A qualitative examination of the reintegration experiences of Australian Defense Force families (2024)

Challenges of reintegration

Military family reunions are times of celebration, but families also face unique challenges. Emerging evidence suggests that the increased parental stress, decreased parental responsiveness and decreased parental satisfaction associated with deployment continues after reunion (Louie & Cromer, 2014; O’Grady et al., 2018). In fact, parents report that their children generally cope less well during reintegration than deployment periods (Orthner & Rose, 2005), with emotional and behavioral difficulties enduring for up to three years post-deployment (Gewirtz et al., 2011). Broadly, the functioning of the family system and the parent-child relationships which existed prior to deployment do not simply return to the same state after a service member returns home (Riggs & Riggs, 2011). For service members and at-home parents, reintegration poses challenges associated with co-parenting, rebuilding parent-child relationships, coping with the aftermath of trauma exposure, and reestablishing routines, roles and responsibilities (DeVoe & Ross, 2012; Gewirtz et al., 2014).

Reintegration for families with young children

Military families with young children may face unique psychological and relational challenges during reintegration because of the rapid and profound development that occurs during the first five years of a child’s life (Dayton et al., 2014; Louie & Cromer, 2014). In particular, infancy and the toddler years are characterized by the development of an attachment relationship with primary caregiver/s (Bowlby, 1982). All children are born with the propensity to form an early attachment, however the caregivers and early environment are extremely important in shaping individual differences in the quality of the parent-child relationship (Van IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2019). Indeed, deployment may interfere with a young child’s opportunity to develop and maintain a secure relationship with their deployed parent during this key developmental period (Paris et al., 2010). A critical challenge for military families with young children, therefore, is reestablishing the parent-child relationship and parenting role post-deployment (Walsh et al., 2014). The challenge extends to at-home parents who must manage role shifts in the relationships with their spouse and child (Yablonsky et al., 2016). Despite children aged five years and younger being disproportionately represented in military families internationally (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 1993; Department of Defense, 2020), few independent studies have empirically examined the reintegration experiences of military families with young children.

In a longitudinal, mixed methods survey study of 57 US military families with children four years and younger, Barker and Berry (2009) found young children seemed confused and distressed by the sudden reappearance of their parent, did not seek comfort from their returned parent, had trouble sleeping alone, demonstrated intense expressions of distress, and preferred the non-deployed parent over the returning parent. Dayton et al. (2014) and Walsh et al. (2014) interviewed 14 US military fathers of children under seven years old to qualitatively investigate men’s experiences of fathering after deployment. Thematic analysis of the fathers’ accounts identified a range of post-deployment reunification challenges, including difficulties re-connecting with their child, a lack of parenting confidence, having memories and reactions from combat triggered by their child’s negative emotions, uncertainty surrounding disciplining their child, difficulties reengaging with their spouse, and struggles adapting to the family routine (Dayton et al., 2014; Walsh et al., 2014). Nicholson and DeVoe (2020) explored seven service mothers’ experiences with mothering young children (aged six years and younger) during reintegration. Notably, mothers described disrupted bonds with their children and partners after reunion and acknowledged that the stress of readjusting during reintegration affected their caregiving behavior, particularly their ability to manage their children’s emotion dysregulation.

This literature demonstrates military families with young children face specific post-deployment challenges that affect the parent-child relationship and parenting. Largely absent from the current literature, however, is the perspective of non-deployed parents’ own experience of reintegration. Non-deployed parents are in a unique position to provide perspective on the functioning of a family across time that could be helpful in informing policy and practise. Highlighting another gap in the literature, research investigating the reintegration experiences of military families with young children has only been conducted with families from the United States (US) to date. Given the potential differences in environmental influences across counties, approaches to parenting, and deployment-specific experiences, further research is now needed with military families outside of the US to compare and extend our understanding of reintegration experiences. Such research may highlight both risk and protective factors that impede or support reintegration.

Cultural context of Australian Defense Force families

The Australian Defense Force (ADF) is the military organization responsible for the defense of Australia and its national interests (Australian Government, 2021). It consists of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Army, and the Royal Australian Air Force (Australian Government, 2021). The ADF comprises over 75,000 permanent members and active reservists, with approximately 40% having dependent children (Australian Government, 2020). Of these children, four in ten are aged six years or younger (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 1993). The ADF contributes to peacekeeping and war-like operations, humanitarian missions and routine and training exercises overseas and within Australia (Australian Government, 2021). Consequently, many ADF members and their families have experienced deployments and times of separations to support these operations.

The present study

Addressing notable gaps in the literature, the current study used qualitative methodology to investigate current ADF members and non-deployed spouses’ experiences of their own and their young children’s reintegration experiences, with a focus on the parent-child relationship. The central aim was to develop a richer understanding of the post-deployment experiences of ADF families by examining multiple perspectives within a military family.

Participants and procedures

Data came from the Reintegration Experiences of ADF Families project, a survey study of the psychological and relational impacts of reintegration on ADF families with young children. The survey was, at least, partially completed by 24 service members and 108 non-deployed spouses (N = 132). Participants who responded to the open-ended prompts described below were retained for thematic analysis (N = 47). Participants were nine current ADF members and 38 non-deployed spouses of current ADF members. Sample demographics appear in Table 1 for ADF members and Table 2 for non-deployed spouses. Sample demographics mirror the demographic profile of the ADF. The majority of the ADF are males aged in the thirties who were born in Australia (Australian Government, 2020). Participants were primarily Caucasian (ADF members= 88.9%, spouses= 84.2%) and aged in their thirties (ADF members M = 38.89years, SD= 8.52; spouses M = 32.74years, SD= 3.99) with children aged, on average, 40.81months/3.4years (SD= 18.25months/1.5years). Seven of the nine ADF members were in the Australian Army. ADF members had been deployed 6.22 times on average (SD= 7.93). Spouses remained at-home while the other caregiver was deployed 4.74 times on average (SD= 6).

The study protocol was approved by the Australian Departments of Defense and Veterans’ Affairs Human Research Ethics Committee (287–20) and a university Human Research Ethics committee. Recruitment began in April 2020 and ended in December 2020. Participants were recruited through advertisem*nts on social media. Incentives were not offered for participation. Those eligible to participate were current members of the ADF who had a child aged 0–5years and who had been deployed during their child’s lifetime, and caregivers who had a child aged 0–5years and had remained at-home while the other caregiver was deployed. For the purpose of the research, deployment was defined as any period of time where a caregiver was away from their home/family because of operational duties (including war-like operations, non-warlike operations, peacetime operations, and routine and training exercises overseas and within Australia). Participants completed an online survey (approximately 45minutes). Separate surveys were used for ADF members and non-deployed spouses. Participants accessed the survey through a provided link and were presented with an information page explaining the study aims, the confidentiality and anonymity of the data collection procedures, and researcher contact information. Eligibility and consent to participate were ascertained. Information collected included demographics, parent mental health and wellbeing and child emotions and behavior data, and open-ended prompts. Participants who had more than one child aged 0–5years were asked to answer the child-related survey questions in reference to their youngest child who had experienced their parent/caregiver’s deployment. The decision to use the youngest child who had experienced their parent/caregiver’s deployment when there was more than one child aged 0–5years was to allow for follow-up where children will be required to be aged under 5years.

Open-ended prompts

The survey included open-ended prompts to obtain more descriptive information about post-deployment experiences of families. Prompts were developed in line with the aims of the current study as well as being adapted from previous research (e.g., Barker & Berry, 2009). We asked ADF members to reflect on periods of reintegration and prompted them to discuss their adaption and their child’s adaptation to their return and the challenges and eases of reintegration with their family. Similarly, we asked non-deployed spouses to reflect on periods following their spouse’s return from deployment and prompted them to discuss their adaption and their child’s adaptation and the challenges and eases of reintegration for their family. Responses were not imposed by a character or word limit. The average word count for responses was 66.33 words for ADF members (range: 31–148 words) and 179.29 words for non-deployed parents (range: 58–1472 words).

Researcher positionality

The authors of this study are mental health clinicians and academic researchers. The authors specialize in developmental and clinical psychology, parent-child interactions, and attachment. The current research was not conducted in collaboration or affiliation with the Australian Departments of Defense and Veterans’ Affairs (DDVA) or the ADF. At the time of writing, the authors were not members of or associated with the ADF. The third author has lived experiences of being a member of an ADF family. All authors have had vicarious personal experiences through friends, colleagues, and supervisees who have or have had experiences as an ADF member or family. As a result, we recognize that there may be themes we did not identify, or that we identified differently due to a lack of direct personal experience. We hope that focusing on participant voices in this study has allowed us to illustrate, to the best of our ability, the experiences of ADF families with young children. The information expressed throughout are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the ADF or the DDVA.

Data analysis

A thematic analysis was conducted to analyze the data and generate themes from ADF families accounts of their reintegration experiences. Broadly, thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns within data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). As opposed to coding reliability and codebook approaches that involve a more structured approach to coding, we utilized the reflexive approach to thematic analysis where coding is unstructured, organic and recognized as an inherently subjective process (Braun & Clarke, 2021).

The first author followed the six recursive phases of reflexive thematic analysis conceptualized by Braun and Clarke (2006; 2019; 2021): (1) familiarization; (2) coding; (3) generating initial themes; (4) reviewing and developing themes; (5) refining, defining and naming themes; and (6) writing up. The second and fourth author collaborated with the first author in phases four and five. This process was not intended to produce any consensus on meaning, but rather to develop a richer and more nuanced interpretation of the data (Braun et al., 2019). Data from deployed parents and non-deployed parents were initially considered separately, however familiarization with the data demonstrate largely similar codes and themes across participants. Experiences of children were considered as a singular group. This is based on existing research that supports the first five years as fundamental to attachment development (Bowlby, 1982).

Theme 1: Children’s difficult reactions to reintegration

Most deployed (88.88%) and non-deployed (78.95%) parents described their child as displaying difficult reactions when being reunited with their deployed parent and throughout the reintegration phase. Difficulties reported were emotional, behavioral, and attachment-related in nature. Those most frequently reported included: clinginess; confusion at the return of their parent; not seeking comfort from the returned parent; preferring the non-deployed parents over the returned parent; failing to recognize the returned parent; regressions in sleeping and eating behavior; feeling scared about the returned parent leaving again; separation anxiety from non-deployed parent; temper tantrums; increased crying; and physical aggression. As one non-deployed parent articulated:

Our child was confused when her dad came home. She was very clingy towards both of us and had separation anxiety. Her sleep patterns and behavior changed a lot. She went from being fairly independent to needing one of us around her most of the time.

A deployed parent reported his child “was distant for some time, he knew who I was but when upset he preferred his mother to me.” Describing her child’s changed behavior, a non-deployed parent reported, “he was acting out a lot, throwing tantrums, throwing things, being more rough with both of us. He would refuse food if Dad wasn’t feeding him.”

The duration of children’s difficult reactions to reintegration were described by deployed and non-deployed parents to vary from being transient to persistent. A non-deployed parent reported their child was shy around their returned parent for approximately one hour while a deployed parent reported it took their child approximately one week to acknowledge them. Transient difficulties appeared to be related to children remembering and “warming up” to their returned parent. Persistent difficulties seemed more related to separation anxiety, clinginess, and sleep regressions. Illustrating a continued struggle, one non-deployed parent reported, “[Child] was 18months when her dad came home from his first big deployment, she’s three now and we still have to lay with her to get her to sleep and co sleep with her.”

Theme 2: Re-connecting and relinquishing relationships

As highlighted by many deployed and non-deployed parents, young children had to reestablish their relationship with their deployed parent during reintegration. Implications for the relationship between the non-deployed parent and child and between both parents as partners were also frequently articulated. This theme was represented in the responses of 66.66% and 68.42% of deployed and non-deployed parents respectively.

Both groups of parents identified the need for the deployed parent to re-connect with their child and redevelop the bond they had before the period of separation. One deployed parent equated this experience to “kind of starting again each time.” A non-deployed parent with multiple young children highlighted the increased difficulties for deployed parents who are trying to re-build relationships with multiple children, reporting a major challenge was “establishing a bond between [child] and [deployed parent], while sister (who was three at the time) tried to also re-establish her connection.”

The rapid growth of development of young children and children’s difficult reactions to reintegration were acknowledged by non-deployed parents as making it particularly challenging to re-develop the deployed parent-child relationship: “Child being so young changes so much over the course of a few weeks so [deployed parent] has to ‘relearn’ him and all the new things he can do.,” “Extremely hard for my child to bond with his father. He was scared of him and very distant.,” “The children had grown and their expectations and routines had changed yet dad had missed all of this and had to adjust and learn all the changes.” Both parent groups also expressed a sense of mourning related to the deployed parent missing periods of their child’s development. As one deployed parent explained, “My daughter was no longer the 4-month-old ‘koala’ that loved cuddles with dad when I left.” A non-deployed parent articulated:

We had only just had a baby when [deployed parent] left … He went away when she was 9 weeks old and came back when she was 9 months old … He didn’t get to know her well and missed out on 6 months of her life. He didn’t know how to take care of her and it was like he didn’t know her at all.

The time it took for the deployed parent-child relationship to rebuild was also discussed by both parent groups. Several non-deployed parents highlighted it took several months for their child’s relationship with their deployed parent to repair. One deployed parent reported he continues to feel like there is “a bit of a wedge between myself and oldest [child].” Many non-deployed parents expressed that their strong parent-child relationship that had developed while the deployed partner was away, felt threatened when they returned. One non-deployed parent reported that she was reluctant to share and did not know how to share her child with the deployed parent. Feeling “pushed aside” and “discarded” by their children upon the return of the deployed parent were common emotions identified by non-deployed parents. Several non-deployed parents also noticed a shift in their parenting role within their parent-child relationship after the return of the deployed parent. They reported feeling like the “bad guy” or “fun police” because they had to maintain rules, discipline, and boundaries that the deployed parent was unaware of, which had negative repercussions for the relationship with their child. As one non-deployed parent put it, “I’m always the ‘mean’ parent.”

Finally, the need to rebuild the intimate partner relationship was discussed by some deployed and non-deployed parents. Several non-deployed parents reported feeling resentful toward their partner during reintegration. As one parent explained, “I was very resentful as I found solo parenting a toddler as a working mum with no family support incredibly distressing.” The need to get their “groove” back as a couple during reintegration was emphasized. Overall, this theme is summarized succinctly by one non-deployed parent who reported, “the relationships had all changed so much and we had to learn how to be a couple and a family again.”

Theme 3: Assimilating and adjusting to an ever-changing family system

Deployed (77.77%) and non-deployed (71.05%) parents frequently reported that it was a challenge for the deployed parent to reintegrate because the family system had adapted to function without them. Both groups of parents identified that change in household routines during deployment represented the major challenge for the deployed parent fitting back in. One non-deployed parent described how her family had changed routines so when the deployed parent returned home, he “didn’t know what we were doing.” Several deployed parents expressed that assimilating back in with their family made reintegration the most difficult phase of the deployment cycle for them. As one deployed parent put it, it is “always difficult to fit in to a family that had evolved to not need me.”

Deployed parents were not alone in their struggles. Many non-deployed parents explained that the functioning of the family system changed again with the return of the deployed parent, and they also struggled to adjust. As one non-deployed parent described, “it felt like we only just finally got a good routine in and [deployed parent] comes home and that goes right down the drain.” Non-deployed parents reported that they struggled to let go of control, to adjust to relying on another person and to share responsibilities as their family system evolved. One non-deployed parent explained, “I always find the routine change is the hardest. I get a good thing going when he’s away and when he returns, it’s hard to change back to relying on him.” Similarly, another non-deployed parent reported:

We hadn’t lived together for more than a month or two at a time in over two years and we had to figure out how to be a team again … letting go of control was scary for me as I found comfort in relying on myself to do it all.

Assimilating and adjusting to an ever-changing family system created emotional responses for deployed and non-deployed parents. Feelings of exclusion were common for deployed parents, with one deployed parent reporting he “felt completely detached from family upon return.”

Theme 4: Navigating stress and trauma in family life

Accounts of navigating stress and trauma in family life were more prevalent in the responses of non-deployed parents (36.84%) compared to deployed parents (11.11%). Non-deployed parents reported that the deployed parent was exposed to trauma during the separation from their family. Navigating exposure to and emotional reactions from trauma were a common reintegration experience for all members of a family unit. One deployed parent reported the hardest part of reintegration for him was “no one knowing what I went through.” As described by many non-deployed parents, managing the deployed parent’s emotional reactions from trauma were particularly challenging for non-deployed parents and their children: “It was hardest trying to help [deployed parent] settle back into normal life. He didn’t have a lot of motivation and was often nervous/anxious, especially in crowds.,” “[Deployed parent] was very irritable and easily triggered and angered. The kids seemed to go on living like they were walking on eggshells.,” “Reintegration [was challenging] because husband has PTSD as a result of deployment and it was hard for him to adjust.”

Trying to navigate trauma exposure in family life was an understandable source of significant stress for non-deployed parents. One parent likened the experience to “walking on a tightrope carrying everyone’s emotions on spinning plates.” She further explained that she was “stressed and worried about how [deployed parent] would be with the kids because he went through a lot” during his deployment. The sentiment of performing a challenging balancing act was shared by other non-deployed parents. One non-deployed parent reported, “It burns me out a little trying to manage all the needs of my kids and my husband [deployed parent] as well as my own needs at this time.” Similarly, another explained:

I was vigilant for any issues [deployed parent] might be having, while trying to keep routines for my child and I. I was conscious of not leaving [deployed parent] out of what we were doing, but also trying not to overwhelm him with too many activities or tasks.

Theme 5: A helping hand returns but the workload remains

This theme was prevalent in over two-thirds of the responses of non-deployed parents. Non-deployed parents often articulated that the return of the deployed parent meant a second pair of hands to help with managing a family. Some of the burdens on the non-deployed parent were reduced as the deployed parent was now able to help with cooking, cleaning and “big house jobs.” Another benefit of the return of the deployed parent was that non-deployed parents were able to complete tasks child-free. As several non-deployed parents described, the “easiest” part about reintegration “was having an extra set of hands for household tasks, being able to leave the kids with someone I trust again so that I could do things for myself” and “was that I was able to go and do the groceries and leave the kids at home. No fighting in public, no screaming kids.”

Despite the sharing of responsibilities in some areas, many non-deployed parents also recognized that the return of the deployed parent increased their workload. One non-deployed parent explained:

It was good to have extra help with things like meals and bath time and to have more flexibility with my work hours … It was frustrating to have an extra person to factor in to the daily routine and often felt like [deployed parent] was disruptive and creating extra work and mess for me to deal with.

Particularly, non-deployed parents identified that they still had to do most of the parenting tasks despite the deployed parent returning. As highlighted in the theme “children’s difficult reactions to reintegration,” children were described as not seeking assistance from their deployed parent or as preferring caregiving from the non-deployed parent, which increased the parenting demand on the non-deployed parent. One non-deployed parent explained, “[Child] was so little that when [deployed parent] returned, [child] had no idea who he was and was not willing to go to him often or for nappy changes or feeds.” Another described her children as being “stand-offish” toward their deployed parent “which meant I still had to be doing everything.”

The workload of non-deployed parents was further increased by having to act as a “parenting coach” for the deployed parent. One non-deployed parent explained, “I had to direct [deployed parent] in all aspects of caring for our child and her unique cues and needs.” The changes and development that occurred in the family unit during deployment meant another non-deployed parent had to “coach [deployed parent] on how routines have changed and parenting approaches that work or don’t work” during reintegration. Another non-deployed parent explained her child would label the deployed parent’s attempt at caregiving tasks as “wrong” leading to her having to coach them in the “correct” way. Some non-deployed parents reported struggling with trusting the deployed parent’s parenting methods.

Theme 6: Feeling grateful to be reunited but the struggles are not over

Feelings of gratefulness at being reunited combined with the recognition of continued struggles were represented in 31.58% of non-deployed parents responses. Many non-deployed parents articulated feelings of gratitude, happiness, and relief at the return of their spouse. One non-deployed spouse stated, “I loved having [deployed parent] home to talk to and the comfort of knowing he was home … I found it easier to sleep.” However, non-deployed parents also reported feeling like they were not meant to experience emotions about reintegration and their spouse’s return that were not positive. This sentiment is summarized by a non-deployed parent who stated she “felt a little bit like I wasn’t allowed to be anything but grateful [spouse] was home.” Such feelings appeared to stem from non-deployed parents experiencing a lack acknowledgment and validation for the challenges faced in reintegration. A prominent narrative in the responses of non-deployed parents was the perceived implicit message that reintegration should not be a challenging time for families because the deployed parent has returned, or that significant challenges are “normal.” As one non-deployed parent summarized, there was “no support for my husband to integrate to family and work life again … No concern given for my family’s needs after deployment by my husband’s workplace.”

Non-deployed parents highlighted a lack of support from the returned spouse’s workplace as generating and prolonging reintegration challenges for family units. One non-deployed parent reported her husband’s workplace “excused” his aggressive, violent, and controlling behavior toward her and their children post-deployment as “normal”: “[Redacted workplace support service] just prolonged the behavior saying it was normal. But it was not and he got more violent and out of control with each deployment.” She and several other non-deployed parents reported that the reintegration challenges their families faced were exaggerated when the cycle of deployment began again without adequate time for the deployed parent to settle back into family life, seemingly demonstrating the deployed parent’s workplaces’ misunderstanding of the challenges of reintegration.

No time to develop a ‘rhythm’ as a family before my husband was thrown into other work/training tasks which took him away from us again … No time for my husband to settle back into a ‘normal’ work schedule. He was thrown back into stressful work situations and had to leave on different training again after return to work after deployment, which I found very hard to deal with.

Implications for practice, policy, and future research

All phases of the deployment cycle can be stressful and challenging for families but the need for support beyond deployment is crucial. Our findings have important implications for professionals who work with military families with young children and for the research and development of interventions that target post-deployment challenges. With advances in the understanding of reintegration experiences of military families with young children, future research should focus on the development and evaluation of interventions that specifically target identified challenges. The ADF offer a range of valuable support services and programs to service members and their families to assist with navigating challenges associated with military life, including resilience-building and stress-management programs for parents and school-aged children (Australian Government, n.d.). However, these programs do not specifically target families with young preschool-aged children and therefore may not optimally address the challenges most salient for this key developmental period. Development and evaluation of interventions specifically designed for military families with young children is therefore an important area for research. Reintegration challenges associated with the rapid socio-emotional development of young children, the need to re-build parent-child relationships, and managing stress and trauma exposure indicate parental mindfulness, mentalization and emotion regulation may be important areas of focus for interventions developed for military families with young children. Indeed, research suggests that the quality of parent–child relationships can be improved by promoting parents’ ability to self-regulate, to understand and interpret their child’s behavior in terms of their mental states, and to bring a present-moment awareness to their parenting (Duncan et al., 2009; Rostad & Whitaker, 2016; Sanders & Mazzucchelli, 2013).

More generally, our findings and those of other military family studies may have value in the larger field of study concerning families with young children who experience other types of parental separation, such as incarceration and work-related absences. Family separations because of work or incarceration share many common aspects with military deployments, meaning ours and other research-based conclusions may be transferrable (O’Grady et al., 2018). As outlined by O’Grady et al. (2018), commonalities include the phases of parental separation (before, during, after) which each involve their own unique challenges, the presence of an at-home parent who has to adjust to the absence of their spouse and maintain family life, and the implications for parent-child relationships and parenting because of time spend apart. As such, the practice implications discussed above for military families with young children may also be of benefit to children and families who experience other types of separation.

Limitations

This research was the first Australian study to investigate the reintegration experiences of ADF families with young children. Qualitative exploration of multiple perspectives within ADF families allowed us to better understand the actual experiences of ADF families with young children and highlighted insights unique to non-deployed parents’ experiences. The overall sample size was reasonably large compared with similar qualitative military family studies (Louie & Cromer, 2014, n = 30; Walsh et al., 2014, n = 14). Nonetheless, there are limitations to consider in interpreting the results. Firstly, this study is limited by its survey methodology and cross-sectional design. The study relied solely on retrospective report, which may be unreliable and an incomplete view of the family’s experience. Although interviews may have yielded richer data, parents are time-poor and military personnel are presumably private. The accessibility, convenience, and anonymity of completing an online survey likely positively impacted our response rate and still allowed for rich data collection.

Secondly, the sample was demographically hom*ogenous and, like other studies of military parents (e.g., Barker & Berry, 2009; Louie & Cromer, 2014; O’Grady et al., 2018; Walsh et al., 2014), the majority of the ADF members identified as male while all non-deployed parents identified as female. The perspectives of multiple different family structures have been insufficiently studied thus far. Future research might specifically engage in targeted recruitment of deployed mothers, non-deployed fathers, and military parents in same-sex relationships, as differences in family structures may create unique and varied implications for reintegration experiences.

Finally, this sample did not allow for differentiation between the experiences of ADF families who experienced one or multiple deployments or by deployment length, service branch, operation type, income, or parent physical or psychological health status. However, the current study does provide an important foundation for the continued investigation of the reintegration experiences of military families with young children and suggests the need to support parenting to enhance the quality of parent-child relationships for both deployed and non-deployed parents during reintegration.

• Australian Government . (2020). Defence census 2019 public report (pp. 1–68). Department of Defence. https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/Defence-Census-2019-Public-Report.pdf [Google Scholar]
• Australian Government . (2021). About us. Department of Defence. https://www.defence.gov.au/about [Google Scholar]
• Australian Government . (n.d.). ADF members & families. Department of Defence. https://www.defence.gov.au/adf-members-families [Google Scholar]
• Australian Institute of Family Studies . (1993). Australian Defence Force 1991 families census public report. https://aifs.gov.au/publications/archived/3485
• Barker, L. H., & Berry, K. D. (2009). Developmental issues impacting military families with young children during single and multiple deployments. Military Medicine, 174(10), 1033–1040. 10.7205/MILMED-D-04-1108 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664–678. 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb01456.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern‐based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37–47. 10.1002/capr.12360 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2019). Thematic analysis. In Liamputtong P. (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–860). Springer. 10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Chartrand, M. M., Frank, D. A., White, L. F., & Shope, T. R. (2008). Effect of parents’ wartime deployment on the behavior of young children in military families. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 162(11), 1009. 10.1001/archpedi.162.11.1009 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Creech, S. K., Hadley, W., & Borsari, B. (2014). The impact of military deployment and reintegration on children and parenting: A systematic review. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(6), 452–464. 10.1037/a0035055 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Dayton, C. J., Walsh, T. B., Muzik, M., Erwin, M., & Rosenblum, K. L. (2014). Strong, safe, and secure: Negotiating early fathering and military service across the deployment cycle: Early fathering and military service. Infant Mental Health Journal, 35(5), 509–520. 10.1002/imhj.21465 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• De Wolff, M. S. D., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68(4), 5710591. 10.2307/1132107 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Deater-Deckard, K., & Scarr, S. (1996). Parenting stress among dual-earner mothers and fathers: Are there gender differences?Journal of Family Psychology, 10(1), 45–59. 10.1037/0893-3200.10.1.45 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Department of Defense . (2020). 2020 demographics profile of the military community. https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2020-demographics-report.pdf
• DeVoe, E. R., & Ross, A. (2012). The parenting cycle of deployment. Military Medicine, 177(2), 184–190. 10.7205/MILMED-D-11-00292 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Duncan, L. G., Coatsworth, J. D., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). A model of mindful parenting: Implications for parent–child relationships and prevention research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 12(3), 255–270. 10.1007/s10567-009-0046-3 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Evans, G. W., Boxhill, L., & Pinkava, M. (2008). Poverty and maternal responsiveness: The role of maternal stress and social resources. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(3), 232–237. 10.1177/0165025408089272 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Feldman, R., Eidelman, A. I., & Rotenberg, N. (2004). Parenting stress, infant emotion regulation, maternal sensitivity, and the cognitive development of triplets: A model for parent and child influences in a unique ecology. Child Development, 75(6), 1774–1791. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00816.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Gewirtz, A. H., Erbes, C. R., Polusny, M. A., Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2011). Helping military families through the deployment process: Strategies to support parenting. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42(1), 56–62. 10.1037/a0022345 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Gewirtz, A. H., McMorris, B. J., Hanson, S., & Davis, L. (2014). Family adjustment of deployed and nondeployed mothers in families with a parent deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(6), 465–477. 10.1037/a0036235 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Guajardo, N. R., Snyder, G., & Petersen, R. (2009). Relationships among parenting practices, parental stress, child behaviour, and children’s social-cognitive development. Infant and Child Development, 18(1), 37–60. 10.1002/icd.578 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Institute of Medicine & National Research Council . (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. The National Academies Press. 10.17226/9824 [PubMed] [CrossRef]
• Kobak, R., Little, M., Race, E., & Acosta, M. C. (2001). Attachment disruptions in seriously emotionally disturbed children: Implications for treatment. Attachment & Human Development, 3(3), 243–258. 10.1080/14616730110096861 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lester, P., & Flake, L. C. E. (2013). How wartime military service affects children and families. The Future of Children, 23(2), 121–141. 10.1353/foc.2013.0015 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Louie, A. D., & Cromer, L. D. (2014). Parent–child attachment during the deployment cycle: Impact on reintegration parenting stress. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(6), 496–503. 10.1037/a0036603 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Nicholson, J. H., & DeVoe, E. R. (2020). Thrown back: Reintegration experiences of National Guard/Reserve mothers of young children. Child & Family Social Work, 25(S1), 188–197. 10.1111/cfs.12758 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• O’Grady, A. E., Whiteman, S. D., Cardin, J., & MacDermid Wadsworth, S. M. (2018). Changes in parenting and youth adjustment across the military deployment cycle. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80(2), 569–581. 10.1111/jomf.12457 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Orthner, D., & Rose, R. (2005). SAF V survey report: Adjustment of army children to deployment separations. US Army Family and MWR Programs. https://www.vfrhub.com/article/saf-v-survey-report-adjustment-of-army-children-to-deployment-separations/ [Google Scholar]
• Paris, R., DeVoe, E. R., Ross, A. M., & Acker, M. L. (2010). When a parent goes to war: Effects of parental deployment on very young children and implications for intervention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(4), 610–618. 10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01066.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Riggs, S. A., & Riggs, D. S. (2011). Risk and resilience in military families experiencing deployment: The role of the family attachment network. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(5), 675–687. 10.1037/a0025286 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Rostad, W. L., & Whitaker, D. J. (2016). The association between reflective functioning and parent–child relationship quality. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(7), 2164–2177. 10.1007/s10826-016-0388-7 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Sanders, M. R., & Mazzucchelli, T. G. (2013). The promotion of self-regulation through parenting interventions. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 16(1), 1–17. 10.1007/s10567-013-0129-z [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Trautmann, J., Alhusen, J., & Gross, D. (2015). Impact of deployment on military families with young children: A systematic review. Nursing Outlook, 63(6), 656–679. 10.1016/j.outlook.2015.06.002 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2019). Bridges across the intergenerational transmission of attachment gap. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 31–36. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.014 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Walsh, T. B., Dayton, C. J., Erwin, M. S., Muzik, M., Busuito, A., & Rosenblum, K. L. (2014). Fathering after military deployment: Parenting challenges and goals of fathers of young children. Health & Social Work, 39(1), 35–44. 10.1093/hsw/hlu005 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Yablonsky, A. M., Barbero, E. D., & Richardson, J. W. (2016). Hard is normal: Military families’ transitions within the process of deployment. Research in Nursing & Health, 39(1), 42–56. 10.1002/nur.21701 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]