Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
GypsyMoth · 21/01/2010 09:39

lol at the source of those 'statistics' then!!

MattSmithIsNotMyLoveSlave · 21/01/2010 09:40

Do you have a link to the source? I can't find it on the statistics.gov.uk site (doesn't mean it isn't there, of course).

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 21/01/2010 09:42

Collecting the statistics isn't so simple in this case, though is it, littlemoominmam?

how many people get married? = easy
how many people get divorced? = easy
how many babies are born to married parents = getting harder, they don't ask your marital status on the birth certificate, do they?
Collecting the marital status of the parents of all 16-year-olds = rather tricky

Not least because every teenager who gets knocked up behind the bike sheds, every one-night stand, and every accident in a short-term relationship, is going to count as 'unmarried parents splitting up'

Can you link to the source please?

littlemoominmamma · 21/01/2010 09:44

Fimble - I have at no point said "it's all terribly factual" I have just said it is just a figure - not an opinion! As I explained i was just a lowly data processor I was not involved in any way with Lady Di's death????? reporting or otherwise?????????????just said they seemed to be very careful about political bias. I have no idea what you are getting at???? (are you a conspiricy theorist?)

I have no agenda - just read this and thought it was shocking and sad.

OP posts:
hbfac · 21/01/2010 09:44

Agree that statistics like these don't tell the whole story (that it doesn't take account of those who leave this group by way of marriage; that there will be a larger section amongst the non-marrieds of already-predisposed to separate, so it's not comparing like with like,).

But I want to take issue with the implication. Is the implication that getting married helps people to "stay together for the sake of the children"?

I agree that there may well be structures around marriage that keep couples together.

But is that good?

Having read a lot of the relationship threads, I wonder. There are women there who are v. unhappy, but feel socially and economically compelled to stay in less than ideal situations.
Mn becomes the (possibly only) place they can talk about weighing their happiness (which culturally we are taught to discount, or at least regard as less important than other factors,) against the social, economic, and emotional cost of separation.

It could be argued that those in marriage are already more prone to living by cultural and social norms than those who don't marry. And there are probably economic factors in there too. All of which suggest married women experience pressure to stay in marriage.

But again, is that a good thing?

Remember, every measure "supporting" marriage is, necessarily, a measure that makes it harder to leave. And, again, necessarily, makes it harder (relationally) to be a single parent. Most single parents are women. So measures to "Support marriage" are, by their nature, pretty anti-women.

Imo.

MattSmithIsNotMyLoveSlave · 21/01/2010 09:45

They do ask your marital status when you register the birth, though, Heathen -- and I suspect that the information from the registration computer is used directly by the UK Office of Statistics rather than getting an analyst thumbing through the hard copy birth certificates making tally marks on a piece of paper.

But I agree otherwise.

And what about where one partner has died?

Allidon · 21/01/2010 09:46

Well said hbfac

The figures from the National Office of Statistics as such, it's someone analysing the census figures. I linked to the DM article on the previous page.

littlemoominmamma · 21/01/2010 09:47

Oh bl**dy great - now I will get really flamed - The Daily Mail have an article about it on their website!

Bring it on.........

OP posts:
GypsyMoth · 21/01/2010 09:47

why is it 'shocking'???

it means that some women got out of unhappy relationships.....

LucyEllensmadmummy · 21/01/2010 09:47

I had the misfortune to have to use statistics to get my PhD. They are my pet hate in the world - firstly, they are complicated and to present straight forward stats is never going to give a true picture. Then there are the analyses - My whole thesis rested on my stats - i used several methods of analysis - and presented the one that said what i wanted to say. I didn't cheat, but i definately used the stats to my advantage - Now, as i say, im a statistics fuckwit, most of it goes over my head - so politicians are going to have properly clever statisticians manipulating figures to say exactly what they want them to - then they pare it all back and say - Black is white!

What about another factor - what % of those parents married in a registry office are together after 16 years compared with those married in a church?

And no, im not married - have been with my partner for 18 years, we have a 4 yo DD.

I suppose the unmarrieds are going to include those who were in "casual" relationships when an "accident" occured. So already we have a factor that is going to skew the results - depending on whether this is taken into account or not. So if the question was asked "what % of parents in committed relationships but not married, are still together 16 years later?" The answer might be more in line with the marrieds?

I don't need the government to tell me how to live my life and parent my children. I need government support to enable me to provide for my children both in terms of finance and education.

I am a catholic, my DP a staunch athiest - I will never persuade him that marrying in church is right for us, and it would be wrong in my eyes to go through with a ceremony that he didnt hold to his heart. For me, a registry office marriage is just a peice of paper - but that by no means invalidates those marriages, thats just my beliefs, so to me - i may as well stay unmarried. DP and I have been through a really rough few years since DD born, but we are still together, despite no legal ties.

MattSmithIsNotMyLoveSlave · 21/01/2010 09:48

Ah, so it's an "analysis of census data" by someone with a vested interest, not "government figures, so no disputing them unfortunatly". I would be very interested to read the methodology.

AliGrylls · 21/01/2010 09:52

I wonder if sometimes people don't get married because they know subconsciously that someone isn't right for them. This in itself would account for some of the 3% of people.

Elffriend · 21/01/2010 09:54

Ooh, not used this one before:

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics."

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 21/01/2010 09:54

Ah, I was't sure, MattSmith, DH did DD's registration...

I know we have the DM link, but I was hoping this had been published in the form of a paper where we could look at the methodology (this seems to be an increasingly vain hope..)
But OP didn't get it from the DM, right? So it must be published somewhere else...?

tatt · 21/01/2010 09:55

misinterpretation of statistics by the Bristol Community Family Trust. Of families with children 97% of those who stay together are married. But what percentage of families with children are married? Easiest to explain with numbers

I look at 100 families with children - of those 98 are maried and 2 aren't. 15 years ater there are 58 married couples together and 2 unmarried. That is 100% of unmarried couples still together and only 68% of married couples.

I look at another 100 families - of those 58 are married and 42 are single. 15 years later all the married couples are together but only 2 out of 42 unmarried couples (that's 5%).

So the information as given is totally misleading and useless. And btw - people tend to move/change name and generally be difficult to find between one census and the next. So lots of potential for bias.

Best to leave that type of analysis to the professionals - Harry Benson clearly isn't one of them.

porcamiseria · 21/01/2010 09:56

this is complete and utter bullshit, where did you get theses stats pls

itsmeolord · 21/01/2010 09:57

Aww, yes, all those poor ickle childers living in sad grey poorhouses because their parents split up and weren't married in the first place.......

DP was not married to his ex, she ran off with his best mate leaving him and DSD before she was one.
We have her with us more than 50% of the time, she never knew her parents being together but that does not mean that she has never known a happy family life. Far from it in fact.

The assumption that parents who are not together are automatically not providing settled family homes for their children is utterly wrong in my opinion and experience.

A child does not look to their parents hand for The Ring to check if they are happy or not.
They look to whether or not they are loved, cared for, supported at school and in any interests they have, whether they are listened to and valued as human beings
Any child that is nurtured whether it be by two parents in one home or two parents living separately will thrive.

The children that don't thrive are the ones who do not have that level of care and support, those children come from homes where the parents are married just as much as homes where the parents are not married/have split.

I really hate the manipulation of all these statisitics and I hate even more the blind sheeplike following of those statistics by people who really should be bright enough to apply real life experiences rather than set their opinions to a set of numbers.

MattSmithIsNotMyLoveSlave · 21/01/2010 09:58

And HANG ON A MOMENT -- Benson doesn't even say that "only 3% of unmarried parents stay together until child is 16", or at least not in the quotes attributed to him.

He says that

  • 60% of couples stay together until child is 16
and
  • Of that 60%, 97% are married

i.e. "3% of couples who stay together until their child is 16 are unmarried" which is a very different thing from "3% of unmarried couples with children stay together until the child is 16"

Headline writers don't appear to have grasped the difference.

MitchyInge · 21/01/2010 09:59

that is one of the funniest things have read on MN for ages - 'no disputing them'

Allidon · 21/01/2010 09:59

Here is the BCFT's website which has a link to the PDF link

Clearly not a biased source at all

posieparker · 21/01/2010 10:02

These stats may be true or may not be but the truth is that parents that are married are more likely to stay together, even if the only reason is that the commitment was there before children, or that they are tied twice(marriage and children).

this makes very good sense

DuelingFanjo · 21/01/2010 10:04

"All that says is only 3% of unmarried couples stay unmarried for 16 years!

Soon as they get married they are no longer part of that statistic, not very manipulative at all"

well spotted Tamarto!

Did anyone find out what the stats were for married couples?

MattSmithIsNotMyLoveSlave · 21/01/2010 10:06

Have found the original paper here.

And yes, what the BCFT actually say is that based on census data "Just 3% of couples who bring up their children together are not married. Long-term cohabiting is not the norm." which is quite possibly accurate.

And "cohabiting couples are consistently
2 to 2.5 times more likely to split up compared to their married counterparts, across all income groups, by their child?s fifth birthday [...] At least half of family breakdown takes place during the first three years of childhood."

The paper's just being widely misquoted.

littlemoominmamma · 21/01/2010 10:06

The statisitics used were from the National Statistics Office and are therefore Government Statistics - Taken from censuses, Birth Deaths and Marriages, Unemployment offices, Schools admissions etc..

I don't know, personally, how accurate they are but I also don't believe they are a tory conspiricy - just my opinion, and I welcome all other opinions

OP posts:
MattSmithIsNotMyLoveSlave · 21/01/2010 10:08

The statistics are government statistics.

The analysis of those statistics has been done by the BCFT (not the government).

The picking of the "3%" figure from the BCFT's analysis and claiming that it means something completely different from what they said it meant has been done by goodness knows who.

Swipe left for the next trending thread