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

[littlemoominmamma]

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.

Should probably not enter the fray but don't think the "life support" argument is relevant. Even if there was a legally defined next of kin they do not in law have the power to decide on medical decisions. Unless that is they hold a lasting power of attorney for welfare decisions where you can elect someone (anyone you choose) to make decisions related to care and treatment on your behalf should you be unable to. If there is none then the ultimate decision rests with medics but with a responsibility to consider pts best interests in light of info on knowledge of persons beliefs and wishes from those who know them best. Marriage makes no difference.

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion but it is not pathetic to address the fact that you are like a dog with a bone about this but don't have enough conviction in your argument to post in your original name.Althopugh this may be your first post in which case I apologise and salute your perseverance!

thehappyprince Absolutely, the final decision rests with the medical team.

The doctors' are professionals and will make their own minds' up- I agree that marriage in this context is irrelevant.

It makes sense that those who are committed to their partners get married (why else tie yourself together in such a way otherwise?) however, this does not mean to say that those who are committed always marry.
Some people are scarred by divorce, ideologically opposed to marriage, for example.
Or simply -having tied themselves legally- in terms of big financial commitments such as mortgages, see no need for it.

The mere act of marrying will not make a bad relationship good. But...

What nobody has mentioned here is money - I suppose that as lack of it does contribute to relationship breakdown, giving a couple more money to stay together may tip the balance from splitting/staying together- if money is the main reason to consider splitting.

Actually I changed for something else and to change back might out me, it's not because of this.

It's pathetic to attack someone's marriage because you can't undermine their argument. Did you read any of the recent exchanges? Did you understand them? As for being a dog with a bone, I was asked to respond to Meita's post and I did, but perhaps you didn't understand my response. It was rather good.

So I can see that if money is the major stressor in a relationship, having extra money may help it to survive.

But, then again, if you're married to an abusive drunk who hits you about, no amount of tax breaks is going to make you stay with them.

If, however, your spouse is fundamentally a good person and your relationship is faltering cause you can't make ends meet, yeah, money could save it. It's naive to think otherwise.

Look, once and for all, here's why all this 'marriage is the Only Way' stuff is UTTER BULLSHIT.
I give you two opposites: A happy and functional marriage-free family (mine - DS dad doesn't live with me and DS, never has, never will yet sees him at least twice a week including overnights, is a devoted hands on dad, and we have a perfectly amicable co-parent relationship and a happy thriving son.)
And a 'respectable' married couple with children (remember, marriage is The Answer To All Social Problems)....
Fred and Rose West.

Who do you think is going to give their DC a better life?

SolidGoldBrass while I agree with you, it DOES make sense that you are more likely to marry someone if you're committed to them than if you are not.
I mean you're NOT going to marry someone you don't want to spend the rest of your life with, are you?

Nevertheless, just because a couple ARE NOT married, doesn't mean for one second they aren't committed.

Rather extreme example using Fred and Rose west.... Harold Shipman killed off all his old patients, but most people still have faith in doctors

Anyway, plenty of evidence out there proving marriage is the best environment for children....there really is no argument.

The best environment for children is to have a loving parent/guardian/parents, and a secure environment, marriage has nothing to do with that

A happy non-marriage vs Fred and Rose West?

I have vertigo from the height of discourse we have reached.

I didn't attack anyones marriage I think marriage is fine if it suits you and your circumstances and you both want that.Not everyone does for differing reasons.I fully understand the debate its def not over my head .

This thread is like Groundhog Day....

blackduck thats v true!

When people marry, they at least intend (usually) to stay together for life.

When people cohabit, it is not always with the intention of staying together for life (although sometimes it is).

Does this make a difference to whether or not they survive?

are you asking a question or just thinking out loud..?

Why do people read into the headlines just what isn't there?

The headline is based on this:

Take a cohort of 16 year olds.
Count how many are still living with both natural parents. Answer 60%.
Of that 60%, how many parents are married to one another 97%.

So - 100 16 year olds
60 living with both natural parents
58 living with married parents
2 living with unmarried parents.

Those statistics are very compelling in themselves, but they don't tell us anything about the other 40% of 16 year olds. Nor do they tell us if parents where unmarried at birth, nor do they tell us about happiness. The actual headline doesn't tell us the proportion of parents who married at anytime in the preceeding 16 years.

What you can infer from the headline is that married relationships, with children, are more likely to subsist.

You have to look at other statistics to develop any understanding of family dynamics.

What I would be interested in is the parental situation of young people who are 'known to the police', broken down into SEC levels.

daftpunk It is a question.

Ok,

Yes, of course it makes a difference.

I married my dh with the full intention of staying with him for life, he would have to do something pretty amazing for me to consider leaving.....infact in nearly 18 years I have never thought about leaving him.....

Thought about killing him...but that's different.

daftpunk Yes, but does the intention actually make a difference in the long run?

Although I am of the opinion that, generally speaking, married couples are more likely to stay together than the unmarried (because cohabitation is not always about being in it for the long-term) but with the disclaimer that there are married people who are UNcommitted and unmarried people who are (committed).

Yes, the intention does make a difference.

I got married in a church, I said infrount of God (sorry to get all drippy and religious, but I am catholic) and 100's of people that I was going to stay with this man till death us do part...and I will.

I wouldn't have married him if I thought he'd do untill someone better came along.

daftpunk i thought you married your DH to get him into the country!!

Not all people who co habit are waiting for someone better to come along.For me there is no one better but marriage as it stands is not for us.

thing is, you can co habit without long term intention, but one would assume that once children are involved then the intention is there?