Stepfamilies differ from nuclear families in all of the following ways except for which one?

Working out boundaries and setting up family rules can be challenging in any family. It can be more complicated in blended families and stepfamilies for a few reasons:

• The families coming together might have different ideas about rules and boundaries.
• Children and their parent’s new partner are still getting to know each other.
• Children and teenagers often don’t like their parent’s new partner telling them what to do.
• Children living in different households might have different sets of rules.

But the same things that help to create strong families can also help blended families. These include:

• showing warmth and affection to each other
• listening to everyone’s concerns and points of view
• setting firm and clear rules, expectations and consequences.

Tips for making and using rules in blended families and stepfamilies

When families come together, it can help to allow some settling-in time before you set new rules. That’s because children might push back if there are too many new rules in the first few months of blended family or stepfamily life.

Tips for making rules

• Talk about each family’s pre-existing rules – why you have them and how they work. This can help children better understand how things might work in the future.
• Introduce rules that ensure safety and respect first, especially between children who haven’t lived together before. For example, ‘Always knock before going into someone’s room’.
• Be open to the children’s ideas about what rules they think are fair. For example, talk about curfews with older children and try to make allowances for children of different ages.
• Have positive rules about things like greeting each other nicely in the morning, being kind and polite, saying goodbye when you’re leaving, saying please and thank you and so on. These often work better than negative rules like ‘Don’t ignore people’.
• Talk together about what should happen when someone breaks the rules.

Tips for using rules effectively

• Try to have similar rules in children’s different households, and try to keep existing rules – for example, rules about bedtime for younger children or homework for older children.
• Display the rules and consequences on the fridge or a pinboard so everyone is clear on the rules and can refer to them.
• Try to be patient as everyone adjusts to the new rules. Praise and reward children when they do what you ask. For example, ‘You were so helpful this morning, and I could see it was hard for you. Well done’.
• Review the rules regularly to make sure that they’re still working as your children get older and things change in your family.

Responsibility for rules and boundaries in blended families and stepfamilies

Children usually adjust better and feel more secure in the early years in a new blended family or stepfamily if their own parent continues to be their main source of love, care and behaviour guidance, which includes rule-setting.

New partners play a very important support role though. When you and your partner work together on applying family rules and boundaries, you’ll all adjust more easily.

As a new partner you can help by backing up your partner’s rules – for example, ‘I agree with Mum on this. It’s your turn to wash the dishes tonight’. Sometimes you might have to back up the rules when your partner isn’t around. For example, ‘Your mum said you can play games only after you’ve finished your homework. Let me know if I can help you with it’.

If your partner’s children argue when you back up their parent’s rules, you can be a bit firmer. For example, ‘When you show me your homework is finished, you can watch TV’. If there’s a fuss, your partner can follow up later.

As your blended family settles down and your child gets to know your new partner, they’re more likely to accept it when your partner backs up your family’s rules.

Parents in blended families and stepfamilies: working as a team

Parenting teamwork is about working together and agreeing on your approach to parenting. This means agreeing on general rules about respectful communication, bedtimes, eating and so on.

But setting rules and behaviour expectations and consequences isn’t always easy. So teamwork is also about backing each other up. This helps all the children in your blended family understand that you and your partner have the same expectations of their behaviour.

If you disagree with your partner, try not to get into a conflict in front of the children. You can manage conflict better if you talk about the issues when you and your partner are alone and feeling calm. It can even help to set aside some regular time each week to talk through problems.

Accepting that there’s no one right way to do things can also help you work towards what will be best for your family. This might mean you both have to adjust a little.

Another way to show children that you and your partner are a team is to have family meetings to discuss new or changed rules and boundaries. Family meetings let children see that you’ve worked together to set the rules. This makes it more likely that they’ll accept the rules you’ve set.

Problem-solving is a way of finding new and creative solutions in situations where you’re stuck or can’t work through your issues. It can help you when there are major disagreements about family rules and boundaries.

Nearly three decades of research evaluating the impact of family structure on the health and well-being of children demonstrates that children living with their married, biological parents consistently have better physical, emotional, and academic well-being. Pediatricians and society should promote the family structure that has the best chance of producing healthy children. The best scientific literature to date suggests that, with the exception of parents faced with unresolvable marital violence, children fare better when parents work at maintaining the marriage. Consequently, society should make every effort to support healthy marriages and to discourage married couples from divorcing.

Keywords: Divorce, Children, Emotional well being, Society

The demographics of families are changing, and with that, the philosophical underpinnings of relationships are also changing. Many young adults feel marriage is old-fashioned and confining, and that open cohabitating relationships provide a healthier option that is more conducive to personal development. If a relationship does not provide personal happiness, parents often believe that their children will adapt to new family relationships so that divorce or separation will have few long-term, adverse consequences. These beliefs have led to marriage occurring later, women having fewer children and doing so later in life, single mothers giving birth to many of our children, more parents cohabitating, and fewer children living with their married, biologic parents.

In 1960, the average age of a woman's first marriage was 20.3 years; that of men was 22.8 years. But by 2010, that changed so that the median age at first marriage was 25.8 years for women and 28.3 years for men (Copen et al. 2012). In 1960, the rate of marriage for women was 76.5 per 10,000, but this had decreased to 37.4 per 10,000 by 2008. The birth rate for the United States is now so low that it is below replacement rate, and 41 percent of all births in 2009 were to unmarried women. Nearly one in five births to women in their thirties was non-marital in 2007, compared with one in seven in 2002.

Children's lives track with these statistics. In 1970, 84 percent of children lived with their married biologic parents, whereas by 2009, only 60 percent did so. In 2009, only 29 percent of African-American children lived with their married biologic parents, while 50 percent were living in single-mother homes. Furthermore, 58 percent of Hispanic children lived with married biologic parents, while 25 percent were living in single-mother homes. Importantly, a recent Harvard study on single-parent families revealed that the most prominent factor preventing many children from upward mobility is living with a single parent (Chetty et al. 2014).

In addition, the number of couples who choose to cohabit rather than marry has increased dramatically, with 4.9 million cohabiting couples in 2002, versus just 500,000 in 1970 (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). Half of the unmarried births are to mothers who are in cohabitating relationships, and seven in ten children of cohabitating couples will experience parental separation. The dissolution rate of cohabitating couples is four times higher than married couples who did not cohabitate before marriage (Osborne, Manning, and Stock 2007).

The Centers for Disease Control stopped gathering complete data on the number of children affected by divorce in 1988, and at that time more than one million children were affected (Cohen 2002). Since then, the incidence of divorce has continued to climb, and according to the 2009 American Community Survey, only 45.8 percent of children reach age 17 years while still living with their biologic parents who were married before or around the time of the child's birth (Fagan and Zill 2011). The majority of divorces affect younger children since 72 percent of divorces occur during the first 14 years of marriage. Because a high percentage of divorced adults remarry, and 40 percent of these remarriages also end in divorce, children may be subjected to multiple family realignments (Cohen 2002).

The precipitating causes of divorce have also changed over time. Prior to no-fault divorce laws, the legal procedures for obtaining a divorce were often difficult and expensive, so that only the most dysfunctional marriages ended in divorce. Children who are removed from the most dysfunctional environments are more likely to do better after the divorce. However, with the introduction of no-fault divorce laws, it is likely that the child has not experienced severe levels of parental discord, so the divorce has more adverse effects on the child. One study seems to conclude that the majority of more recent divorces were not preceded by an extended period of marital conflict (Amato and Booth 1997 as quoted in Amato 2001).

Divorce and parental separation are damaging to children, families, the economy, and society as a whole, and this paper outlines these adverse effects. While recognizing that not all children or parents will experience every negative consequence listed below, given the seriousness of these adverse outcomes and the magnitude of the issue, it is important that pediatricians support public policies that promote the health and preservation of the child's biologic family.

When evaluating the scientific research on the effects of divorce on children and parents, it is important to consider all of the factors affecting the outcome, including family dynamics, children's temperaments and ages at the time of divorce, and family socioeconomic status, as well as any behavioral or academic concerns present prior to divorce. Some adverse effects noted in the literature after divorce are actually diminished when controlled for their presence prior to divorce. It is also important to note that violence in a home is never acceptable and can have serious adverse effects on children's behavior, development, academic success, and future health.

Each child and each family are obviously unique, with different strengths and weaknesses, different personalities and temperaments, and varying degrees of social, emotional, and economic resources, as well as differing family situations prior to divorce. Despite these differences, divorce has been shown to diminish a child's future competence in all areas of life, including family relationships, education, emotional well-being, and future earning power. One review of the literature conducted in the United Kingdom found that “although children are at increased risk of adverse outcomes following family breakdown and that negative outcomes can persist into adulthood, the difference between children from intact and non-intact families is a small one, and the majority of children will not be adversely affected in the long-term” (Mooney, Oliver, and Smith 2009). There is much research, however, that offers evidence to the contrary.

Two large meta-analyses, one reported in 1991 and the other reported ten years later in 2001, showed that “children with divorced parents continued to score significantly lower on measures of academic achievement, conduct, psychological adjustment, self-concept, and social relations” (Amato and Keith 1991; Amato and Booth 1997 as quoted in Amato 2001).

This research demonstrates that, when a child experiences parental divorce, there are significant losses that must be acknowledged.

The child may lose time with each parent

• 1. 

  Parents must adjust to their own losses as well as to their new role as a divorced parent. Thus, parents may not have as much emotional strength and time to invest in parenting, i.e., the parents experience a “moratorium on parenting.”

• 2. 

  Although laws are gradually changing, most children spend more time with one custodial parent and obviously have less time with each parent overall.

• 3. 

  For most children, this means much less time spent with their fathers.

• 4. 

  The child may also spend less time with their mother as she may need to work longer hours to support the family.

The child may lose economic security

• 1. 

  Custodial mothers experience the loss of 25–50 percent of their pre-divorce income.

  • a. Women who divorced in the past 12 months were more likely to receive public assistance than divorced men (23% versus 15%) (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).

  • b. Even five years after the divorce, mothers who remain single have only risen to 94 percent of their pre-divorce income, while continuously married couples have increased their income.

• 2. 

  Only 50 percent of custodial mothers have child support agreements, and 25 percent of mothers who have been granted support receive no payments.

• 3. 

  Custodial fathers also experience financial loss; although they tend to recover financially more quickly and rarely receive child support.

• 4. 

  Loss of income may lead to increased work time for parents, as well as a change in residence.

• 5. 

  Children living with single mothers are much more likely to live in poverty than children living with both married parents (Edwards 2014).

  • a. In 2009, children living with a divorced parent were more likely to live in a household below the poverty level (28%) compared with other children (19%) (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).

• 6. 

  Unmarried women are more likely to remain in poverty compared with married individuals and unmarried men (Edwards 2014).

  • a. Approximately 32.2 percent of people in single-mother families in poverty during the first two months of 2009 continued to be in poverty for 36 months. In contrast, only 18.7 percent of people in married-couple families in poverty during this same time remained in poverty for 36 months.

• 7. 

  Children living with single parents are less likely to experience upward financial mobility.

  • a. The fraction of children living in single-parent households is the strongest negative correlate of upward income mobility according to one study (Chetty et al. 2014).

  • b. The percentage of married families in a community also contributes to future upward economic mobility of all children in the community (Chetty et al. 2014).

The child may lose emotional security (Amato and Afifi 2006)

• 1. 

  The child may have a weakened relationship with his/her mother.

• 2. 

  The child may have a weakened relationship with his/her father.

  • a. Divorced fathers spend less time with their children.

  • b. A study in 1996 found that fewer than half of children living with a divorced mother had seen their fathers at all in more than one year, and only one in six saw their fathers once a week (Popenoe 1996, as quoted in Fagan and Churchill 2012, 6).

  • d. The child may find it more difficult to trust his/her father (King 2002).

• 3. 

  The child may have a weakened relationship with grandparents or relatives—especially the parents of the noncustodial parent (Kruk and Hall 1995).

• 4. 

  The child may lose family traditions, celebrations, and daily routines. Even adult children whose adult parents divorced later in life experienced the loss of family traditions and disruption of celebrations (Pett, Lang, and Gander 1992).

• 5. 

  The change in residence may lead to loss of friends, school environment, and other support systems.

The child may have decreased social and psychological maturation

• 1. 

  College students whose parents were divorced were more likely to experience verbal aggression and violence from their partner during conflict resolution (Billingham and Notebaert 1993).

• 2. 

  Children of divorced parents may have lower scores on self-concept and social relations (Amato 2001).

• 3. 

  Anxiety and depression seem to worsen after the divorce event (Strohschein 2005).

The child may change his or her outlook on sexual behavior

• 1. 

  There is increased approval (by children of divorced parents) of premarital sex, cohabitation, and divorce (Jeynes 2001).

• 2. 

  There is earlier sexual debut (Jónsson et al. 2000).

• 3. 

  Girls whose fathers left the home before they were five years old were eight times more likely to become pregnant as adolescents than girls from intact families (Ellis et al. 2003).

• 4. 

  Boys similarly have earlier sexual debut and higher rates of sexually transmitted disease when they have experienced divorce in their family.

• 5. 

  As adults, the female children of divorced parents experience less trust and satisfaction in romantic relationships (Jacquet and Surra 2001).

• 6. 

  The children of divorced parents are less likely to view marriage as permanent and less likely to view it as a lifelong commitment (Weigel 2007).

• 7. 

  The children of divorced parents are two to three times more likely to cohabit and to do so at younger ages (Amato and Booth 1997, 112, as quoted in Fagan and Churchill 2012, 26).

The child may lose his/her religious faith and practice (Myers 1996)

The child may lose cognitive and academic stimulation

• 1. 

  Children in divorced homes have less language stimulation.

• 2. 

  Children of divorced parents are more likely to have lower grade point averages (GPAs) and be asked to repeat a year of school (Jeynes 2000).

• 3. 

  A study of eleven industrialized countries showed that children living in two-parent families had higher math and science scores (Jeynes 2000).

• 4. 

  Children in single-mother families were twice as likely to have been absent from school for eleven or more days in the past year due to illness or injury (6%) compared with children in two-parent families (3%) (Pong, Dronkers, and ampden-Thompson 2003).

• 5. 

  Children of married parents attained higher income levels as adults.

The child may be less physically healthy

• 1. 

  Fewer children in nuclear families were considered to be in poor health than children in non-nuclear families (12% of children in nuclear family versus 22% of children of single parent) (CDC/NCHS National Health Interview Survey 2012).

  • a. Emergency room usage is higher for children in all other family types over that experienced by children in nuclear families (Family Structure and Children's Health in the United States 2010).

  • b. Children in nuclear families were less likely than children in other family types to have a learning disability or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder regardless of parents' education, income, or area of residence (Family Structure and Children's Health in the United States 2010).

• 2. 

  Children living with married parents are less likely to be abused or neglected. In one study, the relative risk that children from a single-parent family would be physically abused or neglected more than doubled (Family Structure and Children's Health in the United States 2010).

The child may have a higher risk of emotional distress

• 1. 

  A study of almost one million children in Sweden demonstrated that children growing up with single parents were more than twice as likely to experience a serious psychiatric disorder, commit or attempt suicide, or develop an alcohol addiction (Brown et al. 1998).

• 2. 

  Children of single parents are twice as likely to have emotional and behavioral problems—8 percent versus 4 percent for children from two parent households (Kelleher et al. 2000; Ringsback-Weitoft et al. 2003).

• 3. 

  The CDC reported on adverse family experiences among children in nonparental care. The study found, “Children living with one biological parent were between 3 and 8 times as likely as children living with two biological parents to have experienced neighborhood violence, caregiver violence, or caregiver incarceration or to have lived with a caregiver with mental illness or an alcohol or drug problem” (Bramlett and Radel 2014).

Parents who divorce also experience adverse effects on their physical, emotional, and financial well-being, which may also in turn affect their children.

Married (male/female) people are more likely to have better physical health

• 1. 

  Married people smoke and drink less (ChildStats.gov 2013).

• 2. 

  Married men are less likely to commit suicide than men who are divorced or separated (Schoenborn 2004).

• 3. 

  Married individuals have the lowest incidence of diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease (Kposowa 2000).

• 4. 

  Married men are more likely to live longer after a diagnosis of cancer, especially prostate cancer (Pienta 2000).

• 5. 

  Married men live longer than men who never married.

  • a. In the Framingham Offspring Study, married men had a 46 percent lower rate of dying from cardiovascular disease than unmarried men (Goodwin et al. 1987).

Married (male/female) people are more likely to have higher incomes

• 1. 

  Individuals who are married have greater wealth.

• 2. 

  The longer they stay married, the greater the wealth accumulation (Marriage and Men's Health 2010).

• 3. 

  Men especially benefit, as married men earn 22 percent more than single men (Waite and Gallagher 2000, 97–123).

• 4. 

  Women who experience divorce face a 27 percent decrease in their standard of living (Stratton 2002).

Married women are more likely to be physically safer than divorced or separated women

• 1. 

  Married and widowed women experienced less intimate partner violence than divorced or separated women.1

Married individuals are more likely to be involved in their community

• 1. 

  Married people have more civic responsibility, are more likely to volunteer in service projects, and are more likely to be involved in schools and churches (National Crime Victimization Survey 2012).

Divorce may have adverse long-term emotional effects for parents

One study demonstrated that those who were unhappy in their marriage when first surveyed, but remained married, were likely to have an improved relationship and be happier five years later than those who divorced (Wallerstein and Blakeslee 2004, 45).

Divorce adversely affects society by

• 1. 

  Diminishing the child's future competence.

• 2. 

  Weakening the family structure.

• 3. 

  Contributing to early sexual experimentation leading to increased costs for society.

• 4. 

  Adversely affecting religious practice—divorce diminishes the frequency of religious worship.

• 5. 

  Diminishing a child's learning capacity and educational attainment.

• 6. 

  Reducing the household income.

• 7. 

  Increasing crime rates and substance use, with associated societal and governmental costs (Waite and Gallagher 2000).

• 8. 

  Increasing risk for school suspensions, “Persons in Need of Supervision” status, binge drinking, and marijuana use (Demuth and Brown 2004; Eckenrode, Mrcynyszyn, and Evans 2008; Osborne, Manning, and Stock 2007).

• 9. 

  Increasing emotional and mental health risks, including suicide.

Studies have attempted to estimate the financial cost of divorce to the United States, with most recent estimates reaching $33.3 billion per year, and with adolescent pregnancy costing at least $7 billion (Schramm 2003).

There are clearly negative long-term consequences of divorce—children, parents, and society all suffer. Wallerstein's long-term study shows that many children never have full “recovery” as each special event, holiday, or celebration reminds the child of his/her loss. Given these tremendous costs borne by all individuals affected by divorce, as well as the costs to society, it is the responsibility of physicians—especially pediatricians, who care for children in the context of their families—to advocate for public health policies that promote marriage and decrease the likelihood of divorce.

The American College of Pediatricians is a national organization of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals dedicated to the health and well-being of children. Formed in 2002, the College is committed to fulfilling its mission by producing sound policy, based on the best available research, to assist parents and to influence society in the endeavor of child rearing. Membership is open to qualifying healthcare professionals who share the College's Mission, Vision and Values. The home office is in Gainesville, Florida, the website is http://www.acpeds.org and the office telephone number is 888-376-1877.

• 

Dr. Jane Anderson is a Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, where she practiced for 33 years until her retirement in November, 2012. She continues there as a volunteer faculty member. She has authored numerous articles on general pediatric topics, has presented lectures on adolescent brain development and parenting in both the US and China, and has received teaching awards from medical students and pediatric residents, including the 2014 Volunteer Faculty Teaching Award from the pediatric residents at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Anderson provided testimony on behalf of Alaska’s parental notification law demonstrating in her testimony that parental notification is in the best interest of adolescents, and the judge upheld the law.

She has been married to her husband, Karl, for 39 years, and has four children. She participates annually in short-term medical missions trips with Medical Servants International, and is on the Board of Directors of the National Physician Center. She has been a member of the American College of Pediatricians since 2002 and currently serves on its Board.

• Amato P.R.2001. Children of divorce in the 1990s. An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology 15: 355–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Amato P.R., and Booth A.. 1997. A generation at risk: Growing up in an era of family upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
• Amato P.R., and Keith B.. 1991. Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 110: 26–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Amato P.R., and Afifi T.D.. 2006. Feeling caught between parents: Adult children's relations with parents and subjective well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family 68(1): 231. [Google Scholar]
• American Academy of Pediatrics. 2003. Family pediatrics: Report of the task force on the family. Pediatrics 111: 1541–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Billingham R.E., and Notebaert N.L.. 1993. Divorce and dating violence revisited: Multivariate analyses using Straus's conflict tactics subscores. Psychological Reports 73: 679–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Blackwell D.L.2010. Family Structure and Children's Health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001–2007. CDC Vital and Health Statistics. 10: 246. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bramlett M.D., and Radel L.F. 2014 Adverse Family Experiences Among Children in Nonparental Care, 2011–2012. National Center for Health Statistics, n. 74, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr074.pdf .
• Brown J., Cohen P., Johnson J.G., and Salzinger S.. 1998. A longitudinal analysis of risk factors for child maltreatment: Findings of a 17 year prospective study of officially recorded and self-reported child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse Negl 22: 1065–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Catalano S.2012. Intimate partner violence, 1993–2010. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. [Google Scholar]
• CDC/NCHS National Health Interview Survey. 2012. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web Site (2013). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_258.pdf.
• Chetty R., Hendren N., Kline P., and Saez E. 2014 The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States (2014) Harvard University. http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/mobility_geo.pdf .
• ChildStats.gov. 2013. America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2013: Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties (2013) http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/health3.asp.
• Cohen G.J.2002. Helping children and families deal with divorce and separation. Pediatrics 110: 1019–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Copen C.E., Daniels K., Vespa J., and Mosher W.D. 2012 National Health Statistics, March 22, 2012. “First Marriages in the United States: Data from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth.” http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf .
• Demuth S., and Brown S.L.. 2004. Family structure, family processes, and adolescent delinquency: The significance of parental absence versus parental gender. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41(1): 58–81 Divorce rates highest in the South, lowest in the Northeast, Census Bureau Reports (2011). United States Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/marital_status_living_arrangements/cb11-144.html. 2011. [Google Scholar]
• Dunlop R., Burns A., and Bermingham S.. 2001. Parent-child relations and adolescent self-image following divorce: A ten year study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 30: 117–34. [Google Scholar]
• Eckenrode J., Mrcynyszyn L.A., and Evans G.W.. 2008. Family instability during early and middle adolescence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29(5): 380–92 http://www.mendeley.com/research/family-instability-during-early-and-middle-adolescence/. [Google Scholar]
• Edwards A.N. 2014 Dynamics of Economic Well-being: Poverty, 2009–2001: Household Economic Studies (2014) United States Census Bureau Web Site. http://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p70-137.pdf .
• Ellis B.J., Bates J.E., Dodge K.A., Fergusson D.M., Horwood L.J., Pettit G.S., and Woodward L.. 2003. Does father absence place daughters at special risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy? Child Dev 74: 810–1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fagan P.F., and Churchill A. The effects of divorce on children. Marri Research. January 11, 2012. [Google Scholar]
• Fagan P.F., and Zill N.. 2011. The second annual index of family belonging and rejection. Washington, DC: Marriage and Religion Research Institute. [Google Scholar]
• Feigelman W., Gorman B.S., and Varacalli J.A.. 1992. Americans who give up religion. Sociology and Social Research 76: 138–43 [Google Scholar]
• Goodwin J.S., Hunt W.C., Key C.R., and Sarmet J.M.. 1987. The effect of marital status on stage, treatment, and survival of cancer patients. Journal of the American Medical Association 258: 3125–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Jacquet S.E., and Surra C.A.. 2001. Parental divorce and premarital couples: Commitment and other relationship characteristics. Journal of Marriage and Family 63: 627. [Google Scholar]
• Jeynes W.H.2000. The effects of several of the most common family structures on the academic achievement of eighth graders. Marriage and Family Review 30: 88. [Google Scholar]
• Jeynes W.H.2001. The effects of recent parental divorce on their children's sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 35: 125. [Google Scholar]
• Jónsson F.H., Njardvik U., Olafsdottir G., and Gretarssson S.. 2000. Parental divorce: Long-term effects on mental health, family relations, and adult sexual behavior. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 41: 103. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kelleher K.J., McInerny T.K., Gardner W.P., Childs G.E., and Wasserman R.C.. 2000. Increasing identification of psychosocial problems: 1979–1996. Pediatrics 105: 1313–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Keyes C.L.M.2002. Social civility in the United States. Sociological Inquiry 72: 393–408 As cited in The Family in America New Research, November 2002. [Google Scholar]
• King V.2002. Parental divorce and interpersonal trust in adult offspring. Journal of Marriage Family 64(3): 642–56. [Google Scholar]
• Kposowa A.J.2000. Marital status and suicide in the National Longitudinal Mortality Study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 54: 254–61. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kruk E., and Hall B.L.. 1995. The disengagement of paternal grandparents subsequent to divorce. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 23: 131–47. [Google Scholar]
• Marriage and Men's Health. 2010. Harvard Men's Health Watch (2010) Harvard Health Publications. http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mens_Health_Watch/2010/July/marriage-and-mens-health.
• Miller J.E., and Davis D.. 1997. Poverty history, marital history and quality of children's home environments. Journal of Marriage and Family 59: 996–1007. [Google Scholar]
• Mooney A., Oliver C., and Smith M.. 2009. Impact of family breakdown on children's wellbeing evidence review DCSF-RR113. London: University of London, Institute of Education, Thomas Coram Research Unit. [Google Scholar]
• Myers S.M.1996. An interactive model of religiosity inheritance: The importance of family context. American Sociological Review 61: 864–5. [Google Scholar]
• Osborne C., Manning W.D., and Stock P.J.. 2007. Married and cohabiting parents’ relationship stability: A focus on race and ethnicity. Journal of Marriage and Family 69: 1345–66. [Google Scholar]
• Peterson R.R.1996. A re-evaluation of the economic consequences of divorce. American Sociological Review 61: 528–36. [Google Scholar]
• Pett M.A., Lang N., and Gander A.. 1992. Late-life divorce: Its impact on family rituals. Journal of Family Issues 13: 526–52. [Google Scholar]
• Pienta A.M.2000. Health consequences of marriage for the retirement years. Journal of Family Issues 21: 559–86. [Google Scholar]
• Pong S.L., Dronkers J., and Hampden-Thompson G.. 2003. Family policies and children's school achievement in single-versus two-parent families. Journal of Marriage and Family 65: 681–99. [Google Scholar]
• Popenoe D.1996. Life without father. New York, NY: The Free Press; As quoted by Fagan, P.F., and A. Churchill. The effects of divorce on children. Marri Research January 11, 2012: 6. [Google Scholar]
• Ringsback-Weitoft G., Hjem A., Haglund B., and Rosen M.. 2003. Mortality, severe morbidity and injury in children living with single parents in Sweden: A population-based study. Lancet 361: 289–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rostosky S.S., Regnerus M.D., and Wright M.L.C.. 2003. Coital debut: The role of religiosity and sex attitudes in the add health survey. Journal of Sex Research 40: 358–67. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Schoenborn C.A.2004. Marital status and health: United States, 1999–2002. In Advance data from Vital and Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, No. 351. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Schramm G.2003. What could divorce be costing your state? The costly consequences of divorce in Utah: The impact on couples, communities, and government. A Preliminary Report, June 25, 2003, Publication in Process, Department of Family, Consumer, and Human Development, Utah State University.
• Stratton L.S.2002. Examining the wage differential for married and cohabiting men. Economic Inquiry 40: 199–212. [Google Scholar]
• Strohschein L.2005. Parental divorce and child mental health trajectories. Journal of Marriage and Family 67: 1286. [Google Scholar]
• Stroup A.L., and Pollock G.E.. 1994. Economic consequences of marital dissolution. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 22: 7–54. [Google Scholar]
• US Census Bureau. 2003. “Unmarried-Couple Households, by Presence of Children: 1960 to Present,” Table UC-1, June 12, 2003.
• US Census Bureau. 2011. Divorce Rates Highest in the South, Lowest in the Northeast, Census Bureau Reports United States Census Bureau Web Site. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/marital_status_living_arrangements/cb11-144.html.
• Waite L.J., and Gallagher M.. 2000. The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially. New York: Doubleday. [Google Scholar]
• Wallerstein J.S., and Blakeslee S.. 2004. Second chances: Men, women, and children a decade after divorce. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. [Google Scholar]
• Weigel D.J.2007. Parental divorce and the types of commitment-related messages people gain from their families of origin. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 47: 23. [Google Scholar]