Summary
- Fewer children live with both
their mother and their father
- Routes into the fatherless family
- Divorce
- Births outside marriage
- Changes in marriage and
cohabitation
- Is the married two-parent family a
thing of the past?
- Most people still believe in
the ideal of marriage and do, in
fact, get married
- Lone
mothers
- Are poorer
- Are more likely to suffer from
stress, depression, and other
emotional and psychological
problems
- Have more health problems
- May have more problems
interacting with their children
- Non-resident
biological fathers
- Are at risk of losing contact
with their children
- Are more likely to have health
problems and engage in high-risk
behaviour
- Children
living without their biological
fathers
- Are more likely to live in
poverty and deprivation
- Have more trouble in school
- Tend to have more trouble
getting along with others
- Have higher risk of health
problems
- Are at greater risk of
suffering physical, emotional,
or sexual abuse.
- Are more likely to run away
from home
- Teenagers
living without their biological
fathers
- Are more likely to experience
problems with sexual health
- Are more likely to become
teenage parents
- Are more likely to offend
- Are more likely to smoke
- Are more likely to drink
alcohol
- Are more likely to take drugs
- Are more likely to play truant
from school
- Are more likely to be excluded
from school
- Are more likely to leave
school at 16
- Are more likely to have
adjustment problems
- Young
adults who grew up not living with
their biological fathers
- Are less likely to attain
qualifications
- Are more likely to experience
unemployment
- Are more likely to have low
incomes
- Are more likely be on income
support
- Are more likely to experience
homelessness
- Are more likely to be caught
offending and go to jail
- Are more likely to suffer from
long term emotional and
psychological problems
- Are more likely to develop
health problems
- Tend to enter partnerships
earlier and more often as a
cohabitation
- Are more likely to divorce or
dissolve their cohabiting unions
- Are more likely to have
children outside marriage or
outside any partnership
Effects on the Social Fabric
- Increased crime and violence
- Decreased community ties
- A growing ‘divorce culture’
- Cycle of fatherlessness
- Dependence on state welfare
The weight of evidence indicates that
the traditional family based upon a
married father and mother is still the
best environment for raising children,
and it forms the soundest basis for the
wider society.
Experiments in
Living:
The Fatherless Family
John Stuart Mill famously called for
‘experiments in living’ so that we
might learn from one another. For about
30 years we have been conducting such an
experiment with the family. The time has
now come to appraise the results.
‘As it is useful that while
mankind are imperfect there should be
different opinions, so is it that there
should be different experiments of
living; that free scope should be given
to varieties of character, short of
injury to others; and that the worth of
different modes of life should be proved
practically, when any one thinks fit to
try them.’
In this passage from On Liberty
(1859) the nineteenth-century champion
of freedom, J.S. Mill, argued that there
could be a public benefit in permitting
lifestyle experimentation. His reasoning
was that, just as we distinguish truth
from falsehood by the clash of opinion,
so we might learn how to improve human
lives by permitting a contest in
lifestyles. However, Mill did not expect
such experiments to go on for ever.
‘It would be absurd,’ he said:
‘to pretend that people ought to
live as if nothing whatever had been
known in the world before they came into
it; as if experience had as yet done
nothing towards showing that one mode of
existence, or of conduct, is preferable
to another.’
In the 1970s and 1980s many people
argued that the traditional family –
based upon a married biological father
and mother and their children – was
outdated. Under the guise of ‘freedom
of choice’, ‘self-fulfilment’, and
‘equal respect for all kinds of
families’, feminists and social rebels
led a campaign to experiment with
different family structures. Sometimes
it was claimed that women and children
did not need men, and were, in fact,
often better off without them. On
occasion it was said that families were
not breaking down, they were just
changing; that the most important thing
for children was their parents’
happiness and self-fulfilment; and that
children were resilient and would suffer
few negative effects of divorce and
family disruption. The idea of
‘staying together for the children’s
sake’ was often derided. Some parents
embraced the new thinking, but not all
of those who took part in the
‘fatherless family experiment’ were
willing subjects. As the idea that
mothers and children did not need
fathers took hold, many social and legal
supports for marriage weakened. Some
mothers and children were simply
abandoned. Some fathers were pushed
away.
Mill’s argument formed part of his
wider case for avoiding social control
unless the interests of other people
were harmed. People were entitled to act
on their own opinions ‘without
hindrance, either physical or moral,
from their fellow-men’ so long as it
was ‘at their own risk and peril’.
This last proviso, he said, was ‘of
course indispensable’. He insisted
that:
‘When ... a person is led to
violate a distinct and assignable
obligation to any other person or
persons, the case is taken out of the
self-regarding class, and becomes
amenable to moral disapprobation in the
proper sense of the term.’
He specifically mentions the
responsibility of a father for his
children:
‘If, for example, a man, through
intemperance or extravagance, becomes
unable to pay his debts, or, having
undertaken the moral responsibility of a
family, becomes from the same cause
incapable of supporting or educating
them, he is deservedly reprobated, and
might be justly punished; but it is for
the breach of duty to his family or
creditors, not for the extravagance.’
After three decades of experimenting
with the fatherless family, we are now
in a position to evaluate the results.
The Experiment
Fewer children live with both their
mother and their father
The proportion of all households
comprising a mother and father with
dependent children fell from 38% in 1961
to 23% in 2001, while the percentage of
lone-parent households tripled over the
same period, from 2% to 6%.1
- From the child’s viewpoint: 80%
of dependent children live in
two-parent families (including 6%
who live in step-families). Another
18% live with lone mothers, and 2%
with lone fathers. In 1972, 92% of
children lived in two-parent
families.2
- According to analysis of British
Household Panel Survey data, 40% of
all mothers will spend some time as
a lone parent.3
- More people are living alone.
Between 1961 and 2001, the
proportion of one-person households
doubled from 14% to 30%. This figure
is estimated to increase to 35% by
2021.4
Routes into the fatherless family
The increase in the number and
proportion of loneparent households
occurred in part due to increased
divorce. At the same time, other social
changes were occurring. Fewer people
married, and more chose to cohabit
before or instead of marrying. More
children were born outside marriage.
These changes created several routes
into fatherless households.
Divorce
The Divorce Reform Act of 1969 was
followed by a spike of divorces,
representing a backlog of several
thousand couples who possibly had
already decided to divorce. However,
from 1974, the number of divorces began
a gradual increase and peaked in 1993 at
180,000 in the UK. Although the actual
number of divorces annually has dropped
to 142,000 in 2000, this is mainly due
to decreasing marriage. The annual rate
of divorce has hovered around 13 per
thousand married population throughout
the 1990s.5
From the child’s viewpoint:
Throughout the 1990s, about 55% of
divorces involved a child under age 16.6
Twenty-five percent of children whose
parents divorced in 2000 were under age
five. Seventy percent were ten years old
or younger.7 Overall, 36% of
children born to married parents are
likely to experience their parents’
divorce by the time they reach age 16.8
Births outside marriage
For most of the twentieth century,
the percentage of births outside
marriage hovered around 5%. Starting in
the 1960s, the proportion began to
increase gradually, reaching 10% in
1975, after which it began to increase
more quickly. By 2000, the proportion of
births outside marriage had quadrupled
to 40%.9
Changes in Marriage and
Cohabitation
Numbers and rates of first marriages
have fallen drastically. The number of
first marriages fell from 300,000 in
1961 to 180,000 in 2000. The rate of
first marriages has fallen from 83 per
thousand single women in 1961 to 33 per
thousand in 2000. For men, the rate has
fallen from 75 per thousand in 1961 to
26 per thousand in 2000.
Although the number of re-marriages
has increased from 19,000 for men in
1961 to 75,000 in 2000 and from 18,000
to 36,000 for women, the rates have
fallen sharply over the same period from
163 per thousand divorced population to
42 per thousand for men and from 97 per
thousand to 36 per thousand for women.10
Marriage and re-marriage are
increasingly being preceded or replaced
by cohabiting unions. The proportion of
single women in cohabiting relationships
doubled from 13% in 1986 to 25% in 1999.11
Cohabiting unions currently make up 70%
of first partnerships.12
Although cohabiting recently has become
more socially acceptable, these types of
unions tend to be fragile. Cohabitations
last an average of two years before
dissolving or being converted to
marriage. Of cohabiting couples who do
not marry, only about 18% survive at
least ten years (compared to 75% of
couples who marry).13
It is true that the percentage of
children born to unpartnered mothers has
remained about the same. In 2001, 7.3%
of all births were registered solely to
the mother (this represents 19% of all
non-marital births). Another 7.3% of all
births were jointly registered by the
mother and the father, but the parents
did not share the same address (this
represents 19% of all non-marital
births). Finally, 25.3% of all births
were jointly registered with the mother
and the father sharing the same address
(these births to cohabiting couples
represent 63% of all non-marital births)14
[see Figure 3]. So, many non-marital
births actually occur within cohabiting
partnerships. However, cohabiting unions
are at much greater risk of dissolution,
especially if they produce children.
So, when talking about cohabiting
parents, the two important statistics to
keep in mind are the following:
- Cohabitation is one of the main
routes into lone parenthood. Between
15% and 25% of all lone-parent
families are created through the
break-up of cohabitating unions.15
- Children born into married unions
are estimated to be twice as likely
as those born into cohabiting unions
to spend their entire childhood with
both natural parents (70% versus
36%)[see Figure 4].16
Cohabiting step-families are also on
the increase. One in fourteen children
is likely to live in an informal
step-family at some time before their
seventeenth birthday. The cohabiting man
in these cases has neither a biological
nor a legal tie to the lone mother’s
child.17
Is the married two-parent family a
thing of the past?
Most people still believe in the
ideal of marriage and do, in fact, get
married
- Over 50% of the adult population
are married currently.18
- According to the British Household
Panel Survey (BHPS), nearly 75% of
childless cohabiting couples under
the age of 35 expect to marry each
other at some point in the future.19
- It is estimated that nearly 90% of
women born in the 1960s will marry
by the time they reach the age of
45.20
- Nine out of ten teenagers under
age 16 want to get married. In a
survey of over 2,000 students aged
13–15, only 4% agreed with the
statement that ‘marriage is
old-fashioned and no longer
relevant’.21 Adults
throughout Europe share this view.
Surveys by the Economic Commission
for Europe found that 85%–90% of
adults rejected the notion that
marriage is old-fashioned.22
The Results: How does the Fatherless
Family Affect Adults, Children and
Society?
NB: Indirect Effects, Selection
Effects and Policy Implications
It has long been recognised that
children growing up in lone-mother
households are more likely to have
emotional, academic, and financial
problems and are more likely to engage
in behaviour associated with social
exclusion, such as offending, teenage
pregnancy, alcohol and drug abuse or
worklessness.
It can be difficult to disentangle
the many factors and processes that
contribute to these increased risks. For
example, children from lone-mother
households tend to experience more
poverty than children from two-parent
families. Observers might therefore ask
whether poor outcomes are more the
result of living in lone-mother
households per se, or whether they are
more the result of other factors, such
as living in poverty, which may have
been caused or worsened by living in a
lone-mother family. In this case, some
of the effects of loneparenthood operate
indirectly through a kind of chain
reaction causing poverty, which in turn
causes other problems. These factors
contribute to what are known as indirect
effects.
It has also been pointed out that
some of the factors which tend to
coincide with living in a lone-mother
household, such as poverty, may have
existed prior to the break up of the
parents’ marriage or cohabiting union
or, in the case of unpartnered mothers,
prior to the birth of the child. In
other words, some of the negative
outcomes experienced by children and
adults who live in lone-mother
households might have occurred even if
the parents had maintained an intact
family household. It also has been
argued that lone-mother households might
have been formed due to negative
situations such as domestic violence or
other forms of conflict.
In these cases, some of the poor
outcomes experienced by those who live
in lone-parent households might be the
result of having lived with conflict
before the family dissolution. Families
with existing problems and disadvantages
might be ‘selected into’ lone-parent
families. On the other hand, people who
have had many advantages such as a
stable and loving family background,
economic security, and good education
may be more likely to marry and maintain
a parental partnership than those who
had fewer advantages. Observers might
ask whether positive outcomes in these
cases are due more to the pre-existing
advantages which were selected into
stable two-parent families or more to
benefits conferred by marriage itself.
These factors contribute to what are
known as selection effects.
Social scientists use special study
designs and statistical methods to
measure indirect and selection effects.
Both types of effect are real, and they
do play important roles in many
outcomes. However, in most cases, they
do not explain all of the increased
risks associated with living in
lone-mother households. This has
important policy implications, because,
even if all lone-mother households were
brought above the poverty line, they
would still have increased risks of some
problems.
So, comparing the proportion of
people from different family structures
who experience various problems does
provide a good picture of how people are
really living. By exploring and
controlling for the role of indirect
effects and selection effects, social
scientists can help explain how problems
occur and perhaps help to devise
solutions to problems. In this factsheet,
we have tried to include both types of
data, whenever they are available.
Lone mothers
Are poorer
- Lone mothers are twice as likely
as two-parent families to live in
poverty at any one time (69% of lone
mothers are in the bottom 40% of
household income versus 34% of
couples with children).23
- Lone parents have twice as much
risk of experiencing persistent low
income (spending three out of four
years in the bottom 30% of household
income) as couples with children –
50% versus 22%.24
- Lone parents are more than twice
as likely as couples with children
to have no savings (68% versus 28%).25
- Lone parents are eight times as
likely to live in a workless
household as couples with children
(45% versus 5.4%).26
- Lone parent households are over
twelve times as likely to be
receiving income support as couples
with dependent children (51% versus
4%). They are 2.5 times as likely to
be receiving working families tax
credit (24% versus 9%).27
Are more likely to suffer from
stress, depression, and other emotional
and psychological problems
- At the age of 33, divorced and
never-married mothers were 2.5 times
more likely than married mothers to
experience high levels of
psychological distress. Even after
accounting for financial hardship,
prior psychological distress, and
other demographic factors, lone
mothers were still 1.4 times more
likely to have psychological
distress.28
- Lone mothers are seven times as
likely to report problems with their
‘nerves’, even after controlling
for other demographic factors.29
Have more health problems
- Results from the British General
Household Survey show that, even
after controlling for demographic
and socioeconomic circumstances,
lone mothers still have
significantly poorer health than
partnered mothers for four out of
five health variables.30
- Divorced women have death rates
which are 21% higher on average than
those of married women. Death rates
for divorced women aged 25 and older
range from 35%-58% higher than those
of married women of the same age.31
May have more problems interacting
with their children
- Young people in lone-parent
families were 30% more likely than
those in two-parent families to
report that their parents rarely or
never knew where they were.32
- After controlling for other
demographic factors, lone parents
were
- 2.25 times more likely to report
their child’s behaviour was
upsetting to them.
- 30% more likely to report
significant arguments with their
children.
- 60% more likely to expect too much
or have too high expectations of
their child.33
Non-resident biological fathers
Are at risk of losing contact with
their children
- Twenty to thirty percent of
non-resident fathers have not seen
their children in the last year.
Another 20%–40% see their children
less than once per week.34
Are more likely to have health
problems and engage in high-risk
behaviour
- Divorced men aged 20 to 60 have
70%–100% higher rates of death
than married men.35
- In a population of young adults,
divorced men and women were twice as
likely to increase their drinking
compared to those who remained
married. In this case, there was
virtually no selection effect. In
other words, heavy drinking did not
lead to divorce. Rather, divorce led
to heavy drinking.36
- Divorced non-residential fathers
were significantly more likely to
smoke marijuana and to drive a car
after drinking alcohol.37
- Divorced men reported the highest
rates of unsafe sex, with 15.7%
reporting both multiple partners and
lack of condom use in the previous
year, compared with 3% of married
men, 10.4% of cohabiting men, and
9.6% of single men.38
Children living without their
biological fathers
Are more likely to live in poverty
and deprivation
- Children living in lone-parent
households are twice as likely to be
in the bottom 40% of household
income distribution compared with
children living in two-parent
households (75% versus 40%).39
- Even after controlling for low
incomes, children growing up with
never-married lone mothers are
especially disadvantaged according
to standard scales of deprivation.40
- After controlling for other
demographic factors, children in
lone-parent households are still 2.8
times as likely to forego family
outings.41
Are more likely to have emotional
or mental problems
- After controlling for other
demographic factors, children in
lone-parent households are 2.5 times
as likely to be sometimes or often
unhappy. They are 3.3 times as
likely to score poorly on measures
of self-esteem.42
- Among children aged five to
fifteen years in Great Britain,
those from lone-parent families were
twice as likely to have a mental
health problem as those from intact
two-parent families (16% versus 8%).43
- A major longitudinal study of
1,400 American families found that
20%–25% of children of divorce
showed lasting signs of depression,
impulsivity (risk-taking),
irresponsibility, or antisocial
behaviour compared with 10% of
children in intact two-parent
families.44
Have more trouble in school
- Children from lone-parent families
are more likely to score poorly on
tests of reading, mathematics, and
thinking skills.45
- After controlling for other
demographic factors, children from
lone-parent households were
- 3.3 times more likely to report
problems with their academic work,
and
- 50% more likely to report
difficulties with teachers.46
Tend to have more trouble getting
along with others
- After controlling for other
demographic factors, children from
lone-parent households are three
times as likely to report problems
with friendships.47
- Children from lone-parent
households are more likely to have
behaviour problems or engage in
antisocial behaviour.48
- Boys from lone-parent households
are more likely to show hostility to
adults and other children, and be
destructive of belongings.49
Have higher risk of health
problems
- It has been estimated that
parental divorce increases
children’s risk of developing
health problems by 50%.50
- In England and Wales during 2000,
the sudden infant death rate for
babies jointly registered by
unmarried parents living at
different addresses was over three
times greater than for babies born
to a married mother and father (0.66
per 1,000 live births as compared
with 0.18). Where the birth was
registered in the sole name of the
mother, the rate of sudden infant
death was seven times greater than
for those born within marriage (1.27
per 1,000 live births as compared
with 0.18).51
- After controlling for other
demographic factors, children living
in lone-parent households were 1.8
times as likely to have
psychosomatic health symptoms and
illness such as pains, headaches,
stomach aches, and feeling sick.52
Are at greater risk of suffering
physical, emotional, or sexual abuse.
- According to data from the
National Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC),
young people are five times more
likely to have experienced physical
abuse and emotional maltreatment if
they grew up in a lone-parent
family, compared with children in
two-birth-parent families.53
- All studies of child-abuse victims
which look at family type identify
the step-family as representing the
highest risk to children54
– with the risk of fatal abuse
being 100 times higher than in
twobiological- parent families
according to international from
1976.55 However, the use
of the term step-father has become
problematic, as, whilst it used to
refer to men who were married to
women with children by other men, it
is now used to describe any man in
the household, whether married to
the mother or not. An NSPCC study of
1988 which separated married
step-fathers from unmarried
cohabiting men found that married
step-fathers were less likely to
abuse: ‘for nonnatal fathers
marriage appears to be associated
with a greater commitment to the
father role’.56
- Analysis of 35 cases of fatal
abuse which were the subject of
public inquiries between 1968 and
1987 showed a risk for children
living with their mother and an
unrelated man which was over 70
times higher than it would have been
for a child with two married
biological parents.57
Are more likely to run away from
home
- Children from lone-parent families
are twice as likely to run away from
home as those from two-birth-parent
families (14% compared to 7%).58
Teenagers living without their
biological fathers
Are more likely to experience
problems with sexual health
- According to the National Survey
of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles,
children from lone-parent households
were more likely to have had
intercourse before the age of 16
when compared with children from
two-natural-parent households. Boys
were 1.8 times as likely (42.3%
versus 23%) and girls were 1.5 times
as likely (36.5% versus 23.6%).
After controlling for socio-economic
status, level of communication with
parents, educational levels and age
at menarche for girls, the
comparative odds of underage sex
actually increased to 2.29 for boys
and 1.65 for girls.
- Compared to young adults from two-naturalparent
households, young men from
lone-parent households were 1.8
times as likely to have foregone
contraception at first intercourse
(13.6% versus 7.5%) and young women
were 1.75 times as likely (16.1%
versus 9.2%). After controlling for
other factors, these comparative
odds were reduced to 1.11 for men
and 1.23 for women.
- Girls from lone-parent households
were 1.6 times as likely to become
mothers before the age of 18 (11%
versus 6.8%). Controlling for other
factors did not reduce the
comparative odds.59
Are more likely to become teenage
parents
- Analysis of data from the National
Child Development Study (NCDS)
indicated that women whose parents
had divorced were twice as likely to
become teenage mothers as those from
intact families (25% versus 14%).
Men from divorced families were 1.8
times more likely to become fathers
by the age of 22 than men from
intact families (23% versus 13%).
After controlling for childhood
poverty and behavioural and
educational problems, the odds for
teenage motherhood and early
fatherhood were reduced to 1.4. This
means that children of divorce were
still 40% more likely to become
parents early, even after
considering other family background
factors.60
Are more likely to offend
- Children aged 11 to 16 years were
25% more likely to have offended in
the last year if they lived in
lone-parent families.61
- Young men from lone-parent
families were 1.6 times as likely to
be persistent offenders as those
from two-natural-parent families.
The effects of living in lone-parent
families seem to operate indirectly,
through reduced levels of parental
supervision.62
- In focus group discussions, young
people in prisons spoke frequently
about disruption in their family
lives and about their fathers’
absence.
One discussion went as follows:
Interviewer: ‘I’ve just
realised we’ve spent the whole
time and nobody’s talked about
dads.’
Teenager 1: ‘That’s because
there’s no dads to talk about!’
Teenager 2: ‘We don’t need
dads, at the end of the day a child
needs its mum.’ 63
Another young woman said: ‘…where
I used to live…it’s like a
rough, nasty area and you just see
mums with six children, three kids,
their boyfriend, not a dad. Kids
grow up and they grudge other
families…’ 64
Are more likely to smoke
- In a sample of teenagers living in
the West of Scotland, 15-year-olds
from lone-parent households were
twice as likely to be smokers as
those from two-birth-parent homes
(29% compared to 15%). After
controlling for poverty, they were
still 50% more likely to smoke.65
- In a sample of British
16-year-olds, those living in
lone-parent households were 1.5
times as likely to smoke.
Controlling for sex, household
income, time spent with family, and
relationship with parents actually
increased the odds that a teenager
from a lone-parent family would
smoke (to 1.8 times as likely).66
Are more likely to drink alcohol
- In the West of Scotland,
18-year-old girls from lone-parent
households were twice as likely to
drink heavily as those from intact
two-birthparent homes (17.6%
compared to 9.2%). This finding
holds even after controlling for
poverty.67
- British 16-year-olds from
lone-parent households are no more
likely to drink than those from
intact households. This is mainly
because higher levels of teenage
drinking actually are associated
with higher family incomes. After
controlling for household income and
sex, teenagers from lone-parent
families were 40% more likely to
drink.68
Are more likely to take drugs
- At age 15, boys from lone-parent
households were twice as likely as
those from intact two-birthparent
households to have taken any drugs
(22.4% compared with 10.8%). Girls
from lone-parent homes were 25% more
likely to have taken drugs by the
age of 15 (8.2% compared with 6.5%)
and 70% more likely to have taken
drugs by age 18 (33.3% compared with
19.6%). After controlling for
poverty, teenagers from lone-parent
homes were still 50% more likely to
take drugs.69
Are more likely to play truant
from school
- After controlling for social
class, level of parental
supervision, attachment to family,
whether peers and siblings were in
trouble with the police and standard
of work at school, boys in
lone-parent households were still
2.7 times more likely to truant than
those from two-natural-parent
households.70
Are more likely to be excluded
from school
- Children living with a lone mother
are three times more likely than
those in two-parent families to be
excluded from school (15.6% versus
4.8%).71
Are more likely to leave school at
16
- Sixteen-year-olds from lone-parent
households are twice as likely to
leave school with no qualifications
as those from intact families. Most
studies have found that most or all
of this increased risk occurs
because lone-parent families
generally are poorer, which in
itself has a strong association with
poor educational outcomes.72
Are more likely to have adjustment
problems
- In one American study, adolescents
whose parents divorced tended to
have increased levels of
externalising problems (aggressive
and delinquent behaviour) and
internalising problems (emotional
distress, such as depression). In
most cases, this was due to a
reduction in the quality of the
mother’s parenting. In addition,
reductions in the level of
father’s involvement were
associated with increases in boys’
aggression and delinquent behaviour.
Girls’ increased anti-social
behaviour was explained in large
part by post-divorce conflict
between parents. For boys, parental
divorce was associated with an
increase in likelihood of
depression, even accounting for
other factors. The authors conclude
that it might be that ‘parental
divorce tends to be inherently
depressing for boys.’73
Young adults who grew up not living
with their biological fathers
Are less likely to attain
qualifications
- Analysis of the National Child
Development Study (NCDS) found that
children from disrupted families
were twice as likely to have no
qualifications by the time they were
33 years old (20% versus 11% from
intact families). Some of the
differences in these results are due
to the strong association of divorce
with higher levels of poverty and
behavioural problems for children.
However, parental divorce during
childhood also seems to have an
impact in some areas which is not
fully explained by those types of
childhood problems. For example,
after controlling for financial
hardship, behaviour problems, social
class and educational tests during
childhood, women whose parents
divorced were still 11% more likely
to have no qualifications. For men,
controlling for the effects of
childhood problems had little effect
on their reduced chances of
attaining high levels of
qualifications. The interactions of
parental divorce and other childhood
problems and how they affect the
education of young adults are quite
complicated. The author of this
study summarised the results this
way: ‘poverty and behavioural
problems are important factors in
reducing educational success and
parental divorce can amplify
both.’74 Analyses of
other studies have shown that most
or all of the differences in
educational attainment are
significantly associated with
poverty.75
Are more likely to experience
unemployment
- At age 33, men from disrupted
family backgrounds were twice as
likely to be unemployed (14%
compared with 7%), and 1.6 times as
likely to have experienced more than
one bout of unemployment since
leaving school (23% compared with
14%). Again, the reasons for the
differences in these risk levels are
complicated. Some of the difference
seems to be due to poverty and
behaviour problems that existed
before the divorce and persisted or
deepened afterward. However, even
after controlling for these factors,
men whose parents divorced were
still 1.4 times as likely to be
unemployed and 1.3 times as likely
to have experienced more than one
bout of unemployment during
adulthood.76
Are more likely to have low
incomes
- For women, the effects of parental
divorce on income are complicated by
the fact that parental divorce tends
to increase the odds of early
childbearing, which in turn reduces
the likelihood that women will be
employed. Women from disrupted
families had median incomes that
were 20% lower than those who grew
up in two-parent families (£86 per
week compared with £104). They were
30% more likely to be in the lowest
quartile of net family incomes (32%
compared with 25%). After
controlling for early childbearing
(which itself seems to be linked to
parental divorce), women from
disrupted families were still 13%
less likely to be in the upper
quartile of individual earnings and
20% more likely to be in the lowest
quartile of family incomes.77
Are more likely be on income
support
- Women from disrupted families were
1.3 times as likely to be on income
support at age 33 (11% compared with
8%).78
Are more likely to experience
homelessness
- Young adults from disrupted
families are 1.7 times more likely
to have experienced homelessness
(6.2% compared with 3.6%). For
women, all of this effect is due to
the fact that children from divorced
households have a higher likelihood
of experiencing poverty in
childhood, which is also related to
homelessness in adulthood. However,
for men, all the difference in level
of risk may be attributable to the
divorce during early childhood,
rather than poverty or other
problems experienced in childhood.79
Are more likely to be caught
offending and go to jail
- Although 20% of all dependent
children live in lone-parent
families, 70% of young offenders
identified by Youth Offending Teams
come from lone-parent families.80
- American studies have shown that
boys from one-parent homes were
twice as likely as those from
two-birth-parent families to be
incarcerated by the time they
reached their early 30s.81
Are more likely to suffer from
long term emotional and psychological
problems
- In one American study, 20%-25% of
children of divorce experienced
long-term emotional or behavioural
problems compared to 10% of children
whose parents remained married.82
- Another study found that 11% of
young adults whose parents had
divorced had seven or more symptoms
of emotional distress; only 8% who
grew up in intact two-parent
families did.83
- One study, which followed 100
children of divorce through 25
years, found that, while the
divorced parents may have felt
liberated, many of their children
suffered emotionally.84
Are more likely to develop health
problems
- A Swedish study found that
children of singleparent families
were 30% more likely to die over the
16-year study period. After
controlling for poverty, children
from single-parent families were:
70% more likely to have circulatory
problems, 56% more likely to show
signs of mental illness, 27% more
likely to report chronic aches and
pains, and 26% more likely to rate
their health as poor.85
- NCDS data indicate that parental
divorce during childhood increased
the odds of young adults engaging in
heavy and/or problem drinking. The
link was weak when measured at age
23, but was strong by age 33.
Controlling for possible mediating
factors such as marital status or
socio-economic circumstances did not
substantially reduce the effects.86
- In a sample of young women who had
had intercourse before age 18, those
from lone-parent households were 1.4
times as likely to have had a
sexually transmitted infection by
age 24 (14.3% versus 10.2%).
Controlling for other factors
slightly increased the comparative
odds to 1.53.87 Children
of divorce lived an average of four
years less in one sample of white
middle-class Americans.88
Tend to enter partnerships earlier
and more often as a cohabitation
- NCDS data indicate that men from
disrupted families were 1.7 times as
likely and women 2.2 times as likely
to enter their first union (marriage
or cohabitation) as teenagers.
Controlling for poverty and other
problems in childhood reduced these
odds to 1.6 and 1.66 respectively.
For women, it is likely that the
influence of parental divorce on
early partnering operates mainly
through increased risks of earlier
sexual activity.89
- Women were 1.7 times as likely to
cohabit before or instead of
marrying in their first partnership
if they came from a disrupted
family. Men were 1.7 times as likely
to cohabit before marrying and twice
as likely to cohabit instead of
marrying. Controlling for poverty
and other childhood problems did not
reduce the effects that parental
divorce had on children’s
preference for cohabiting.90
Are more likely to divorce or
dissolve their cohabiting unions
- The risk of partnership
dissolution (including break-up of
cohabiting unions as well as
divorce) for men from disrupted
families was 1.9 times higher and
for women was 1.5 times higher than
for those who had intact family
backgrounds. These effects did not
seem to operate through the
experiences of childhood problems,
but rather through the propensity of
adults – especially women – who
experienced parental divorce in
childhood to enter partnerships
earlier, which in turn increased the
likelihood of partnership
dissolution. However, even after
controlling for early age at first
partnership, men from disrupted
families were still 30% more likely
to have dissolved their first
partnership.91
Are more likely to have children
outside marriage or outside any
partnership
- Men and women from disrupted
families were twice as likely to
have their first child outside
marriage or a cohabiting union than
those who grew up in intact
two-parent families (12.6% versus
6.6% for women and 7.1% versus 4%
for men). The increased risk of
having children outside any union
operates in large part because
children from disrupted families are
more likely to have their first
child at an earlier age, which in
turn increases the risk of having
children outside a partnership. Some
of the risk also occurs through the
increased risk of childhood
problems, especially for women.92
Effects on the Social Fabric
Disruptions in family life certainly
have had an impact upon the men, women
and children directly involved. However,
it is increasingly the case that changes
in patterns of family structure also
have an effect on the larger society. It
is difficult to disentangle which are
causes and which are effects, but it is
possible to explore some of the social
changes associated with changes in
family life that have occurred over
recent decades.
Increased crime and violence
Over the past several decades, rates
of crime have increased at the same time
as rates of divorce, nonmarital
childbearing, and lone parenthood have
increased. The relationship between
crime and family environment is
complicated, especially when the role of
poverty is also considered. To say that
one has caused the others would be too
simplistic. However, many scholars and
policy makers who study crime have
identified family breakdown as one among
a cluster of disadvantages which are
associated with criminal activity and
with chronic reoffending.93
- An American study found that
juvenile offending was affected not
just by whether a particular
child’s parents were married, but
also by the prevalent family
structures in his neighbourhood. It
has been suggested that this might
be the case because two-parent
families are better able to monitor
anti-social behaviour which often
leads to more serious crime.94
- A review of 17 developed nations
indicated that nations with higher
rates of births outside marriage,
teenage parenthood, and divorce also
had higher rates of child homicide.95
- Many prisoners lack strong family
ties, which makes rehabilitation and
re-integration into the community
more difficult. For example,
prisoners have twice the proportion
of divorce as the general population
(9% versus 4%). And, although only
9% of all women in the general
population are lone mothers, more
than twice that proportion of women
prisoners were lone mothers when
they were imprisoned.96
Decreased community ties
Recent research has identified
community involvement as a good measure
of social capital, a term which
encompasses the many resources available
to people through their social networks.
- Analysis of General Household
Survey data shows that two-parent
families are more likely to be
involved with their local
communities than lone-parent
families. Even after controlling for
education, socio-economic group and
employment status, two-parent
families are 25% more likely to be
neighbourly, and 50% more likely to
have people willing to help them if
they are ill, need a lift or need to
borrow money compared with
lone-parent families. This relative
lack of reciprocal care in
lone-parent households occurs
despite the finding that they
actually are likely to have more
friends and relatives living close
by compared to two-parent families.97
A growing divorce culture
There is disagreement as to whether
liberalisation of divorce laws caused
increased rates of divorce, or whether
legal reform was a response to increased
demand for divorce. The truth probably
is some combination of these hypotheses.
However, the fact that divorce has been
firmly established as an option for
married couples can actually have an
impact on people’s behaviour.
- American studies have indicated
that married couples who adopt
favourable attitudes toward divorce
end up experiencing reductions in
the quality of their marriage (which
can then lead to divorce). This
means that, more often, the
acceptance of divorce as an option
precedes erosion of marital quality,
rather than following it as a
response.98
- The increase in rates of
cohabitation, both for first-time
partnerships and for
re-partnerships, has been linked in
part to a desire to avoid divorce by
having a ‘trial’ marriage or by
avoiding legal ties altogether.99
Cycle of fatherlessness
There have been many historical
periods in which children lived part or
all of their lives without their
fathers. These fathers were absent due
to work or military obligations or died
before their children reached adulthood.
A more recent trend involves more
fathers deserting or being pushed out of
their families, or their influence being
reduced due to non-residence. In some
families, this pattern has reproduced
itself over several generations and has
become the norm. Often, these families
also live in areas of economic
deprivation, high crime rates and low
expectations. Within this environment,
it has become easier and more acceptable
to avoid integrating fathers into family
life. These families have been described
by some as ‘the underclass’ and by
others as the ‘socially excluded’.100
Dependence on state welfare
The trend toward increasing numbers
of lone-parent families has co-existed
with increasing levels of dependence on
state welfare. Several analysts of these
two trends have argued that the changes
in family structure have driven the
increases in welfare dependence. Others
have argued that they are mutually
reinforcing.101
In 1971, 7% of the adult population
of Great Britain was dependent upon
welfare. That percentage increased
gradually to peak at 13% in 1992. Since
1996, the percentage has dropped off
slightly and is now at 10%. These
changes occurred as the proportion of
lone-parent households increased from 3%
in 1971 to 6% in 2001.102
Why all these Effects?
Poverty
Many of the poor outcomes associated
with disrupted family backgrounds can be
explained in part by the poverty or
reduced income levels that occur around
divorce, separation, and lone
parenthood. In some cases, up to 50% of
the observed differences between
children from different backgrounds can
be thus explained. Poverty tends to
explain more of the risks associated
with educational and employment outcomes
than those related to partnering and
parenting behaviour.
Poverty generally is defined by
household income level, but there
usually is much more involved than just
low income. Low income can be a proxy
for a number of other factors that
cluster together such as poor health,
high levels of unemployment, high crime
rates, unsafe neighbourhoods, low
quality schools and other community
resources, and low expectations.
Moreover, many studies that measure and
control for poverty do not measure other
important factors such as the quality of
parenting or the level of conflict in
the home. Poverty is a serious problem,
but it does not explain everything.
Recent research has shown that, for many
outcomes, except in cases of severe
poverty, the amount of money parents
have is less important than how they
spend it.103
Reduced parental and paternal
attention
Many of the problems associated with
fatherlessness seem to be related to
reduced parental attention and social
resources.104 Certainly, a
child living without his or her father
will receive less attention than a child
living with both parents. This
difference in amount of attention is
key, but differences in the type of
parental attention are also important.
Recent scholarship has emphasised the
important role played by fathers.
- Social psychologists have found
that fathers influence their
|
