THE COPARENTAL POST-DIVORCE SYSTEM AND CHILD ANXIETY: PROTECTIVE AND VULNERABILITY FACTORS

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26758/16.1.34

(1) Department of Psychology, “Ion Creanga” State Pedagogical University of Chisinau, Republic of Moldova; e-mail: sanduleac.sergiu@upsc.md, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2040-4670

(2) PhD student, “Ion Creangă” State Pedagogical University of Chisinau, Doctoral School of Psychology, Republic of Moldova; e-mail: psih.magdadragomir@yahoo.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4923-3775

Address correspondence to: Antoanela-Magdalena DRAGOMIR, “Ion Creangă” State Pedagogical University of Chisinau, Republic of Moldova. Ph.: +40745034084; E-mail: psih.magdadragomir@yahoo.com

Abstract

Objectives. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between specific dimensions of post-divorce coparenting – namely coparental support, coparental undermining, and child exposure to conflict, and the level of anxiety experienced by children.

Material and methods. A quantitative correlational design was employed, involving 150 children aged 8 to 15 and their parents from post-divorce biparental families. Data were collected using the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children and the Coparenting Relationship Scale. Statistical analyses included normality testing, Spearman rank-order correlations, supplementary partial correlation analysis controlling for age and gender, and exploratory canonical correlation analysis conducted separately for maternal and paternal reports.

Results. Spearman correlation analyses revealed three statistically significant associations: a moderate negative association between child anxiety and paternal coparental undermining, a strong positive association between child anxiety and maternal reports of conflict exposure, and a very strong negative association between child anxiety and maternal coparental support. The partial correlation analysis showed that anxiety remained associated with coded emotional insecurity after controlling for age and gender. The exploratory canonical correlation analysis indicated significant multivariate associations for both paternal and maternal reports, suggesting that the relationship between coparenting and children’s emotional variables extends beyond isolated bivariate correlations.

Conclusions. The findings suggest that selected post-divorce coparenting dimensions are associated with children’s anxiety levels. However, the paternal undermining result and the very high maternal support correlation require cautious interpretation. Given the correlational design, the results should be understood as associations, not causal or predictive effects.

Keywords: coparenting relationship, child anxiety, post-divorce family dynamics, parental conflict

Suggested citation (APA):

Sanduleac, S., & Dragomir, A.-M. (2026). The coparental post-divorce system and child anxiety: Protective and vulnerability factors. Anthropological Researches and Studies, 16, 526-541. https://doi.org/10.26758/16.1.34

Introduction

Coparenting is defined as the ongoing interaction between two adults responsible for raising a child, representing a distinct subsystem from the marital or parental relationship. It plays a fundamental role in ensuring a coherent family climate, and is closely related to the child’s psycho-emotional development (McHale & Lindahl, 2011). This multidimensional framework of coparenting has also been found relevant in transitional family contexts, particularly during and after divorce. As marital relationships dissolve, the coparental subsystem often becomes the primary interface through which former partners coordinate parenting responsibilities. Understanding how this system adapts or fails to adapt has become a critical focus in family psychology.

Post-divorce Coparenting

In the post-divorce context, coparenting takes on various forms – ranging from empathetic cooperation and effective coordination to persistent conflict and mutual undermining. The studies by Van Egeren and Hawkins (2004) emphasized the need for conceptual clarification of coparenting, suggesting multiple dimensions: agreement, support, conflict, and triangulation. A relevant meta-analysis (Teubert & Pinquart, 2010) highlighted that these dimensions significantly influence child adjustment, especially in divorced families. Positive (cooperative) coparenting is associated with favorable child outcomes, whereas coparental conflict significantly increases the risk of emotional disorders.

Recent studies expand this perspective. For example, the analysis by Stolnicu and Hendrick (2022) on post-divorce coparenting dynamics in high-conflict contexts underscores the need for active renegotiation of parental responsibilities. A recent review (Akarçay-Ulutaş & Taşkıran, 2024) reveals that coparenting coping styles influence not only the family climate but also the child’s long-term emotional adjustment. Furthermore, Pellón-Elexpuru et al. (2024) confirmed the existence of distinct profiles in conflictual divorces, where parental symptomatology impacts both the intensity of conflict and the emotional socialization strategies used with the child.

The quality of the coparental relationship determines the level of perceived safety experienced by the child, thus influencing emotional development. Parental collaboration provides predictability, stability, and models of effective emotional regulation. In contrast, a hostile or inconsistent dynamic disrupts the child’s affective framework, increasing the risk of emotional dysfunctions (Emery, 2011).

Taken together, these studies indicate that post-divorce coparenting should be approached not only as a family context, but as a multidimensional relational process in which support, conflict, and undermining may have different meanings depending on the reporting parent and the child’s emotional position within the family system.

Child Anxiety and the Coparental System

Childhood anxiety has been consistently associated in the literature with the quality of the family climate, particularly with children’s exposure to persistent interparental conflict and low relational predictability. Emotional security, defined as the child’s sense of protection and stability provided by the family, is essential in preventing anxiety disorders. Positive coparental relationships, based on cooperation and support, contribute to building such security. Conversely, frequent conflicts and lack of coordination may contribute to a relational context in which children become more vulnerable to anxiety-related reactions (Cummings & Davies, 2010).

The Emotional Security Theory (Davies & Cummings, 1994) provides a relevant explanatory framework for understanding how repeated exposure to interparental conflict may be associated with children’s emotional dysregulation and internalizing symptoms. Within this perspective, the sensitization hypothesis suggests that recurrent conflict can gradually weaken the child’s sense of emotional safety, increasing vigilance toward family tensions and vulnerability to internalizing symptoms.

Recent research supports this theoretical perspective. For instance, the meta-analysis by Lei et al. (2023) demonstrated that negative family interactions, including parental conflict, are associated with children’s social anxiety, with variations based on cultural context. In another study, Pan, Q. et al. (2024) highlighted the moderating role of custody arrangements in the relationship between parental conflict and the child’s anxious and depressive symptoms. Additionally, research by Yu and Xiao (2021) supports the hypothesis that functional coparenting may buffer the effects of parental stress on actual parenting behavior.

The mechanisms of sensitization include: (1) increased emotional and physiological reactivity, (2) heightened vigilance to conflict, and (3) adverse effects on psychological development. Frequent conflict exposure leads to reactions such as withdrawal, intense fear, or persistent restlessness. These emotional manifestations are consistent with normative and pathological anxiety patterns observed in children (Muris, 2007; Silverman & Field, 2011).

Protective and Vulnerability Factors

Recent studies emphasize the role of contextual and relational factors in explaining why some children remain emotionally resilient in post-divorce family contexts, while others become more vulnerable to anxiety-related difficulties. For example, Pan, B. et al., (2024) demonstrated that the perception of parental competence, together with coparenting quality, is associated with children’s problematic behaviors. Additionally, the study by Cost et al. (2023) suggests that parenting practices, including coparental ones, may be related to children’s long-term mental health, highlighting the protective role of predictable and coherent family relationships.

The relevance of contextual and cultural interpretation is also supported by research conducted on Romanian family functioning using the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems. Rada and Olson (2016), applying FACES III to a large Romanian sample, showed that family cohesion and flexibility may have culturally specific meanings and that extreme scores should not automatically be interpreted as indicators of dysfunction. Their findings suggest that standardized family assessment tools should be complemented by interviews and contextual analysis, especially when evaluating emotional closeness, rigidity, adaptability, and family support. This perspective is relevant for the present study, as post-divorce coparenting behaviors may acquire different meanings depending on the broader cultural model of family functioning and on the subjective perceptions of parents and children.

Similar findings regarding the importance of parental attitudes and family relational climate were emphasized in Romanian research focusing on children’s education and parental control. Rada and Manu (2015) highlighted that parental consistency, emotional availability, and balanced behavioral regulation contribute to the child’s sense of stability and psychological security, whereas inconsistent control and dysfunctional parental attitudes may increase emotional vulnerability and adjustment difficulties. These observations are relevant for understanding how post-divorce coparenting practices may influence children’s emotional regulation and anxiety-related responses.

Psychological literature indicates that not all children respond similarly to parental conflict. Psychological resilience depends on multiple individual and contextual variables. Rutter (1987) and Garmezy (1991) clearly distinguished between protective factors, such as a warm relationship with an available parent, and vulnerability factors, such as continuous undermining of parental authority. This distinction is relevant for the present study, in which coparental support, coparental undermining, and exposure to interparental conflict are examined as relational indicators of possible protection or vulnerability.

Children benefiting from a cooperative coparental relationship are more likely to develop effective emotional regulation strategies. Masten (2001) referred to this phenomenon as “ordinary magic,” emphasizing the natural power of positive relationships to protect children in difficult contexts. Conversely, children raised in conflictual environments are at heightened risk for anxiety, as a lack of parental coherence increases environmental unpredictability. Dysfunctional coparental systems, especially when both parents exhibit conflictual behavior, may amplify the risk of developing emotional disorders, particularly anxiety and attachment disturbances (Luthar et al., 2000).

The meta-analysis conducted by Teubert and Pinquart (2010) demonstrated that coparental dimensions correlate with children’s internalizing symptoms. Studies by Bögels et al. (2008) and McHale & Lindahl (2011) also confirmed that paternal undermining, discrepancies in involvement, and hostile-competitive coparenting are significant predictors of child anxiety. Recent findings suggest that even a “mixed” coparental structure (e.g., one cooperative parent and one conflictual parent) produces ambivalent effects: it may partially reduce negative impact but does not provide complete protection, leaving the child exposed to continuous emotional uncertainty (Feinberg, 2003). Thus, the coparental system represents an important relational context in which child anxiety may be amplified or mitigated through mechanisms of support, conflict, or affective coherence.

From this perspective, psychological interventions targeting both the restructuring of the coparental relationship and the support of the child’s emotional regulation are essential. Such approaches directly address the two poles shaping the child’s emotional experience: parental dynamics and individual vulnerabilities. However, in the present article, the focus is placed on a correlational segment of a broader doctoral research project, namely the associations between child anxiety, measured through the MASC total score, and three selected dimensions of post-divorce coparenting: coparental support, coparental undermining, and child exposure to interparental conflict, as reported separately by mothers and fathers.

In summary, the reviewed literature provides a coherent theoretical basis for linking post-divorce coparenting dynamics with children’s anxiety. However, these contributions should be understood as theoretical and empirical premises rather than as direct evidence for the present sample. Therefore, the current study does not aim to demonstrate causal effects, but to examine whether selected coparenting dimensions are statistically associated with children’s self-reported anxiety levels. This distinction between theoretical interpretation and empirical testing guides the methodological approach presented below.

Materials and methods

Study Design

This study employed a quantitative correlational research design to investigate the associations between specific dimensions of the coparenting relationship and the overall level of child anxiety.

Participants

The database used in the present study included valid response protocols collected from 150 children aged between 8 and 15 years (M = 11.15, SD = 2.33), all living in post-divorce coparenting contexts of up to two years. The sample consisted of 80 girls (53.3%) and 70 boys (46.7%). Both parents of each child were also included in the research, resulting in a total of 300 parent participants involved in post-divorce coparenting arrangements. The parents’ ages ranged from 27 to 45 years.

Participants were selected according to several inclusion criteria: the child’s age between 8 and 15 years, the existence of a post-divorce coparenting context not exceeding two years, and the participation of both parents in the assessment process. Children with pre-existing psychopathological diagnoses that could interfere with the interpretation of anxiety-related results were excluded from the study. The recruitment strategy was non-probabilistic and purposive, taking into account the specific characteristics required by the research objectives.

Parents completed the coparenting measures separately, while children provided self-reports regarding anxiety symptoms. Participation was based on informed consent, and the collected data were used only for scientific purposes.

Measures

Data collection was carried out using two standardized instruments: the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC; March et al., 1997), a validated tool used to assess general anxiety and its subdimensions, and the Coparenting Relationship Scale (CRS; Feinberg et al., 2012), from which three key dimensions were selected for analysis: coparental support, coparental undermining, and child exposure to interparental conflict, separately reported by mothers and fathers.

The Coparenting Relationship Scale (CRS) was used in its Romanian validated version. Previous validation research on the Romanian CRS reported good to excellent internal consistency for the six-factor structure, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .867 for Coparenting Agreement to .952 for Coparenting Support. In the present study, the CRS was used according to this validated structure, focusing on three dimensions relevant to the research objectives: coparental support, coparental undermining, and exposure to interparental conflict. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the CRS were not recalculated separately for the present sample; therefore, this aspect is acknowledged as a methodological limitation (Dumitriu et al., 2022).

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using non-parametric statistical techniques, given the lack of normal distribution confirmed by the Shapiro-Wilk test. Spearman’s rank-order correlation was employed to assess the strength and direction of associations between variables. The magnitude of correlation coefficients was interpreted using conventional effect size guidelines based on absolute values: coefficients around .10 were considered small, around .30 moderate, and .50 or higher large associations. In addition to the main Spearman correlation analyses, supplementary exploratory analyses were conducted, including partial correlation analysis and canonical correlation analysis. The canonical correlation analysis was used to examine the multivariate association between the set of child emotional variables and selected CRS dimensions reported separately by mothers and fathers. All analyses and graphical visualizations were conducted using Python libraries, including pandas, scipy.stats, statsmodels, and matplotlib.

Objectives and assumptions

The main objective of the current study was to analyze the associations between three specific dimensions of the Coparenting Relationship Scale (CRS)—coparental support, coparental undermining, and child exposure to interparental conflict—as reported separately by mothers and fathers, and the overall level of child anxiety, as measured by the total score of the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC). This objective reflects the study’s focus on identifying both risk and protective coparental behaviors in the post-divorce context.

The hypotheses formulated in the research are the following:

H1. There is a significant negative correlation between the child’s total anxiety score and the level of coparental undermining reported by the father.

H2. There is a significant positive correlation between the child’s total anxiety score and the level of interparental conflict exposure reported by the mother.

H3. There is a significant negative correlation between the child’s total anxiety score and the level of coparental support reported by the mother.

Results and discussions

Hypothesis 1. There is a significant negative correlation between the child’s total anxiety score and the level of coparental undermining reported by the father.

Table 1

Normality test coparental undermining – father (Tests of Normality) (to see Table 1, please click here)

Applying the Shapiro-Wilk test for a sample size under 200 (N = 150), the variable Coparental undermining – father does not follow a normal distribution. The Shapiro-Wilk statistic was W = .937, with a p-value of .043, which is below the .05 significance threshold. This result indicates a significant deviation from normality. Therefore, in subsequent analyses examining the relationship between this variable and child anxiety scores, the Spearman rank-order correlation will be used, as it is suitable for non-normally distributed data.

Table 2

Spearman test result for MASC and coparental undermining – father (Correlations) (to see Table 2, please click here)

Figure 1

Scatterplot illustrating the relationship between coparental undermining reported by the father and the child’s total anxiety score (MASC) (to see Figure 1, please click here)

The results of the Spearman correlation analysis revealed the existence of a statistically significant negative relationship between the level of paternal coparental undermining and the child’s anxiety score, with a correlation coefficient of −.474 and a p-value < .01, confirming the first hypothesis, which assumed a negative link between undermining coparenting dynamics and child anxiety.

Coparental undermining, as defined in the literature (Feinberg, 2003), refers to behaviors through which one parent indirectly or directly criticizes, sabotages, or dismisses the authority, role, or involvement of the other parent. This type of interaction is often perceived by the child as a sign of instability or conflict, which amplifies the child’s sense of insecurity and emotional distress (McHale & Lindahl, 2011).

In this context, the observed negative association suggests that lower levels of paternal undermining are associated with higher levels of child anxiety, a finding that may initially appear counterintuitive. However, recent studies emphasize that in some family configurations—especially in high-conflict divorced families—reduced visible undermining may coincide with avoidance patterns or disengagement, which may create a false perception of harmony while leaving the child exposed to unresolved emotional tension or loyalty conflicts (Van Egeren & Hawkins, 2004). Thus, the reduction in explicit coparental undermining may not always equate to functional coparenting or improved emotional climate from the child’s perspective.

Moreover, when the father withdraws from active participation or avoids confrontation to reduce conflict, the child may interpret this absence as abandonment or emotional unavailability, leading to heightened anxiety symptoms. These dynamics are particularly relevant in families where the mother remains the primary caregiver, and the father’s reduced involvement is misinterpreted by the child as rejection or lack of concern (Teubert & Pinquart, 2010).

Several longitudinal studies (e.g., Davies & Cummings, 1994; Gerard et al., 2006) have demonstrated that coparental behaviors significantly influence children’s regulatory capacities, emotional security, and internalizing symptoms, including anxiety. Our findings align with this research, suggesting that paternal behaviors within the coparenting subsystem, even when less overtly conflictual, may carry implicit emotional messages that children internalize, thereby influencing their psychological adjustment.

These results support the idea that coparental functioning should be interpreted within the broader emotional and relational family context, rather than in isolation. Interventions aimed at reducing anxiety in children of separated parents may benefit not only from promoting supportive coparenting interactions but also from clarifying the child’s perceptions of parental roles, involvement, and emotional availability.

Hypothesis 2. There is a significant positive correlation between the child’s total anxiety score and the level of interparental conflict exposure reported by the mother.

Table 3

Normality test for the variable Conflict exposure – mother (Shapiro-Wilk Test) (to see Table 3, please click here)

Applying the Shapiro-Wilk test for the variable Conflict exposure – mother on a sample of 150 participants yielded a W statistic of .957 and a p-value of .037. Since the p-value is below the standard .05 significance threshold, we conclude that the distribution significantly deviates from normality. Therefore, non-parametric analyses, such as the Spearman rank-order correlation, are appropriate for further investigation.

Table 4

Spearman test result for MASC total and Conflict exposure – mother (Correlations) (to see Table 4, please click here)

Figure 2

 Scatterplot illustrating the relationship between Conflict exposure reported by the mother and the child’s total anxiety score (MASC) (to see Figure 2, please click here)

The test results confirm the hypothesis that there is a strong positive correlation between the two variables, with a Spearman correlation coefficient of ρ = .721 and a p-value < .001. This result supports the assumption that a higher level of maternal perception of the child’s exposure to conflict is associated with a higher level of anxiety symptoms in the child.

From a theoretical standpoint, exposure to interparental conflict is consistently cited in the literature as a key environmental stressor influencing child adjustment (Cummings & Davies, 2010). When parents report frequent or intense conflict in front of their children, even indirectly, it contributes to the child’s internalization of family instability, generating emotional insecurity and psychological distress (Davies & Cummings, 1994).

In this context, maternal perception of the child’s exposure to conflict is particularly relevant, as mothers are often the primary caregivers and interpreters of emotional climate within the home. Their subjective assessment reflects both the frequency of conflict episodes and their impact on the child’s emotional state. The observed strong positive correlation (ρ = .721) suggests that children whose mothers perceive them as frequently exposed to conflict are significantly more likely to exhibit anxiety symptoms, aligning with the emotional security theory (Davies, Winter, & Cicchetti, 2006).

This association may also be explained by the child’s heightened sensitivity to relational cues, particularly in cases where conflict is persistent and unresolved (Akarçay-Ulutaş & Taşkıran, 2024). Repeated exposure to such dynamics can impair the development of effective emotion regulation strategies, leading to hypervigilance, separation anxiety, or generalized worry (Kerig, 1998).

Supporting evidence comes from longitudinal studies showing that children exposed to interparental conflict over time are at higher risk for internalizing disorders, including clinical anxiety (Gerard, Krishnakumar, & Buehler, 2006). The present findings are consistent with these results and underscore the importance of addressing perceived conflict exposure as part of therapeutic interventions aimed at reducing anxiety symptoms in children (Stolnicu & Hendrick, 2022).

In conclusion, the strong and statistically significant correlation between maternal ratings of interparental conflict exposure and child anxiety symptoms supports the second hypothesis. These findings emphasize the need to include parental perceptions in clinical assessments and interventions targeting child emotional well-being in high-conflict family contexts.

Hypothesis 3. There is a significant negative correlation between the child’s total anxiety score and the level of coparental support reported by the mother.

Table 5

Normality test for the variable Coparental support – mother (Test of normality) (to see Table 5, please click here)

The Shapiro-Wilk test was applied to assess the normality of the variable Coparental Support – mother in a sample of 150 participants. The test yielded a W statistic of .972 and a significance level of p = .032. Since the p-value is below the conventional threshold of .05, the result indicates a statistically significant deviation from a normal distribution.
Therefore, the distribution of scores for maternal coparental support does not meet the assumption of normality. As a result, non-parametric statistical methods, such as Spearman’s rank-order correlation, are appropriate for further analysis involving this variable.

Table 6

Spearman test result for MASC total and Coparental Support – mother (Correlations) (to see Table 6, please click here)

Figure 3

 Scatterplot illustrating the relationship between Coparental support reported by the mother and the child’s total anxiety score (MASC) (to see Figure 3, please click here)

The results of the Spearman correlation analysis indicate a strong and statistically significant negative relationship between the total child anxiety score (MASC total) and the level of coparental support reported by the mother, with a correlation coefficient of ρ = -.950 and a p-value < .01. This confirms Hypothesis 3, which postulates that higher levels of maternal coparental support are associated with lower levels of anxiety in children.

Coparental support refers to the extent to which one parent perceives the other as a cooperative, respectful, and communicative co-participant in the parenting process (Feinberg, 2003). When mothers perceive higher levels of support from their coparent—expressed through shared decision-making, emotional backing, mutual trust, and consistency in parenting practices—the family environment tends to be more cohesive and emotionally stable.

From the child’s perspective, this coparental alliance is a critical source of emotional security. According to the Emotional Security Theory (Davies & Cummings, 1994), children derive their sense of safety and predictability from the quality of interparental interactions. When parents demonstrate support and unity, children feel less caught in the middle of conflicts, less pressured to align with one parent, and more confident in their relational environment. This sense of stability and containment acts as a protective factor against the development of internalizing symptoms, particularly anxiety.

The current finding aligns with previous research indicating that supportive coparenting is negatively correlated with child anxiety symptoms and positively associated with adaptive emotional regulation (McHale & Lindahl, 2011; Teubert & Pinquart, 2010). In contrast, dysfunctional coparenting, marked by undermining, hostility, or disengagement, can compromise a child’s emotional development and increase their vulnerability to psychological distress.

Moreover, maternal perceptions of the coparental relationship are particularly influential in families where the mother is the primary caregiver. In such settings, the mother’s stress, sense of being supported, and emotional availability are directly mirrored in the child’s emotional state (Van Egeren & Hawkins, 2004). When mothers feel supported by their coparent, they are more likely to exhibit warmth, patience, and responsive caregiving, factors consistently linked to lower anxiety levels in children.

Supplementary partial correlation analysis

In addition to the main Spearman correlation analyses, a supplementary partial correlation analysis was conducted to control for the potential influence of age and gender.

A partial correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between child anxiety and the coded levels of emotional security/insecurity, while controlling for age and gender. The results indicated a statistically significant positive association, r = .273, p = .001. Considering the coding of the variable, this result suggests that higher anxiety levels were associated with higher levels of emotional insecurity, even after controlling for age and gender.

Supplementary canonical correlation analysis

To further examine the multivariate pattern of associations between children’s emotional variables and selected coparenting dimensions, an exploratory canonical correlation analysis was conducted separately for maternal and paternal reports. This analysis was not intended to establish causal or predictive effects, but to determine whether the relationships identified through bivariate correlations were also reflected at a multivariate level.

For paternal reports, the first canonical function was statistically significant, with a canonical correlation of Rc = .529, Wilks’ λ = .668, F(6, 290) = 10.797, p < .001. This result indicates a moderate multivariate association between the set of child emotional variables and the selected paternal CRS dimensions.

For maternal reports, the first canonical function was also statistically significant, with a canonical correlation of Rc = .570, Wilks’ λ = .543, F(6, 290) = 17.288, p < .001. This finding suggests a slightly stronger multivariate association between children’s emotional variables and selected maternal CRS dimensions.

Table 7

Canonical correlation analysis for maternal and paternal reports (to see Table 7, please click here)

As shown in Table 7, both maternal and paternal reports yielded statistically significant canonical functions. The maternal report showed a slightly higher canonical correlation than the paternal report, suggesting that maternal perceptions of coparenting may be more strongly associated with the child emotional variables included in the model. Nevertheless, the difference should be interpreted cautiously, as the analysis remains exploratory and does not establish causality.

The present findings are consistent with previous longitudinal and empirical research indicating that coparental dynamics are relevant for children’s emotional adjustment. For example, Gerard et al. (2006) showed that coparental processes may be linked to children’s mental health outcomes beyond the effects of general parenting practices or marital satisfaction. Similarly, recent research suggests that coparental support may function as a relational resource by contributing to consistency, emotional predictability, and reduced exposure to family tensions (Pellón-Elexpuru et al., 2024).

In the present study, maternal coparental support was strongly and negatively associated with child anxiety, while maternal-reported exposure to interparental conflict was positively associated with anxiety levels. However, these results should not be interpreted as evidence that maternal support directly reduces anxiety or that conflict directly causes anxiety. Rather, they indicate that children’s anxiety is statistically related to specific dimensions of the post-divorce coparental relationship.

Overall, the supplementary partial and canonical correlation analyses support the interpretation that the relationship between post-divorce coparenting and child anxiety is not limited to isolated bivariate associations, but can also be observed within a broader multivariate relational pattern. Nevertheless, the cross-sectional and correlational design requires caution, and further longitudinal or mediation-based studies are needed to clarify directionality and underlying mechanisms.

Conclusions

This study provides empirical support for the association between selected dimensions of post-divorce coparenting and anxiety levels in children. By analyzing three dimensions of the Coparenting Relationship Scale (CRS)—coparental support, coparental undermining, and child exposure to interparental conflict, reported separately by mothers and fathers—in relation to child anxiety measured through the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC), the research contributes to a more differentiated understanding of coparental dynamics in post-divorce family contexts.

The results showed that maternal coparental support was strongly and negatively associated with child anxiety, while maternal-reported exposure to interparental conflict was positively associated with anxiety levels. These findings suggest that maternal perceptions of support and conflict exposure represent relevant relational indicators for understanding children’s emotional adjustment after parental separation. At the same time, the very high negative correlation observed between maternal coparental support and child anxiety (ρ = -.950) requires cautious interpretation, as it may reflect not only a strong relational pattern, but also possible response bias, shared method variance, collinearity, or partial conceptual overlap between the constructs investigated.

The analysis also revealed a statistically significant negative association between paternal coparental undermining and child anxiety. Although this result supports the existence of a relationship between the variables, its direction is counterintuitive and should not be interpreted as evidence of a protective effect. It may reflect specific post-divorce family dynamics, parental reporting patterns, paternal emotional disengagement, or other contextual variables not controlled in the present study. Therefore, paternal coparental undermining should be interpreted within the broader emotional and relational family context, rather than as an isolated explanatory factor.

The supplementary analyses provided additional information regarding the multivariate pattern of associations. The partial correlation analysis showed that higher anxiety levels were associated with higher coded levels of emotional insecurity, even after controlling for age and gender. In addition, the exploratory canonical correlation analysis indicated that the association between post-divorce coparenting and children’s emotional variables is not limited to isolated bivariate correlations, but can also be observed within a broader multivariate relational pattern. Nevertheless, these analyses remain correlational and do not establish causal or predictive effects.

From a practical perspective, the findings highlight the importance of assessing coparental support, exposure to interparental conflict, and maternal and paternal perceptions separately in psychological counseling, family mediation, and post-divorce intervention programs. Such programs may consider addressing coparental cooperation, children’s exposure to parental conflict, and children’s emotional regulation in contexts of family transition.

Several methodological limitations should be acknowledged. The cross-sectional and correlational design does not allow causal, predictive, or directional conclusions. Socioeconomic status was not systematically assessed, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the CRS subscales were not recalculated separately for the present sample, although the scale was used in its previously validated Romanian version. Future research should include longitudinal designs, multi-informant assessment, sample-specific reliability analyses, and more complex statistical models in order to clarify the mechanisms linking post-divorce coparenting, child anxiety, and emotional security.

Competing interests

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relation-ships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Ethics Committee Approval

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of scientific research and approved by the Ethics Committee of the “Ion Creangă” State Pedagogical University of Chișinău, Republic of Moldova. Certificate no. 13/30-06-2025

Consent to participate

Informed written consent was obtained from each participant at the time of recruitment. The subjects were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any stage, and they were assured of confidentiality.

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on cooperation in the framework of the EU COST Action Behavioral Next Generation in Wireless Networks for Cyber Security (BEiNG-WISE, 2023-2027, CA 22104) and on research carried out in the project Strategies for ensuring psychological security in the education system, (SSPSE, funded by the Moldovan Ministry of Education and Research, grant number 040113 (Lead by Sanduleac Sergiu).

References

1. Akarçay-Ulutaş, D., & Taşkıran, M. (2024). Is co-parenting possible after divorce?: A scoping review of the effects on children. İmgelem, 15, 27–60. https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1491998
2. Bögels, S. M., Bamelis, L., & van der Bruggen, C. (2008). Parental rearing as a function of parent’s own, partner’s, and child’s anxiety status: Fathers make the difference. Cognition and Emotion, 22(3), 522–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930801886706
3. Cost, K. T., Mudiyanselage, P., Unternaehrer, E., Korczak, D. J., Crosbie, J., Anagnostou, E., Monga, S., Kelley, E., Schachar, R., Maguire, J. L., Arnold, P., Burton, C. L., Georgiades, S., Nicolson, R., Birken, C. S., & Charach, A. (2023). The role of parenting practices in parent and child mental health over time. BJPsych Open, 9(5), e147. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2023.529
4. Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2010). Marital conflict and children: An emotional security perspective. Guilford Press.
5. Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 387–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.387
6. Davies, P. T., Winter, M. A., & Cicchetti, D. (2006). The implications of emotional security theory for understanding and treating childhood psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 18(3), 707–735. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579406060354
7. Dumitriu, C. G., Dudu, A., & Butac, L. M. (2022). Validation of the Romanian version of the Coparenting Relationship Scale. International Research Journal of Public and Environmental Health, 9(1), 24–34. https://journalissues.org/wp-archive/ibme/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2022/02/Dumitriu-et-al-1.pdf
8. Emery, R. E. (2011). Renegotiating family relationships: Divorce, child custody, and mediation (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
9. Feinberg, M. E. (2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research and intervention. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3(2), 95–131. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327922PAR0302_01
10. Feinberg, M. E., Brown, L. D., & Kan, M. L. (2012). A multi-domain self-report measure of coparenting. Parenting: Science and Practice, 12(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.638870
11. Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34(4), 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764291034004003
12. Gerard, J. M., Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2006). Marital conflict, parent-child relations, and youth maladjustment: A longitudinal investigation of spillover effects. Journal of Family Issues, 27(7), 951–975. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X05286020
13. Kerig, P. K. (1998). Moderators and mediators of the effects of interparental conflict on children’s adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(3), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022672201957
14. Lei, Y., Wang, Y.-Y., Wan, J.-M., Patel, C., & Li, H. (2023). Association between negative parent-related family interactions and child social anxiety: A cross-cultural systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 99, 102771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102771
15. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00164
16. March, J. S., Parker, J. D., Sullivan, K., Stallings, P., & Conners, C. K. (1997). The Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC): Factor structure, reliability, and validity. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(4), 554–565. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199704000-00019
17. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227
18. McHale, J. P., & Lindahl, K. M. (Eds.). (2011). Coparenting: A conceptual and clinical examination of family systems. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12328-000
19. Muris, P. (2007). Normal and abnormal fear and anxiety in children and adolescents. Elsevier.
20. Pan, B., Wang, Y., Zhao, C., Miao, J., Gong, Y., Xiao, B., & Li, Y. (2024). Co-parenting, parental competence and problem behaviours in children: Examining differential parental roles. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, 1283. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03774-z
21. Pan, Q., Xiang, X., & Zhou, Y. (2024). Parental conflict and children’s depressive and anxiety symptoms: Examining moderating role of custody arrangements. Journal of Child and Family Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-024-02764-2
22. Pellón-Elexpuru, I., Martínez-Pampliega, A., & Cormenzana, S. (2024). Physical and psychological symptomatology, co-parenting, and emotion socialization in high-conflict divorces: A profile analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 21(9), 1156. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21091156
23. Rada, C., & Manu, B. (2015). Children’s education and control of children by parents: Attitudes, behaviors. In C. Rada & C. Bistriceanu Pantelimon (Coords.), Challenges of the contemporary family: Psycho-socio-medical perspectives (pp. 176–192). Editura Universitară. https://www.editurauniversitara.ro/psihologie-6/provocari-ale-familiei-contemporane-perspective-psiho-socio-medicale.html
24. Rada, C., & Olson, D. H. (2016). Circumplex model of marital and family systems (FACES III) in Romania. Annuaire Roumain d’Anthropologie, 53, 11–29. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1__f53wpiCizv2PDu8DimaArHwNPUyeM0/view.
25. Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(3), 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x
26. Silverman, W. K., & Field, A. P. (2011). Anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: Research, assessment and intervention. Cambridge University Press. https://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/00033696.pdf
27. Stolnicu, A., & Hendrick, S. (2022). Healing the separation in high-conflict post-divorce co-parenting. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 913447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.913447
28. Teubert, D., & Pinquart, M. (2010). The association between coparenting and child adjustment: A meta-analysis. Parenting: Science and Practice, 10(4), 286–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2010.492040
29. Van Egeren, L. A., & Hawkins, D. P. (2004). Coming to terms with coparenting: Implications of definition and measurement. Journal of Adult Development, 11(3), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADE.0000035625.74672.0b
30. Yu, Y., & Xiao, Y. (2021). Coparenting Alleviated the Effect of Psychological Distress on Parental Psychological Flexibility. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 646380. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.646380