Aged 16 and over Men Women

Married 54% 51%

Widowed 3% 12%

Never married 27% 19%

Divorced/separated 7% 9%

Cohabiting 9% 9%

Item C

According to NOP Solutions, 36% of British adults (and 41% of Londoners) were single at the end of the millennium. But by 2010, this figure will have risen to about 40%. Richard Scase, Professor of Organisational Behaviour at the University of Kent, attributes this trend to four phenomena:

Single status seems to be a better option for women than for men:

Males 66 48

Females 61 47

However, the idea of marriage remains popular:

A Demos survey in the mid-90s found that only one in seven 16-17 year olds believes that marriage is 'out of date', and eight in ten expect to marry. A Guardian/ICM opinion poll (telephone interviews with a random nationwide sample of 1,205 adults, results weighted in line with the proNotes of all adults, carried out in mid-February, 2000), asked a question about whether school sex education lessons should 'promote marriage as a concept' and 70% of the respondents answered 'Yes'. However, this result may well have been influenced by a good deal of 'pro-marriage, anti-gay' propaganda in the press at the time of the interviews. Interestingly, Labour voters were less enthusiastic about marriage than Conservative voters.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jack Dominion says that marriage is no longer seen as a contract based on social roles, but as an intimate relationship of love. Traditionally, each partner in a marriage had a clear and separate function: the man was the breadwinner, the head of the family, the decision-maker, the ambassador of the family to the outside world; the woman was the child bearer, the child-rearer and the person who looked after the home. Provided they fulfilled these roles and remained faithful to each other, they were considered to have a good marriage. But this model has changed over the last 100 years, dramatically so in recent decades: the man is no longer likely to be the sole breadwinner, relationships no longer operate as hierarchies (partners see each other as different but equal and communicate on an equal basis) and, with smaller families, the rearing of children takes up far less of parents’ lifespans.

Diana Gittens agrees with Dominion’s view that some of the specific content of family ideology has changed since Victorian times. Women "are now

expected to enjoy (hetero)sexual relationships" and "men are encouraged to 'help' in the home and take an active interest in their children" who are "allowed more freedom of expression." More married women are taking paid employment and this practice "is not seen as so serious a threat." Everyone

on romance and compassion. Marriage is increasingly seen

"as a loving relationship between two equal partners whose

aim is to create domestic harmony through co-operation,

and the careful and loving rearing of two or three children."

However, Gittens argues that, despite these changes,

family ideology "remains based on notions of gender, age

People are marrying later in life:

About two-thirds of women, and over 40% of men, born in 1956 were married before they were 25. Of those born in 1975, fewer than 20% of women and 10% of men were married by that age. In 1971 a third of brides were teenagers, a figure that has now fallen to under 4%. The mean average age for brides in 2000 was 30.5 years and for grooms, 34.8 years. Thirty years before, most brides were in their early twenties and most grooms were in their mid-twenties. The government's Actuary Department estimates that, among people currently aged 16-29, only 8% of men and 14% of women will be married in 2011. These are a third of the equivalent proportions found in 1981.

Year Males Females

1969 24 years 22 years

1979 24 years 23 years

1989 26 years 24 years

1999 29 years 27 years

2000 31 years 28 years

However, English parish registers in 1600 indicate that the average age for men to marry was 28 and for women 26 – very early marriage was generally confined to the upper class. So ‘late marriage’ is a thing of the past as well as the present.

Austria 26.1 Italy 26.4

Belgium 25.4 Luxembourg 26.6

Denmark 29.0 Netherlands 27.1

Eire 26.9 Portugal 24.8

Finland 27.0 Spain 26.6

France 26.9 Sweden 28.7

Germany 26.4 UK 26.1

Greece 25.7

*

Marriages between partners neither of whom have been married before are now only marginally more common than other unions:

First marriage for both partners 58%

First marriage for only one partner 23%

First marriage for neither partner 19%

*

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nearly three-quarters of couples in the UK 'live together' before marriage, compared with less than 5% in the 1960s. About a quarter of unmarried women aged 18-59 are cohabiting, up from 13% in 1986. Of all women aged 18-24, one in five is cohabiting; of all similarly-aged men, one in 10 is cohabiting. 60% of first cohabitations become marriages (a third of which dissolve within five years). Over a fifth of women have their first child while cohabiting, up from a fiftieth in 1980.

In total, there are now 1.5m cohabiting heterosexual couples in Britain – most of them in their twenties and thirties – a figure which will rise to 3m by 2021. In the next two decades, cohabitation will become much more common among the over-35s.

*

Austria no data Italy 0.1

Belgium 2.6 Luxembourg 1.6

Denmark 4.8 Netherlands no data

Eire 0.7 Portugal 0.7

Finland no data Spain 0.9

France 4.0 Sweden no data

Germany 1.1 UK 2.0

Greece 0.1

According to research conducted by two Leeds University academics, cohabiting relationships fall into two broad categories:

Some cohabitations are based on "contingent commitment". These couples have decided to "give it a go", often because she is pregnant. For these couple, "marriage . . . [is] either far too risky (mostly for the women) or far too premature (mostly for the men)". These cohabitations end for the same reasons as marriages. Women cite their partner's violence, drinking, adultery and poor parenting. Men say that their partner has changed after childbirth and that domesticity makes them feel trapped.

Other cohabiting relationships are characterised by "mutual commitment". The couple have formed a serious relationship before moving in with each other and have agreed on financial arrangements. They expect their relationship to last and don't see the need for marriage even if children come along - marriage is an "irrelevance". Unsurprisingly, these relationships tend to last longer than those based on contingency and often end because the couple have "drifted apart". Cohabitations based on mutual commitment are probably more secure than marriages based on contingency.

Smart and Stevens study was based on a small number of in-depth interviews. Only 20 men and women were questioned, which casts some doubt on the research's reliability. However, small-scale projects such as this often produces more valid findings than those which come from the superficial questioning of far bigger samples.

*

Married couples with children are less likely to split up than cohabiting parents:

A growing proportion of cohabitees don't marry even when children come along; in fact cohabitees who have children are less likely to marry than those who don't.

Although cohabitation is commonplace in the UK, some other northern European countries have far higher rates:

Analysis by Dr Kathleen Kiernan, from the London School of Economic and Political Science, published in 1999, has shown a sharp north - south divide in the rates of cohabitation in Europe. In the UK a third of couples under 30 are cohabitees; in Denmark the figure is over 70%, and in France, 50%. Cohabitation is far less common in southern European countries such as Spain. In Sweden, over a half of women have their first child in a cohabiting union, whereas in Spain the figure is under 10%. Dr Kiernan looked at European Family and Fertility Surveys which have covered 19 countries throughout western Europe.

A PSI study by Susan McRae of 166 cohabiting couples found the following reasons for the couples' failure to marry:

*

The current debate on marriage and cohabitation is taking place outside a proper historical context: there is no new thing under the sun.

According to the academic theologian, Adrian Thatcher, betrothal (a period of stable cohabitation preceding a religious ceremony) is a traditional Judaeo-Christian institution. Jesus himself was conceived when his parents were cohabiting. The Roman Catholic church didn’t make witness by a priest compulsory for marriage until 1563 and, in the 18^th century, about half of all brides in Britain and North America were pregnant when they went to the alter.

In England and Wales, a formalised wedding ceremony wasn’t a legal requirement for marriage until the passing of Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act in 1753. Prior to the Hardwicke Act, various forms of ‘common law marriage’ existed and one of them, the ‘contract marriage’ – which typically consisted of little more than a verbal agreement to live together – was a similar arrangement to many late-modern cohabitations.

The 2001 British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey found that a large majority of British adults thought that the law should treat cohabiting couples in the same way as married couples. Indeed, most of them thought that there was still such a thing as ‘common law marriage’, even though it was abolished 250 years ago, and that couples who live together have the same legal rights as married people, which they don’t.

_____________________________________________________________

At present (Summer 2002) an unmarried father does not automatically have ‘parental responsibility’. ‘Parental responsibility’ is a technical term indicating legal recognition of parents’ rights in relation to their children. All mothers have ‘parental responsibility’ (unless they have given up their children for adoption, or a court has stripped them of their responsibilities) and so do all fathers who were married to a child’s mother at the time of its birth (with the same provisos), even following divorce.

An unmarried father without a parental responsibility agreement has no right, say, to access school records or authorise medical treatment. Nor does he have an automatic right of custody of his child if its mother is no longer able to care for it following death or any other eventuality, such as illness or abandonment. This is so even if the unmarried father’s paternity is registered on his child’s birth certificate and he has lived with the child and provided for its welfare.

However, the 1989 Children Act says that a child’s interests are paramount when any relevant official action – such as awarding custody – is under consideration. So a court, or any other agency, will consider a father’s relationship with his child when reaching decisions about its future, whether or not the father is, or has been, married to the mother. But the Children Act does not guarantee that a father has ‘parental responsibility’ and a time of crisis (a mother’s illness, accident, departure, bereavement; a serious disagreement between parents over an issue affecting their child; the parents deciding to split up) is not the best time for a father to go before a court to establish that his child’s interests lie in giving him parental rights.

A private member’s Civil Partnerships Bill, introduced to parliament by Lord Lester QC in January 2002, proposes that the law should treat cohabitees, including gay couples, in the same way as married couples. If the Bill is enacted, a couple who have lived together for six months can register a ‘civil partnership’, giving each partner the right to be recognised as next of kin, the right to financial provision, a share of the home on break-up, entitlement to a survivor’s pension and exemption from inheritance tax on their partner’s estate. The Bill does not specifically mention children, but giving cohabitees equal rights implies that both would have parental responsibility for any children of the house.

More pertinent to the issue of parental responsibility is a government Adoption and Children Bill currently going through committee. It includes a clause that would automatically give parental responsibility to unmarried fathers who jointly register births with mothers. The government is also planning to reform the whole process of civil registration which should clear up the issue once and for all.

_____________________________________________________________

Despite the recent decline in marriage, things must be kept in proportion: the great majority of young children (over 70%) still live in families containing an adult couple and the UK’s current annual rate of about five weddings a year per thousand population is in line with the EU average.

Austria 2.3 Italy 0.5

Belgium 3.5 Luxembourg 1.8

Denmark 2.5 Netherlands 2.2

Eire - Portugal 1.2

Finland 2.7 Spain 0.8

France 2.0 Sweden 2.6

Germany 2.1 UK 2.9

Living apart is the most commonly given reason for a partner wanting a divorce, and adultery is not cited as often as it used to be:

1991 1998

45,500 36,000

*

Although liberalisation of the law on divorce was the most important single contributory factor in the rise in divorce in the late C20, several other social developments will have had some impact:

• The increased economic independence of many married women was one such development: US research has shown that if a wife earns more than her husband, their marriage is 50% more likely to end in divorce than if the husband has the higher income.

• The heightening of women's expectations of marriage following the feminist revolution of the late 1960s and early 1970s. (Germain Greer's The Female Eunuch was published in 1970.) Whereas most divorce petitions were once presented by men, today about three-quarters are presented by women. Many of these women re-marry, which suggests that it is not marriage that female divorcees are rejecting but inadequate husbands.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Having children makes it less likely that a marriage will break down, according to new research by Daniela Vuri of the Department of Economics at the European University Institute, Italy. Vuri analysed 6,019 British, German and American married couples over five years and her findings indicate that the presence of young children cuts the probability of divorce from 13% to 9%.

In her report, Vuri notes that many recent studies have reported a significant correlation between fertility and marital dissolution, but have left unclear whether there is a causal effect: it might be that the presence of young children in a household discourages marital dissolution; but it is also possible that another factor (or other factors) might jointly determine both family stability and fertility. For example, individuals who are less committed to family life might be more likely to divorce and less likely to have children. Similarly, religious couples might be less likely to divorce and more likely to view childbearing as an essential element of marriage. Vuri assumed that these – and other factors like age, education and earnings – would inevitably influence the correlation between fertility and marital dissolution.

So, in order to isolate the significance of fertility, Vuri created two groups from within the sample – one comprising childless couples and the other comprising couples with children – that were as closely matched as possible in terms of other characteristics. And with this control built into her analysis, she found that having children did indeed reduce the probability of a couple's marital dissolution by 4 percentage points. She extended her analysis to consider the effect of the number of young children on marital dissolution. The results here suggest that having additional children further reduces the probability of marital dissolution, but only by a small amount.

[Source: Daniela Vuri, 2001, Propensity Score Estimates of the Effect of Fertility on Marital Dissolution, presented at the British Household Panel Survey 2001 Conference at the ISER (University of Essex)]

________________________________________________________________________

Item X Marriages and divorces in Britain (1000s)

(70% of divorces are between couples in their first marriages.)

*

The trend towards more divorces each year has come to an end:

165,018 144,556 141,135

Four explanations for the increased stability of marriage are:

• People who are not temperamentally suited to long-standing fidelity form a disproportionate element among those who cohabit rather than marry, and as cohabitation becomes more popular, a higher proportion of those who marry will, therefore, be people with a strong commitment to monogamy.

*

% of marriages contracted which ended within 10 years, selected years

1951 1961 1971 1981

*

Males 40 years 42 years

Females 38 years 39 years

Nearly half of the marriages between young adults end in divorce, and marriages between former divorcees are less likely to last than average:

Claritas, a consumer information company, has found that some UK locations contain a far higher proportion of divorced and separated people than others:

Hove (Sussex) 29.1% Altrincham (Lancs) 6.3%

Barking (Essex) 26.2% Beverley (Yorks) 6.5%

Southsea (Hants) 25.9% Kingswinford (W.Mids) 8.5%

However, it’s possible that divorced/separated people gravitate towards certain locations (and away from others). The influence of (possible) intervening variables – such as age, social class and ethnicity – would also have to be considered before a correlation between location and marital instability could be established.

*

Researchers at the Centre for Research on Family Relationships at the University of Leeds have looked at how children whose birth parents live apart feel about co-parenting. They interviewed 65 children aged four to 17 who spend three to four days a week with each of their separated parents. In effect, the children are members of two families, which may be step families or lone parent families.

Most of the children approved of the set-up for a variety of reasons including wanting both parents to play an equal part in their lives and liking having ‘two of everything’. They thought the advantages cancelled out inconveniences such as travelling between houses and losing time with friends. The children who were least likely to approve of the arrangement were those whose birth parents were hostile and those who felt that they had not been properly consulted.

+

< < < < < < < < <

Bryan Rogers and Jan Pryor analysed over 200 research studies on the effects of separation and divorce on children. They found that children whose parents have split up are twice as likely:

However, they found no evidence to support certain popularly held views on the effects of divorce, such as that:

But sociologists are always cautious about apparent causal relationships such as that between family breakdown and childhood trauma. Quite often this sort of statistical relationship, or correlation, results from the presence of intervening variables. Logic suggested to Rogers and Pryor that other variables must be affecting their findings, because only a minority of children whose parents had split up seemed to have been adversely affected. Their research report stated that the following intervening variables might have contributed to the increased rate of trauma among children whose parents had split up:

• Financial hardship.

• Family conflict before, during or after the separation.

• Inability to adjust on the part of the parent with whom the child is left.

• Other changes such as the introduction of step-relatives or moving home.

• A lack of quality contact with the parent who has moved out (66% of children lose contact with one of their parents within 5 years of a divorce).

The possibility that it might be a child’s experience of family conflict – one of the intervening variables suggested by Rogers and Pryor – which causes childhood trauma, rather than parental divorce/separation, more than any other factor bedevils research on this topic. For it’s highly likely that the children of couples who subsequently divorce will have experienced more than their shares of family quarrels prior to their parents’ splitting up.

Unfortunately, the only way of testing the relative impacts on children of parental separation and parental disharmony would be to persuade 50% of a sample of disputatious couples to act as a control group by staying together, whilst persuading the other half to separate forthwith – a project that would be as unethical as it would be impractical.

Some new light on the issue has been cast by a two-year study of over 10,000 adolescents presided over by sociology professor Yong-min Sun of Ohio State University, reported in the Journal of Marriage and Family in August 2001:

A two-year study in the USA of over 10,000 adolescents has shown that, by every indicator of childhood well-being – behaviour, school-work and attendance, freedom from alcohol and other drug dependency etc. – adolescents from broken homes score badly. However, Professor Yong-min Sun, who led the research team, says that the "negative effects associated with it [divorce] are actually evident in teenagers at least one year before the marriage has ended." Sun points out that divorce is "not just a single incident in . . . children’s lives" and – whilst acknowledging that it is "not accurate to say divorce doesn’t matter at all" – says that by the time parents split up much of the damage has already been done.

The proposition that the departure of a parent does not in itself harm children found support from a UK Cabinet Office document leaked to the press in 1993. The Cabinet Office reviewed all the available data on single parenting and concluded that the increased rate of offending amongst children in single parent families is caused by associated factors, such as poverty, rather than the actual absence of second parents: "It is the quality of care within the family that counts not whether it is given by one parent or two." The report went on to say that the vital ingredient in successful childrearing is that there is a strong relationship between a child and at least one parent.

A new book pursues this theme:

Sociologists at the Centre for Research on Family, Kinship and Childhood at the University of Leeds say that their research, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, shows that for many children divorce can be a positive experience. The Leeds University research team, headed by Dr Bren Neale, interviewed 117 people aged 5 to 22 whose parents had been divorced for about 3 years. What mattered to the children was the quality of relationships between family members rather than the legal status of their parents' partnerships.

Dr Neale said: "Twenty years ago, we would have said divorce was destructive and was always bad for children; this research shows that this is no longer the case. Some children have a beneficial experience and enjoy a 'normal' life. . . For some, their parents are so concerned about the break-up that they talked and listened to their children more after the divorce than before, so the children benefited and felt they were very well off."

The report indicates that, as far as children are concerned, a divorce can be 'successful' if parents avoid creating a 'war zone'. The fact of a marriage ending is unlikely to harm children if they feel that mum and dad still respect each other. In Dr Neale's words: "Many children understood divorce as a way of ending arguments and benefited if their parents respected each other rather than continued the conflict. The children displayed a great deal of realism about divorce and saw it as part of life; they did not dwell on the good and the bad, but adapted. If their parents had moved on, they felt able to as well."

The interviewees did not seem to have been put off marriage by the failure of their parents' attempts. According to Dr Neale, "The children still had a 'fairy tale' image of meeting someone for life, but said they realised it does not often happen."

Neale's research was directed at what Max Weber called 'verstehen', or understanding an issue from the view-point of those involved in its construction. This sort of research often confounds conventional wisdom.

*

It seems that many parents fail to confide in their children when their marriages are breaking up:

Researchers from King’s College, London, who conducted in-depth interviews with 450 children aged five to 16 in the west of England, including 250 from step-families and 100 from single-mother families, found that most of the children whose parents had split up had been left pretty much in the dark: a quarter said nobody talked to them about the change in their lives and 45% were simply told, without explanation, that a parent was leaving; only 5% were fully informed and encouraged to ask questions. Birth parents were more likely to confide and exhibit emotional closeness than step-parents.

*

Another small-scale qualitative study from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation looked at how very young children cope with family change:

_____________________________________________________________

At least 70% of children whose parents have split up are aged under-10. A recent small-scale qualitative study from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation looked at younger children’s feelings about parental separation.

• Parental divorce or separation is only one of many sources of insecurity and unhappiness for young children and.
• The quality of children’s relationships with other adults can be as important as their relationships with their parents.
• After divorce or separation, the most important thing for children was the extent to which both parents remained emotionally and practically committed to them.
• Young children deal with their emotional difficulties in a number of ways, including distracting themselves through play, escaping by spending a lot of time in bed, displaying anger and showing distress. Children recognise these as 'coping strategies' and sometimes use techniques learnt in school.
• For children who want support, the crucial element in their choice of who to turn to is trust, which takes time to establish.
• Many children are reluctant to talk to school friends or teachers because they do not think that school is a safe place – they sometimes experience taunts and playground bullying if other children hear about their problems.
• Teachers are most useful to children if they display kindness and offer comfort in a general way, rather than talking about private, family matters.
• 'Doing' is more important for some children than 'talking' – playing games or learning practical skills is better for them than being required to talk to strangers.

The research was undertaken by Amanda Wade and Carol Smart at the Centre for Research on Family, Kinship & Childhood at the University of Leeds. The children (106 boys and 128 girls) were aged five to six and eight to nine, and came from a wide range of socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds. In the first stage, the researchers worked with small focus groups to explore their strategies for dealing with family change. They then conducted individual interviews with 20 boys and 27 girls.

[Source: Amanda Wade and Carol Smart, 2002, Facing family change: Children’s circumstances, strategies and resources, York Publishing Services for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation]

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

At present divorce is controlled by the 1969 Divorce Reform Act (see above). The 1996 Family Law Act included a provision to modernise the process by removing the need for proof of 'fault' or lengthy separation if spouses are willing to accept a year-long process of mediation in order to reach settlements over money, property and children. However, pilot schemes produced disappointing results: fewer than 10% of divorcing couples agreed to attend preliminary 'information meetings' (which would be compulsory under the proposed new measure); and of those who attended the meetings, just 7% agreed to mediation and only 13% accepted the offer of counselling. So in June 1999, the Government said it would not implement the reform in the foreseeable future. However, the Government said that it would implement the Family Law Act's provision on 'pension-sharing' i.e. giving an ex-spouse rights over his/her former partner’s pension.

The Children Act (1989) provides a legal foundation for the continued responsibility for children of both parents following a divorce or separation. Typically, one parent is now granted ‘residence’ rather than ‘custody’ and the other parent continues to share rights (such as visitation), duties and obligations. And the Child Support Agency is charged with ensuring that any financial obligations are fulfilled.

Neale and Smart found that in only a third of the 60 cases had fathers tried to win the residence of their children and that two-thirds of these fathers were either unemployed or had flexible working arrangements. So a very small proportion of the fathers in typical economic circumstances actively sought to win residence with their children. Neale and Smart concluded that "there is some evidence that fathers are re-evaluating their children . . . [but] it is less obvious that the equality of women . . . is part of the equation." Men in full time employment continue, by and large, to see the children as the wife’s responsibility.

The Sub-committee wants parliament to legislate for a two-stage process, based on a system recently introduced in Australia. In the first, "non-punitive" stage, parents would be given information on children's needs and how to make contact work, or sent on a parenting programme designed to tackle disputes. The court would have new powers to refer parents for parenting classes, counselling or mediation; to refer them to a psychiatrist or psychologist; to refer a violent parent to an anger management programme; to place a parent on probation with a condition of treatment or attendance at a class or programme; to impose a community service order; or to order a parent whose actions caused the other financial loss, such as the cost of a lost holiday, to pay compensation. Only if all else failed would a court move to a "punitive stage" involving fines and possible imprisonment.

Controversially, the Sub-committee suggests that the government should consider linking the payment of child support to the right to have regular contact with the child. "Broadly, we welcome the tone of the report," said Jim Parton, of the pressure group Families Need Fathers, in response to the report. "There is at least a recognition that where contact is thwarted, it needs to be dealt with and some imaginative thinking about non-adversarial approaches."

According to an ICM / Observer poll:

divorce laws were too lax (47% thought that divorce should

be more difficult, whilst 44% disagreed and there were 9% 'don't knows')

badly should stay together whilst the children were young

as well as married couples

children as well as married couples

change in the law)

without harming a marriage (only 12% thought an affair might not be

damaging).

_____________________________________________________________

Young people (particularly young women) are particularly unconvinced about the need for marriage, with only a third of 18-24 year olds thinking marriage should precede parenthood. Despite this, there is considerable support for marriage as an ideal. Only 9% dismiss it as "just a piece of paper" and nearly six in ten think it is still the best kind of relationship. Over one in five (22%) of 25-34 year olds currently cohabit (they are the most likely age group to do so). Among past cohabitants, the majority (59%) went on to marry that partner.

There is widespread belief in the myth of "common law marriage", despite its being abolished in 1753. More than half (57%) incorrectly think that couples who live together have the same legal rights as married people. But, whatever the current legal situation, a large majority think that cohabiting couples should be treated in the same way as married couples.

[Source: Anne Barlow, Simon Duncan, Grace Evans and Alison Park, 2001, Just a piece of paper? Marriage and cohabitation in Britain, in British Social Attitudes 18th report, 2001-02 edition, ‘Public policy, Social ties’, NCSR/Sage]

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________