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.

hbfac Great post

So if the statistics are false you think cohabitees are as likely to stay together as married?

If not, what are you arguing about?

Posi Parker- Civitas is a right wing think tank, so whilst not dismissing their evidence I would suggest that they do have an agenda.

I think that the issue with this stat, as others have picked up on, is that it lumps all unmarried relationships together. Even assuming that it discounted couples who were not together at the time of the birth (no idea who it counts), it lumps together the "shit I'm pregnant after 2 weeks. I already wasn't sure this relationship was a runner" couple in with the "we have been together five years it's time to start a family" couple.

A married couple has, by definition, made a committment to stay together for life. Non married couples may have done that (albeit in a less formal way) or may not. It seems unfair to treat both unmarried groups equally.

I'd be interested to know what the statistics are comparing settled co-habiting couples as opposed to married ones, but it's very hard to quantify, unless you count it solely on length of time co-habiting before first child (say, two years). But that doesn't recognise that people can fall in love and marry quickly.

Isn't it the case that if you correct for the effects of lack of money, the statistical advantages of being brought up by a couple rather than a single parent pretty much disappear? (someone else will have to look this up, as I'm rushing out)

So giving extra money to married couples is exactly the opposite of the solution....

We were married a few months after ds1was born,I wonder how that would show with all4 if we split?

Unmarried couples coversevertthing from a 14 year old couple who have an unplanned pg to one who conceive after being enagged booking wedding etc but don'taprticualrly want tro change wedding plans (us).

AFAICS pushing people towards amrriage with bribery will just raise the rate of failedmarriages.

NickClegg put it well for me....

Philanderer leaves wife and three children, subsequently remarries. He gets a married TA with new wife and no kids,woman he left gets none with her children.

Okaaaaaay.

I am married, I am glad to be but what works for me won't for everyone. I was with XP for5 years,wedding booked,if we had married I would have been divorced by now for sure,the only reason we weren't is we werewaiting for the calendar to roll around to the date. DH and I OTOH had been together far less time when we married- and had a child together, technically our chances of getting this far were far lower. A lot of it is the luck of the draw, IME, and whilst twoaprents are the optimum IMO reality isn't that for everyone so instead of constantly rabbiting on about what is best we should be working with what we have.Avery mixed bunch of people, famillies and relationships.

And if Dh cheats or does something awful I alsowant the freedom to leave- and that will be hard enough without having evenmore attacks on our finances and family than there would be now.

Don't know, and I guess it depnds on what disadvantages you mean. I think it must benefit a child to have more than one parental figure in their life (whether or not the parents are together, whether they are opposite or same sex, and including where that parental figure is another adult such as a grandparent). Not saying I agree with the Tory plan by the way, just that (although I am massively supportive of single parents) I don't think that money can cancel out the difficulties if you only have one very strong attachment figure.

i agree with everyone who's saying it doesn't include people who subsequently got married (as this must occur a lot, so it would make the statistic unreasonable)

the author of the article is definitely skewing it to make it look like they all split up, rather than marry etc.

what about other children too? does it relate to all children in one household, or just to 1? if it was to all children in one household (separately) then a couple with 4 children who split up would add 4 to the stats where a couple with 1 child who don't split up only counts as 1. which is 5 overall, when it should only be 2.

i've found a survey from the office of national statistics but their website is quite hard to navigate and of course, it all depends on what information you're after!
the most relelvant seems to be table 3. but i'm sure there are many more surveys that fit better.

Blackduck..

Why are you with a man you wouldn't marry..?

(sorry, I know that may be too personal a question...feel free to ignore it)

'so why are they having children if they are in unstable relationships'

Maybe they havent had access to your all-seeing, all-knowing relationship tester. You know the one that gives you a yay or a nay whether or not you will stay together or whether your dp will run off with someone else etc etc.

What a ridiculous and annoying post. I hope that you never find yourself in a difficult relationship and have to make some very difficult decisions - relationship breakdown can happen to anybody. Or maybe you are someone who would stay whatever happened. More fool you then.

These 'stats'are clearly manipulated. But thats by the by - research has shown what matters for society is not the breakdown itself but the way in which it is handled and viewed by society as a whole and the individuals and wider family involved.

because I don't want to be married to anyone........

I have no children yet but I was in a co-habiting relationship for over 12 years.

I am now married to someone I have been with for 3 years.

If the man I married turns out to be as difficult to live with as my ex then I'd leave. I made the mistake of staying far too long with my ex - about 6 years too long. I wouldn't make that mistake again, wedding ring or no wedding ring, Kids or no kids.

This is another argument balanced on wobbly undercarriage.

Stats say that married people more likely to stay together than unmarried. I believe this is true, although I do not believe the statement in the OP is true.

So people hark back to the days when people all got married and divorce rates were very low as some kind of "golden age". Forgetting that the reason everyone got married was social convention, and not always for the right reasons by a long chalk. (shotgun weddings etc). Then there were no divorces also because of social convention, and women were tied to men financially. So many childen being brought up in married families which were deeply dysfunctional violent abusive etc etc.

Then feminism happened

Women no longer had to stay with men who were shits, they gained a certain amount of financial independence, domestic violence and other types of abuse were recognised, divorce rates shot up.

Roll on a society change where being unmarried and having children is no longer stigmatised. Now that people are no longer forced to marry, many don't.

I would argue that the basic relationships have not changed. It is simply the labelling that has changed, and society attitudes towards marriage. Some relationships are strong, some are weak, some are one nighters, some people are unfaitful etc etc. Nothing is new there. What has changed is that when people are shackled to a shit they can leave, and that they don't have to get married for society to recognise a serious comitted relationship.

People who say everyone should get married are effectively saying that women should put up with a lot of shit in order to adhere to outdated social construct.

The stats for more married couples staying together are easily explained by the fact that now marriage is truly optional, generally it is only the most sure and the most traditional who do it - the types who would be likely to stay together anyway. The act of marriage itself is irrelevant. It does not imbue relationships with magical properties.

Blackduck thats how i feel but no one seems to 'get' it

Fair enough BD....

I know noddy they all seem to think you haven't met the 'right' one...

ImSo - Great post!

I resent the fact that some people are trying to say that i'm a shit parent because i'm not married, what difference would it make forking out £100 or whatever it is, make to my skills as a parent?

I'msonottelling - I agree with you (and Heathen's point, which raises the issue of what "incentivising marriage" might mean, in real terms, for children of single parents).

Nicely put.

I do love the fact you've flagged up that there is some weird level of "magical thinking" going on about marriage.

If only life were that easy; and that getting married, all by itself, was a lovely, magic spell that cocoons you from life's trials.

Daftpunk - "I think in most situations it's the man who doesn't want to get married, I'm pretty sure most women (even the women on mumsnet) would get married if the man wanted it...."

In my circle of friends and family (not statistically representative I know ), it's the female who turns down / doesn't want marriage, not the man (particularly those 30+).

actually BD, it's the complete opposite, most people who are living together say they are just as happy and committed as married people...if that's the case, why don't they get married....?

There have been times when DH and I have gone through a difficult patch, particularly when DS was tiny and I think had we not been married, we may have just called it a day, but because of the hassle and expense of divorce, we stuck it out. Now I am so glad that we did, as our relationship is stronger than ever.

Could this be one of the reasons married couples are more likely to stay together?

There are just some people who don't accept marriage as a concept full stop. i don't want someone elses rules validating my choices i don't need or want it.

So the actual statistics are that of children born 15 years before the study, 60% of them are living with two parents, and 97% of the parents of those 60% were married to each at the time of the birth OR have subsequently married BUT not neccessarily to each other.

It does not tell us:

What percentage of parents were unmarried at the time these children were born.

What percentage were born into cohabiting relationships.

What percentage now live with another family member regardless of whether or not the parents are still in a relationship.

What percentage live with married birth parents as opposed to a birth parent and their new marriage partner (being part of the 97% of the 60% who live with a married couple doesn't mean that both are your birth parents).

What percentage now live in care, regardless of the marital status of the parents.

What percentage were adopted as older children.

What percentage are born to a lesbian who never intended to live with the Father.

What percentage were born to single mothers.

And it also doesn't tell us how the attitudes and values of people 15 years ago match up with the attitudes and values of people choosing to cohabit now.

So I can't see what it does tell us. Pretty much nothing?

DP - Because they don't want to?

Flock - I see your point, but believe me, aside, from the actual process of the divorce, if dp and I split up we would have to deal with all the same crap as a married couple...

There are loads of reasons for not getting married, not the least of them why should they have to to satisfy muppets that think they are not committed?