Abstract Adamsons uses two prominent meta-analyses to argue that “time (of father involvement) is a necessary but not sufficient factor” in predicting child adjustment after parental separation. Quantity of contact between nonresidential parents and their children does not, by itself, predict child adjustment or well-being. Adamsons points out the ingredients for positive child adjustment include father involvement in activities, forming quality father–child relationships, and authoritative parenting. She also notes there are instances when contact can be negative and adversely impact the child’s adjustment. Scholars and practitioners should not be surprised by these findings, which illustrate the complexity of the task of deciding what is best for children and the need for individualized determinations. Adamsons provides a cogent argument against making decisions based on “averages” and notes the need to consider moderating variables when predicting child adjustment. She easily defeats one strawman presumption argument (e.g., time does not matter), then seems to miss how that the logic of her arguments also undermines the argument for an equal time presumption. The individualized best interests of the child standard is never mentioned in her article, but it remains the approach that best fits the task and the data.

中文翻译：

---

当然，非住宅父亲参与的数量和质量很重要……作为儿童决定的每个个性化最大利益的一部分：对 Adamsons 2018 文章的评论

摘要 Adamsons 使用两个突出的荟萃分析来论证“（父亲参与的）时间是预测父母分离后儿童适应的必要但不充分的因素”。非住宿父母与其子女之间的接触数量本身并不能预测孩子的适应或幸福感。亚当森斯指出，积极的儿童适应的要素包括父亲参与活动、形成优质的父子关系以及权威的养育方式。她还指出，在某些情况下，接触可能是负面的，并对孩子的适应产生不利影响。学者和从业者不应对这些发现感到惊讶，这些发现说明了决定什么对儿童最好的任务的复杂性以及个性化决定的必要性。Adamsons 提供了一个有说服力的论据，反对基于“平均值”做出决定，并指出在预测儿童适应时需要考虑调节变量。她轻易地击败了一个稻草人推定论点（例如，时间无关紧要），然后似乎错过了她的论点的逻辑如何也破坏了相等时间推定的论点。她的文章中从未提到儿童标准的个性化最大利益，但它仍然是最适合任务和数据的方法。