Welcome to the WAIMH Perspectives in Infant Mental Health August 2026 Special Issue: Integrating Fathers into IMH Care: A Paradigm Change on the Horizon.
Re-centering Fathers in Infant Mental Health: From Inclusion to Transformation
Fathers are increasingly recognised as important contributors to infants’ development, wellbeing and early relationships. Yet across infant and early childhood mental health (IECMH) research, policy and practice, they often remain peripheral. The papers brought together in this issue challenge this persistent gap. Collectively, they suggest that the problem is not primarily fathers’ willingness or capacity to engage, but systems historically designed around the mother–infant dyad that continue to position fathers as partners, providers or supporters rather than parents and attachment figures in their own right.
This distinction is important. If fathers are understood as secondary to the mother–infant relationship, their involvement becomes something to be encouraged when circumstances permit. If they are understood as integral to infants’ relational environments, their inclusion becomes a core component of good infant mental health practice. The papers in this issue make a compelling case for the latter.
From Inclusion to Expectation
Kieran Anders’ discussion of Dad Matters illustrates the scale of the opportunity. Fathers are frequently engaged late, indirectly or not at all because of the way services are designed and delivered. National and local evidence demonstrates both substantial paternal need and the potential benefits of targeted, relational approaches. Pregnancy represents a particularly important opportunity to engage fathers, when the transition to parenthood may create openness to reflection and change.
Shaligram, Zeshan, Harrison and colleagues make a similar case from a broader clinical and policy perspective. Paternal involvement can contribute to infant development, co-regulation, maternal wellbeing and family resilience, yet cultural expectations and structural arrangements continue to constrain fathers’ involvement. Father involvement therefore needs to move from being an exception to an expectation.
Challenging Assumptions about Fatherhood
Several contributions demonstrate that there is no single way of being a father. Harleen Hutchinson highlights how Western, individualistic assumptions about caregiving can obscure culturally embedded expressions of fatherhood. Fathers may communicate care in ways that are not immediately recognised by professionals, particularly within child protection and other systems where assumptions about parenting can have significant consequences.
The Kenyan contribution by Merab Akinyi Aggrey, Vespus Chenja Sanguli and Harleen Hutchinson similarly demonstrates the importance of understanding fatherhood within its cultural and historical context. Their case study illustrates how colonial legacies can contribute to constructions of fathers primarily as providers rather than relational caregivers. Reflective supervision provides a space in which clinicians can examine these assumptions, integrate cultural knowledge and support fathers’ identities as caregivers.
These papers highlight that the inclusion of fathers cannot simply mean adding fathers to existing models of practice. It requires professionals to examine the assumptions embedded within those models: What does a “good father” look like? How is paternal care expressed? Whose knowledge and cultural expectations determine whether a father is perceived as engaged?
Fathers, Vulnerability and Complexity
Neither should father inclusion be reduced to increasing paternal participation. Katia Poliheszko’s exploration of fathers with disabilities illustrates how fatherhood is shaped by relational, social, institutional and temporal conditions. Fathers may experience pressure to demonstrate their legitimacy or encounter barriers that restrict their opportunities to occupy a paternal role.
Ruth Dudman’s systematic review of fathers in the context of maternal perinatal severe mental illness similarly identifies substantial paternal distress, role strain and unmet support needs. Yet the father–infant relationship remains relatively underexplored, with interventions tending to focus on psychoeducation or psychosocial support rather than relational outcomes.
Together, these contributions emphasise that fathers are not simply resources for mothers or infants. Their own wellbeing, relationships and experiences are relevant to infant mental health and to the wider relational ecology in which infants develop.
Creating Father-Inclusive Spaces
Other contributions show how these principles can be translated into practice. James P. McHale, Miri Keren and Russia Collins describe organisational efforts to move from dyadic to triadic, coparenting-oriented models. Their experience illustrates the practical challenges of this transition and the importance of institutional commitment, culturally attuned outreach and approaches that engage the whole family.
Justin S. Harty and Lela Rankin offer a complementary example through the Fathers Carrying Collective on Tap. Their feasibility study demonstrates the potential of locating father-focused intervention within community spaces that fathers may find accessible and socially meaningful. Differences between sites suggest that established community partnerships may be more important than the physical venue itself in facilitating engagement.
These examples demonstrate that father-inclusive practice depends not only on what services offer, but also on where, when and how they engage fathers.
Recognising Fathers’ Contribution to Infant Wellbeing
Leslie E. Katch adds another dimension by focusing directly on paternal wellbeing. Among fathers experiencing infant crying, perceptions of crying as problematic were more strongly associated with compromised wellbeing than the reported amount of crying. These findings highlight the importance of understanding fathers’ interpretations, coping strategies and co-parent relationships rather than assuming that maternal experiences can simply be extrapolated to fathers.
Peji Kwajaleine A. Romo and colleagues similarly emphasise intentional presence, reflection and development within father–child relationships. Findings from a home-visiting programme reinforce the value of relationship-based approaches that explicitly recognise fathers as participants rather than peripheral recipients of services.
Finally, Evandra Catherine, Deon Brown, Icesstrená Burleson, Tatiana Thompson and Kylie Elizabeth draw attention to the experiences of Black fathers. Their analysis challenges deficit-based interpretations of paternal disengagement and highlights structural conditions—including racism, economic marginalisation and father-excluding policies—that shape opportunities for involvement. Their call for policy reform, workforce development and accountability is an important reminder that father inclusion must also be understood through the lens of equity.
From Father-Friendly Practice to Father-Inclusive Systems
Taken together, the papers make a strong case for moving beyond father-friendly practice towards father-inclusive systems: systems in which fathers are routinely seen, actively engaged, culturally understood and supported in developing relationships with their infants. Such a shift has implications not only for fathers, but for infants, mothers and families as a whole.
The challenge now is to translate this recognition into routine practice. Fathers should no longer have to demonstrate that they belong in infant mental health services. Their place should be assumed from the beginning.
Authors
Jane Barlow,
Editor-in-Chief, WAIMH Perspectives in Infant Mental Health,
United Kingdom
