributed to the writing of the paper.
Notes
1. There is considerable churn in the post-separation parenting app market: over a period of 4 years, 50% of all apps identified (n = 42) appeared on the market, while 28% disappeared or were no longer supported (Smyth et al. in press).
2. Unpublished data from the present study.
3. For example: https://mediationsaustralia.com.au/the-best-apps-for-separated-parents-in-australia/; https://shanahanfamilylaw.com.au/29-of-the-best-co-parenting-apps-for-divorced-parents/; https://www.hbplaw.com/blog/2019/07/7-co-parenting-apps/; https://www.australianfamilylawyers.com.au/information-centre/co-parenting-apps-for-divorce; each accessed 10 Aug 2022. The criteria used to develop such lists are rarely provided.
4. [176].
5. In a few cases, we corrected spelling or grammar to improve readability of quotes.
6. This question is also central to affordance theory, which considers the way in which objects (including technologies) shape actions and mediate behavioural outcomes (e.g. Davis Citation2020), and would also provide a suitable framework for the analysis presented here. Various studies adopt similar socio-material theoretical perspectives across different disciplines, including medical science and technology (e.g. Lupton Citation2014) and cultural studies (e.g. Light et al. Citation2018).
7. While detailing realist evaluation methods is beyond the scope of this paper, we refer interested readers to Pawson and Tilley’s (Citation1997) original text.
8. Of the 10 apps selected for testing as part of our broader research project (Smyth et al., in press), six allow for some sort of third-party access (including children, other family or legal professionals).
9. Practitioner accounts in Our Family Wizard are free.
10. [62].
11. [590].
12. [219].
13. [768].
14. [71].
15. [869].
16. [93].
17. [825].
18. [841].
19. [41].
20. [889].
21. [656].
22. [195].
23. [133].
24. [218].
25. [386].
26. [358].
27. [82].
28. [177].
29. [383].
30. [206].
31. Divvito offers AI-generated feedback on messages as they are composed and gives the sender the opportunity to revise. Without revision the message will send anyway, but bad words are turned into emoticons. Our Family Wizard offers a ‘ToneMeter’ which gives feedback to the author of the message when the tone of a message is detected by ‘advanced algorithm’ to be, e.g., aggressive, humiliating or upsetting. Peaceful Parent settings allow users to impose limits including ‘brief chat’ (character limits, no attachments), ‘canned chat’ (only specific terms and phrases can be used) and on how many messages can be received within given timeframes and/or at times of the day or week. MyMob (no longer supported) also has a language blocking feature.
32. [853].
33. [854].
34. [565].
35. [830].
36. [110].
37. [145].
38. [802].
39. [590].
40. [197].
41. [458].
42. [342].
43. [241].
44. [396].
45. [633].
46. [162].
47. [111].
48. [406].
49. [841].
50. [539].
51. [616].
52. [146].
53. [252].
54. e.g. WeParent invites users to ‘Manage your custody schedules, organize calendar and lists, share information, and exchange messages – all in one place’. Apple App Store, 20 Oct 2022.
55. [19].
56. [420].
57. [14].
58. [146].
59. [138].
60. [112].
61. [225].
62. [173].
63. [420].
64. [138, 834, 943].
65. [127].
66. [64].
67. [247].
68. [461].
69. [69].
70. [639].
71. [646].
72. [277].
73. [406].
74. [16].
75. [212].
76. [255].
77. [793].
78. [319].
79. [571].
80. [721].
81. [97].
82. [157].
83. [142].
84. [589].
85. [753].
86. [783].
87. [877].
88. [402].
89. [666].
90. [244].
91. [361].
92. [19]. For example, Fayr allows for ‘check-ins’ using a Geo Location Log.
93. [82].
94. [146].
95. The surreptitious installation of ‘spyware’ in the context of intimate partner violence is a known problem, see, e.g. Chatterjee et al. (Citation2018).
96. [473].
97. [277].
98. [197].
99. [273].
100. [164].
101. [501].
102. [108].
103. A small number of professionals felt that the ease of sharing information might pose risks from parties other than ex-partners; that user data may not be secure, due to the data storage arrangements of any given app, or ‘if app is compromised’ [593]. One cited the risk of ‘highly confidential, potentially … incriminating, info leaks’ [845]. Another expressed concern about the level of detail held in apps about both parents and children: ‘Parents … . start communicating about times and locations their children are, or upload children’s medical documents which could be stored anywhere in the world and [are] not secure’. [473].
104. [190].
105. [44].
106. [837].
107. [304].
108. [584].
109. [145].
110. [41].
111. [853].
112. [808].
113. [403].
114. [636].
115. [48].
116. Respondent [48] placed ‘safe space’ in inverted commas. We interpret this and most other references to safety, framed in terms of containment, as referring to psychological ‘safety’. However, depending on context, other references were interpreted in terms of safety from physical violence. A small number of professionals explicitly responded with an eye to family violence cases when explaining the value of containment. A co-parenting app was described as ‘a tool … that does not require the parties to have each other’s phone number/email/social media’ [405] and therefore ‘allows victims of DFV access a safe place to communicate’ [614].
117. [650].
118. [137].
119. [533].
120. [121].
121. [67].
122. [110].
123. [670].
124. [400].
125. [450].
126. [329].
127. [824].
128. [219].
129. [420].
130. [640].
131. [689].
132. [835].
133. [654].
134. [640].
135. [93].
136. [197].
137. [48].
138. [795].
139. [899].
140. [721].
141. [899].
142. [361].
143. [293].
144. [261].
145. [312].
146. [631].
147. A few respondents noted the potential for abuse via app functions other than messaging. For example, ‘a perpetrator of financial abuse may list unnecessary expenses in the financial part of the app to intimidate or distress their former partner’ [868].
148. [592].
149. [107].
150. [556].
151. [797].
152. [758].
153. [16].
154. [461].
155. [356].
156. [666].
157. [356].
158. [358].
159. [14].
160. In part this may also be a function of the various family law professions represented in our sample, and the client presentations typically encountered by each. It is likely that the different professions within the broader area of ‘family law’ would place varying degrees of emphasis on specific risks and benefits. In this paper, we sought to do justice to the range of themes in the full dataset, and did not disaggregate responses by profession in the course of the analysis.