Bruce Logan is director of the New Zealand Educational Development Foundation. His
views of the negative impact of cohabitation on the lives of children was published in the
February 27, 1999 edition of The Press, a New Zealand newspaper. Here is what he has
discovered.
Parental marriage best for children. Because of the wholesale acceptance of
cohabitation as a substitute marriage, researchers are now finding what society has always
known; childrens' prospects for happier and healthier lives fare best when parents are
married.
Cohabitation is, on the whole, a poor substitute for marriage and an ineffective trial
for marriage:
- In Britain, cohabiting couples are almost six times more likely to split up as those who
are married. In Australia the figures are almost identical and in New Zealand they seem to
be similar. Even when there are children, cohabiting couples break-up five times more
often when compared to married couples.
- In Sweden, cohabitation is regarded legally and culturally as an accepted alternative to
marriage, rather than a transitional or temporary arrangement. This is reflected in the
increasing length of cohabitations, and in those who never marry.
But despite having the appearance of being equivalent, Swedish cohabiting unions and
marriages do not have the same durability. Official studies show that cohabiting couples
with one child are nearly four times more likely to end their union.
- Data from Norway shows that one in 10 children born to married parents experienced
parental separation by the time the child was 10. The same proportion of children of
cohabitees did so by the age of two.
- Recent national studies in Canada, Sweden, Australia, and the United States found that
pre-marital cohabitation significantly increased rather than decreased the risk of
divorce. Cohabitees consistently report lower-quality marriages and a lower commitment to
the institution of marriage.
In most Western nations, including New Zealand, broken cohabitations are responsible
for up to half of single-parent families even though they are a much smaller proportion of
the total.
The effects of cohabiting breakups on children. Logan has marshaled evidence
that shows how break-ups of cohabiting parents has damaging consequences for children.
Poorer mental health. The resulting instability means that children are more
likely to suffer from poor performance in school, a lack of concentration and are more
anxious and attention-seeking when young. They are more likely to fall ill, to have
behavioral problems, to fall prey to solvent, drug, and alcohol abuse, and to come before
criminal courts.
Fewer resources. Marriage has also proven to be a child's best
defense against being in a poor household. Some research has even shown that married men
earn, on average, 10 per cent more than cohabiting men.
A well-known analyst of single parenthood and child support in the United States, Dr.
Sara McLanahan, reported at a seminar in 1997 that she had changed her mind and now admits
that marriage is good for children. "It strengthened their claim to the economic
resources and social capital of both their parents."
Less contact with fathers. After a relationship has broken up it has been found
that divorcees maintain significantly better contact to their children. They also give
more financial and personal support to their children after a divorce than do splitting
cohabitees.
In the US, about 40 per cent of fathers who live away from their children rarely see
them, if at all. The longer fathers and children live apart, the less involved fathers
become. It was found that after parental separation, children whose parents had not
married were twice as likely to lose touch with their fathers as those with divorced
fathers.
In Britain, research has shown that only 45 per cent of children of cohabiting couples
remain in contact with both parents after a break-up, compared with 69 per cent of those
whose parents were married.
Less financial support. The same British researchers also found that more
divorced fathers who didn’t live with their children provided financial support to
their former family than was the case fathers who left their cohabiting mate: 68 percent
compared with 31 percent. This support was also more likely to be given regularly by
former married fathers: 44 percent of formerly married gave regularly, compared with 16
per cent of former cohabitees.
Logan concludes that the evidence clearly indicates that marriages represented a higher
degree of investment in the parental relationship than is the case for cohabitees. He
decries how the preoccupation of individual rights distorts society's understanding of the
important role that marriage plays in protecting children.
In New Zealand, parliament is considering legislation that will make marriage, de facto
relationships, and same-sex relationships legally similar. Logan argues against this.
He said, "We should think twice and think again before we change legislation that
is likely to increase the incidence of cohabitation and consequently devalue marriage and
obviously cause children to suffer even more. It is not usually the partners who suffer
most, but the children, and their suffering can last a lifetime. Further social acceptance
of cohabitation is likely to make these problems worse."