Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to be very shocked only 3% of unmarried parents stay together until child is 16!

671 replies

littlemoominmamma · 21/01/2010 08:02

3% is nothing!!! It is soooo sad. 1 out of every 3 couples have seperated before the child is 5yrs old

I am now glad that the tories are going to give married couples help.

OP posts:
lovelycoffee · 22/01/2010 14:13

Well it is in the "Torygraph" so I guess it must be true...

hirslc · 22/01/2010 14:13

This is just an example of the misuse of statistics. The story is from the Daily Mail www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244699/Only-3-couples-stay-child-16-unmarried-study-reveals.html which quotes the Bristol Community Family Trust. What the BCFT spokesman says is

"In a new analysis using census data, I found that 60 per cent of families remain intact until their children are 15. Of these, 97 per cent are married."

This is clearly not the same as 3% of unmarried parents staying together. In fact, it says nothing about the percentage of unmarried parents who stay together.

Plus, if the 'research' is just an analysis of census data, then there is no way to 'control' for factors which might affect relationship or parenting breakdown. One might also think that data from 2001 (the last census) might not be the most accurate guide to relationship and parenting attitudes in 2010.

Not that statistical inaccuracy has ever stopped the Mail where scandalised moral outrage will do the job...

Sorry for the long post but I get annoyed by this rubbish.

MumNWLondon · 22/01/2010 14:13

Although this is sad, I wonder how many of these children were planned? What I mean is that perhaps many of them were conceived by accident and the parents would never have considered getting married.

I would be interested to see the planned unmarried rate compared to the married rate, that would be a better comparison.

My DH and I were married for 5 years (and together for 2 years before that) before we decided to have a baby together, it was not a decision I took lightly, I am surprised that many unmarried couples decide to have children but are not prepared to commit to each other long term.

Janos · 22/01/2010 14:15

People should get married before having children because it has been decreed (who by)that is the right and proper way to do things? Sounds very bossy and head girl-ish to me.

If they want to get married then good for them. If they don't, it's nobodies business except the couple involved.

Bottom line is, it's all about freedom of choice. Perhaps that is what annoys some people so much!

lovelycoffee · 22/01/2010 14:16

MumNWLondon you seem to be saying that the only form of long term commitment is marriage? Or have I read that wrong?

My DP and I are committed to each other for life. We did not take having our DD lightly. Why would you presume that because we are not married that we would?

LucyEllensmadmummy · 22/01/2010 14:18

So, i became pregnant at 18 - what would you have had me do???

Meita · 22/01/2010 14:21

Upandrunning, it is not about believing them or not, it's about reading what they actually say.

I believe the OP's report's stats, but the conclusions supposedly drawn from the figures are not actually based on the figures, as the report's author actually admits.

I'm always sceptical about newspaper articles on scientific research and prefer to look at the research first-hand.

That said, the link you gave does not even explicitly make the claim that "marriage helps couples stay together". In contrast, it says that couples who are likely to split up at some point, won't bother to marry. Which actually, supports the selection argument rather than the causality argument.

upandrunning · 22/01/2010 14:21

Lucy do you want to start a thread all about your own situation? Would that help do you think? Because you don't seem to want to think beyond it.

upandrunning · 22/01/2010 14:22

oh of course it's the Telegraph so it can't be true

what a dull way to think

PSCMUM · 22/01/2010 14:25

Does anyone seriously think that the 97% who split up would have stayed together if they were married?
Why?
And why, if they didn't want to be together, would that have been better?
it is awful to be the child of parents who don't like each other and don't enjoy each other. imagine being raised in a household where the two adults irritate each other and argue all the time and don't respect each other and don't love each other? Now that'd be awful.

the tory tax breaks are just a daily mail pandering load of old shite anyway. How much hard cash will married people gain from it? not a lot I'd guess. And are Tories saying that people should marry, who wouldn't otherwise, so that they can have slightly more cash? Now there's a lovely romantic thought to build a life on!

same old tories, same old self serving crap.

lovelycoffee · 22/01/2010 14:26

upandrunning your posts are bordering on abusive now. This was an interesting discussion. Perhaps you have your own issues that make you so angry on this? Who knows? I for one don't care but you are really dragging down the level of debate. Its on a par with you saying "you don't agree with me? Well f**k you!" - hardly an intelligent look at the issues

LucyEllensmadmummy · 22/01/2010 14:26

Yawn

upandrunning · 22/01/2010 14:28

i'm not angry, nor abusive ha ha, but please, what is the point of just saying "it's the Torygraph so it can't be true"

what is the point of that?

everything you've said is applies more to the other side of the debate, everything

just copy and paste a post from me which is the equivalent of saying "fuck you if you don't agree"

TiggyR · 22/01/2010 14:28

This is quite simply due to a combination of:
a)the removal (or at least the sharp decline) in social stigma attached to single parenthood, in particular those who were never married, as opposed to those who divorced, and
b)the welfare state/benefits system, especially the current set-up which enables single parenthood from the outset, and makes it financially advantageous for many low earning parents or those entirely dependent on benefits to live apart (at least officially) from the fathers of their children.

It is not to be wondered at really.

Meita · 22/01/2010 14:29

Upandrunning, it seems you lose your bet . It appears as if I believe the Telegraph more than you do. I mean, I won't take it as "irrevocable truth" before I've seen the actual research - too often do journalists innocently and unintentionally misinterpret research. But at least I assume it might be correct, in contrast to yourself who seem to think they mean something rather different than they write.

blueshoes · 22/01/2010 14:29

Meita: "But now you care. In a way it's like saying: I care for you so much right now that I want to make sure you will be ok even if at some later stage I don't care for you anymore.

You might regret it later on, but it is a powerful - if vaguely patronizing - statement to make in the present, methinks."

Marriage provides a bundle of rights that deal not only with the situation of splitting, but also death of the partner, rights to custody of the children, including who makes decision on whether or not to pull life support on a vegetative partner.

Marriage is a legal union that is far more encompassing in the eyes of the law than just dealing with the eventuality of a split.

Janos · 22/01/2010 14:33

I wondr, with threads like this, if there is an underlying assumption from some posters that there are loads of single parents out there yucking it up and having a wild old time with the huge sums of money they get from the taxpayer, and how dare they? Won't somebody think of the poor children?

etc etc.

HerHonesty · 22/01/2010 14:34

I think you'll find that its the office for national statistics. not the national office for statistics. a minor point.

Secondly, the ONS doesnt report to government, it reports to Parliament. It does not have a minister in charge of it, and does not answer to the Government.

But anyway, since they are complety unreliable labour figures , why are you even taking notice of them?

(mmm suspect we might have some tory hq phantom MNers on today. must be a slow friday afternoon)

PSCMUM · 22/01/2010 14:34

the welfare benefits system MUST enable singleparenthood from the outset. Many are single not by choice - we can't want to punish them for that can we? Or even if we do, we can't want to punish their babies?! for god's sake. That is terrible TiggyR - single parents must have the means to feed and house their children, and if that means taxes go to them, so be it.

Meita · 22/01/2010 14:34

blueshoes, I absolutely agree.

That said, deciding to marry for the legal contract will of course ALSO entail some consideration of what this contract says about the eventuality of splitting.

lovelycoffee · 22/01/2010 14:34

I actually said "Well it is in the "Torygraph" so I guess it must be true..." you presumed the sarcasm

upandrunning · 22/01/2010 14:34

It's threads like this that will one day turn me into a Daily Mail reader. If two parents stay together to bring up children I don't care if they are married, unmarried, two men, two women, even grandparents, foster parents, whatever. But if married people are more likely to stay together which evidence shows they are then that is best.

PSCMUM · 22/01/2010 14:36

upandrunning you've got it wrong - married people are not more likely to stay together just by the simple fact that they haev got married. They are more likely to stay together because they have CHOSEN to get married, they have CHOSEN to stay together. It is not simply the act of marriage that makes the relationshp last longer, it is the quality of the relationship itself.

lovelycoffee · 22/01/2010 14:37

Well , sounds like you are done then upandrunning, off you go...

LucyEllensmadmummy · 22/01/2010 14:37

i agree blushoes with the point that marriage does protect the other partner, male or female in the case of a death - however, it is now very simple for unmarried fathers to have FULL parental responsibility, im not sure when the law changed but when we had DD all that had to happen was DP come to the registry office with me to register the birth.

I think there are ways of protecting assets etc without being married though, are there?

I think its very sad that marriage is pared down to a legal protection thing - i think if i were teetering one way or other, that might actually persuade me NOT to get married, but thats because im an old romantic.