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.

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

If not, what are you arguing about?"

Let me put this very simply...

I do not think that cohabitees, as a group, are as likely to stay together as married people, as a group.

I think it's entirely possible that cohabitees in long-term relationships who both sincerely believe that they are as committed as a married couple and are only not married because they see it as an unecessary bureaucratic piece of government interference, as a group distinct from other cohabitees, are as likely to stay together as married people, as a group. I don't have enough evidence one way or the other to actively believe that it's true (or false), but wouldn't be at all surprised if it were.

I am arguing against claims that "only 3% of unmarried parents stay together until child is 16", because they are bullshit, as has been demonstrated by reference to the original analysis (which purports to show that "only 3% of couples who stay together until a child is 16 are unmarried").

I am arguing about claims that this entirely fictional "only 3% of unmarried parents stay together until child is 16" figure cannot be disputed.

I am arguing that there is no evidence at all that for any one particular couple marriage will make an iota of difference to whether they split up or stay together. I am quite prepared to concede that it would be extremely difficult to gather any such evidence in a reliable fashion, mind you, but asserting that any of the available statistics lead to this conclusion is misguided.

heard this on the radio (Tony Benn actually):
Couple aged 96 go to a solicitor to arrange a divorce.
Solicitor: A divorce at 96, why?
Couple: We were waiting for the children to die.

You're begging the question.. someone said maybe cohabitees don't get married because their relationship isn't stable enough, or words to that effect, so my question was, why are they having children then? Why? Why is a relationship too unstable for marriage but stable enough for children?

So.. you think cohabitees are as likely to stay together as married people?

I do think it makes a difference being married. Standing before witnesses (however few) and making a solemn commitment to another person might just take you through some dark times. I do think being married might make a difference.

There are also other considerations. Mostly financial.

If you have children and have taken a subservient career (gone part-time, had a career break, become a SAHM, or adapted your career to better suit your family) in order to look after your home and children and you are unmarried, you are a complete fool and have totally ignored the potential and very real consequences a break-up would have on yours and your children's financial future. The state will likely end up paying for your foolishness. Aside from Child maintenenace which is paltry, your ex partner would have no repsonsiblity to your financial welfare or housing needs.

If you are married and split you have a right to a 50:50 share in all assets. And if it's still deemed likely you can't cope financially on your own, you will get mainenance or a larger share of the assets to help you on your way, possibly both. You will also get a share of your ex spouses pension.

If you aren't married, you will get the children and your ex will walk off with his job. If you have two children, he will keep 80% of his net income and see the children every other weekend. You will keep the children for 95% of the time and receive a 20% net contribution from the absent father and the rest of your income needs will have to be made up by either you working (difficult because of the high cost of childcare) and state assistance.

The Tories are bang on the button incentivising marriage. Because the state picks up the tab for feckless arsehole men who end up in the pub and the money could be put to much better use.

And I see the ghastly Balls has climbed on the bandwagon now anyway. No wonder the Tories are trying to keep quiet about their policies for as long as possible. Do Labour have ANY ideas?

In short you should only be cohabiting if you are the main breadwinner.

It isn't only a piece of paper.

I wonder what proportion of the population (of age) cohabit compared to being married. I bet those who cohabit are well in the majority so of couse statistically more are likely to split up. It isn't rocket science!

Hurrah Imso!! Good post.

I personally think that the government, if they are to be involved at all, should be supporting people in their parenting, whatever relationship they may have with the other parent. Families are so complex that it really is too simplistic to say "Everyone should get married and that will mend 'Broken Britain'"

Ha ha openbook...

Sort of joke you'd expect from a Leftie ....

We all know Labour are anti-marriage..

Tee hee was just searching for quotes to illustrate how tricky statistics can be and found this:

'Statistics are like women; mirrors of purest virtue and truth, or like whores to use as one pleases. ~Theodor Billroth'

I don't think there could possibly be a more inappropriate quote to illustrate a point on a mmnet discussion

I've been to their website and read the report. They did look at people who were unmarried and cohabiting as a distinct group from all unmarried people.

Of people who had children, 24% were unmarried and cohabiting.

Of parents who subsequently split up, 25% were unmarried and cohabiting.

That of course was not reported in the Mail, because it doesn't fit their agenda.

maybe they'remore anti financialincentives to marry aka respecting peoples choices?

If we hadn't marries I suspect we'dstill be together.however, we would ahve the momey it cost as a slush fund when DH got illand we
wouldn't have had to sell the house.

I like being married to DH but tbh I loathe being called Mrs P, have developed an allergy to gold so don't wear a ring, and it cost us a fortune as my parents (depsite being married happily for40 years) don't see it as anything bar a piece of paper and decided not to pay for weddings (fair enough).

I am not entirely sure what good being married ahs done me tbh. A bit of protection should DH make like his dad and do one after 35 years I guess.

Thank you ladyintheradiator (sure you are not me??)

Swedey ius completley right of course.

The law has changed hugely to protect married women in the case of divorce. Non-finacial contributions are taken into account as standard.

Co-habitees have none of this protection.

No suprise then that upon separation wome who have not married are more likely to end up relying on benefits.

But IMHO the best thing would be not to entice people to marry, but chnage the law in respect of co-habitation.

littlemoominmamma- I am shocked too, and my instincts tell me the stats are not correct, there have been loads of suggestions as to why already.

I do accept that more cohabiting couples split than married ones, but I don't think those statistics are correct.

For the record, I am not married DP and we have a 2.5yo DS. I do not want to marry DP (or anyone else), its a controversial statement I know but the concept of marriage does not sit well with me. I love him, I am committed to him but I do not want to get married (ever!).

Maybe married couples are more likely to have talked through what they want from life (i.e children, careers etc..) before they take the plunge and commit to each other?

The report also says that in families that have a subsequent child and experience family breakdown, 25% are married and only 21% are cohabiting unmarried parents.

So using the same logic as the Mail, I could use the same report to ask:

AIBU to think that people who are planning to have more than one child should cohabit rather than marry, as they are less likely to split up?

Swedes - I read all that and I tend to think it argues for more protection for co-habiting women, rather than increasing incentives for marrieds, which I still think are always (relationally) at the expense of lone parents.

Theoretically, all those rights are available if you go and see a family lawyer but many don't. And there just has to be a correlation between income/education and those who do/don't avail themselves of those legal rights.

I would also be willing to bet that there is a relationship between marriage and income -- that people unconsciously act on the fact that there is an economic border at which it does, indeed, make economic sense to marry. But there is also a border below which it no longer has an effect.

But, again, I think all of it just argues for taking away the economic obstacles to making it OK for a woman to leave a relationship - should she wish.

Yes, often it is the tax-payer who ends up supporting women who leave, to a greater or lesser extent. But I suppose I think that's OK.

I'd rather we think about removing the obstacles to women's financial autonomy after childbirth, rather than concentrating on keeping women in relationships.

"We've HAD dark times, times where I'd have quite happily lopped his fucking HEAD off without a moments thought, but our commitment to each other is not about making a vow in front of anyone."

Same here, infact the stuff we have gone through has split up plenty other married couples, it really is laughable to say being married = more commitment. of course for some that may be correct but that by no means, means it's the same for anyone anyone who thinks it is is a bigger fool than those of us poor uncomminted unmarrieds

Interestingly, of the marriages that are successful, they tend to be couples who co-habited first and have known each other for some time before marriage and babies.

The co-habiting couples who are successful also tended to wait until some time into their relationship before they had a family.

So the secret seems to be not to get married per se, but to wait before having children. Test the relationship first.

Which if you think about it, is bloody obvious.

Litchick -

If you are a feminist you should certainly refuse to cohabit as the law stands. If you are feminist who wants a family, make sure you are married. It's about protecting yourself and your children.

WHat is all this Tory nonsence about "Broken Britain"..........at what point in the past was it fixed?

hbfac "I'd rather we think about removing the obstacles to women's financial autonomy after childbirth, rather than concentrating on keeping women in relationships."

Love it

Well said Litchick