history and current status of divorce in the united states · pdf filelaw and shunned in...

History and CurrentStatus of Divorce in theUnited StatesFrank F. Furstenberg, Jr.

Abstract

This article explores the remarkable shift in marriage and divorce practices that hasoccurred in the last third of this century in the United States. Initially, informationis presented on trends in divorce and remarriage; commonalities and differencesbetween family patterns in the United States and in other industrialized nations arediscussed. The author then identifies some of the factors that have transformedmarriage practices in the United States and describes how changes in these practiceshave altered the family experiences of children. Finally, the author suggests trendsin family patterns that might occur in the near future and discusses various policyinitiatives and how they may influence the future of the family.

A s far back as the nineteenth century, when divorce was stilluncommon in the United States, Americans worried about theconsequences of marital dissolution for children.1 Then as now,

opinion divided between critics of liberalized divorce practices whoworried that reform would undermine the capacity of parents to protectand nurture children and reformers who believed that divorce is anecessary mechanism to ensure matrimonial success.2 None of the par-ticipants in these debates a century or more ago, however, contemplatedan era when divorce would become an intrinsic part of our marriagesystem or a time when close to half of all those who entered marriagewould voluntarily end their unions.

This article explores the demographicand social changes that have come aboutin American families as a result of the “di-vorce revolution,” a phrase that Weitzmanused to characterize the remarkable shiftin marriage and divorce practices that oc-curred in the last third of the twentiethcentury.3 This change, dramatic as it some-times appears, was actually a gradual onethat is firmly rooted in American culturalvalues. True, the divorce revolution hasoccurred among most developed nations.4

Nonetheless, the pace of change and theprevalence of marital disruption and family

reconstitution is distinctly American. By aconsiderable margin, the United States hasled the industrialized world in the inci-dence of divorce and the proportion ofchildren affected by divorce.5 Part of themission of this article is to understand whythis is so.

The first section of this article de-scribes trends in divorce and remarriage(see the article by Shiono and Quinn inthis journal issue for a detailed presenta-tion of these and related important demo-graphic changes) and comments on the

The Future of Children CHILDREN AND DIVORCE Vol. 4 • No. 1 – Spring 1994

Frank F. Furstenberg,Jr., Ph.D., is ZellerbachFamily Professor of So-ciology in the SociologyDepartment, Univer-sity of Pennsylvania.He is also research as-sociate in the Popula-tion Studies Center.His present researchconcerns the interplaybetween social changein the family and pub-lic policy.

30 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – SPRING 1994

growing pattern of informal unions thatcomplicates our interpretation of recentpatterns of marriage, divorce, and remar-riage. The commonalities and differencesbetween family patterns in the UnitedStates and those in other industrializednations are discussed. The second sectionof the article identifies some importantsources of the transformation in marriagepractices. Although other articles in thisvolume deal more directly with the conse-quences of divorce for children, thisarticle, in the third section, provides ademographic context for this discussion

Most demographers think thatdivorce is not likely to continueits upward pattern, at least in thenear term.

by comparing the family experiences ofdifferent cohorts of children as they haveencountered increasing levels of maritalinstability. In doing so, it highlights thevery different types of family patterns thatoccur among whites, African Americans,and Hispanics. In the final section, somethemes that emerge throughout the arti-cle are addressed, including what sorts oftrends might occur in the near future andwhether various policy initiatives can in-fluence the future of the family, the pat-terns of parenting, and the welfare ofchildren who face high degrees of un-certainty in their family arrangements.

Historical Changes inDivorce and RemarriageUntil the latter part of the nineteenthcentury, divorce was largely proscribed bylaw and shunned in practice much as stillhappens today in many nations includingsome European countries such as Italy andIreland.6 Most marital disruptions oc-curred not as a result of divorce but fromdesertion or informal separation. Becausepopulation surveys were not availableprior to the middle part of the twentiethcentury, it is difficult to know how often defacto divorce took place in the UnitedStates. But, it seems likely that all but asmall minority of marriages survived untilthe death of one or another partner, anevent that typically occurred much earlierthan it does today.7 Some have argued that

the rise of divorce was partly prompted byincreasing survival rates, which placed agreater strain on the ability of couples tomanage marital stress or maintain maritalcontentment.8 However, there is no firmevidence to support this conjecture.

Divorce rates in the United States be-gan to rise shortly after the Civil War andcontinued on a steady upward coursefor more than a century. Over this timerates have fluctuated, often falling in pooreconomic times and generally surgingafter major wars. But these short-termvariations have been far less consequen-tial to the long-term pattern of constantgrowth.9 Nearly two decades ago, Prestonand McDonald calculated the likelihoodof divorce for each marriage cohort be-ginning in 1867 and continuing until themid-1960s.10 Their results showed a con-tinuous trend of dissolution among suc-cessive marriage cohorts. Roughly 5% ofmarriages ended in divorce just after theCivil War compared with an estimated36% in 1964. Thus, the pattern of preva-lent divorce was firmly in place in thiscountry even before the divorce revolu-tion of the 1960s.

Nonetheless, there was a sharp in-crease in the incidence of divorce fromthe mid-1960s to the late 1970s. During aspan of a decade and a half, divorce ratesfor married women more than doubled(from 10.6 per 1,000 in 1965 to 22.8 in1979), pushing the risk of divorce muchhigher for all marriage cohorts, especiallythose who wed after the mid-1960s.11

Some researchers speculated that a ma-jority of all marriages contracted in the1970s and after would end, especiallywhen both informal separations and for-mal divorces were counted.12 Other re-searchers reached more conservativeestimates but still projected that morethan two in every five marriages wouldend in divorce when divorce rates reachedtheir peaks in the middle 1970s.9

Divorce rates began to level off in thelate 1970s and actually declined by about10% during the 1980s.13 As mentionedearlier, fluctuations of this sort are com-mon historically and do not necessarilysignal a reversal in divorce trends. None-theless, most demographers think that di-vorce is not likely to continue its upwardpattern, at least in the near term. Thereare several demographic explanations forthe failure of divorce rates to increase afterthe 1970s which do not necessarily imply

History and Current Status of Divorce in the United States 31

that Americans today are becoming morecommitted to staying married than theywere in the previous two decades.

The huge cohort of baby boomers, re-acting to changing economic opportuni-ties, postponed marriage.9,14 A largerproportion opted to obtain more school-ing and wait to form a family.15 Marriageage for women rose from just above 20 inthe mid-1950s to 24.4 in 1992, an increaseof more than four years.16 It has long beenknown that early marriage and lower edu-cation are associated with marital insta-bility.17 Thus, the pattern of delayed mar-riage might have had a role in curbing therates of divorce.

Another potent source of marital dis-ruption, associated with early marriage, ispremarital pregnancy. Fewer marriagestoday occur as a result of a premaritalpregnancy.18 It also seems plausible thatthe greater availability of contraceptionand abortion in the 1970s may have dis-couraged the formation of early unions,reducing the number of ill-consideredmarriages, though evidence to supportthis hypothesis is not available.

Furthermore, the population has beengetting older as the baby boomers mature.Older couples in long-standing marriageshave a lower propensity to divorce.19 Thus,as the baby boomers reach middle age, alarger proportion of those married havepassed through the high-risk years, whentheir marriages are young and relativelymore fragile.

Finally, growing rates of cohabitationbefore marriage may have brought downthe rate of divorce. As more and morecouples elect to live together prior to mar-rying, it seems likely that many unionsthat would have ended in divorce end be-fore marriage occurs. That is, a growingnumber of Americans are divorcing with-out marrying, making the official divorcestatistics a less reliable barometer of unionstability.20

For all these reasons, it is probable thatthe modest drop in divorce rates does notindicate a higher propensity toward mari-tal stability. Instead, the composition ofthose marrying has changed in ways thatonly make it appear that marriages arebecoming more stable.

Remarriage

Not so many years ago, it was common forfamily experts to reassure those who werealarmed at the steady increase in divorce

rates by pointing out that divorce typicallyis not a terminal event but a transitionfrom one marriage to the next. So it wassaid that couples who separated lost faithin a particular marriage but not in theinstitution of matrimony.21 In 1975, closeto three-fourths of all women in their fif-ties who had experienced a divorce hadremarried. For formerly married men, theoccurrence of remarriage was even higher,about four in five eventually remarried,owing to the greater pool of eligible part-ners. (It is easier for men to attract youngerpartners than it is for women.) But re-cently, the rate of remarriage has beendeclining.22

In part, the trend toward lower remar-riage rates may reflect the greater ten-dency to postpone second unions as bothmen and women may be more willing andable to live as single persons. But recentevidence from the National Survey of

Many divorced persons have becomemore cautious about reentering matri-mony, preferring instead to cohabit ininformal and more fluid unions.

Families and Households (NSFH) sug-gests the rate of recoupling has not de-clined notably.23 Many divorced personshave become more cautious about reen-tering matrimony, preferring instead tocohabit in informal and more fluidunions. This pattern, discussed below,poses particular problems for childrenwho are, to an increasing extent, beingraised by quasi-stepparents who are oftentransitional figures in their households.

The lower rates of remarriage mayreflect a growing reluctance to formalizeunions after a failed first marriage. Cou-ples who remarry are known to have ahigher risk of divorce than couplesentering first marriages. And divorcesfrom second marriages occur morequickly than from first unions. Cherlinhas shown that the proportion of coupleswho will marry, divorce, remarry, andredivorce has risen eightfold during thecourse of this century, climbing frombarely 2% of those who were born in thefirst decade of the twentieth century to16% of those born after 1970.9

Cherlin described the changing pat-terns of marriage, divorce, and remarriage


for four birth cohorts of women (see Fig-ure 2 in the article by Shiono and Quinnin this journal issue). For all but the mostrecent cohort, the proportion ever marry-ing remained relatively stable while theprevalence of divorce, remarriage, andredivorce progressively increased. In theyoungest cohort, women born after 1970,Cherlin projects that marriage (and re-marriage) will decline significantly and di-vorce will remain high among women whoelect to marry or remarry.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in Patternsof Divorce and Remarriage

Rising rates of marital instability havebeen experienced by all Americans re-gardless of socioeconomic status, race, re-ligious affiliation, or region of the country.However, the extent of marital instabilitydiffers enormously among various socialgroups. It is beyond the scope of this articleto explore in detail the patterns describedabove for different social classes, religiousgroups, or regions of the country. It is hardto ignore, however, racial/ethnic differ-ences in patterns of marriage, divorce, andremarriage because the experiences forwhites, African Americans, and some His-panic groups are so very disparate.

African Americans have long exhibiteddifferent patterns of family formation.24

As far back as the nineteenth century,blacks were more likely to marry earlier,had a higher incidence of premaritalpregnancy and nonmarital childbearing,formed less stable unions, and were lesslikely to remarry when disruption oc-curred. Scholars disagree on the origin ofthese patterns.25 Some believe that theyare rooted in different notions of kinshipbrought to America; others argue thatdistinctive patterns of family formationemerged in slavery; and still others con-tend that these family differences did notreally take hold until after Emancipation,when black Americans were exposed toeconomic discrimination and racism. Stillothers argue that the differences are morerecent in origin.26

Whatever the particular origin or com-bination of origins, there is convincingevidence that African Americans aremuch less likely to marry, more likely todivorce, and less likely to remarry whendivorce occurs.27 More than 90% of whiteswill marry compared with about 75% ofAfrican Americans; of those who do wed,African Americans have a substantiallyhigher risk of divorce.13 Ten years after

marriage, 47% of blacks have separatedor divorced compared with 28% of non-Hispanic whites. Blacks are also far lesslikely to remarry after separating. As a re-sult, African Americans spend far lesstime in marriage than do whites.28

Much less information exists on themarriage patterns of other racial and eth-nic groups. Census data on Hispanicssuggest that their levels of marriage, di-vorce, and remarriage fall somewherebetween those of whites and those ofblacks.13 However, official statistics actu-ally conceal as much as they reveal aboutthe behavior of different Latino groups.There is reason to suspect that as muchdifference exists between Cubans orMexican Americans and Puerto Ricans asbetween whites and blacks in rates of mar-riage and marital stability.29 Still, such asit is, the evidence on Hispanic subgroupsreveals similar trends to those describedfor blacks and whites in the United States.

In sum, virtually all population sub-groups have experienced a postponementof marriage, a steady increase in divorce,and a decrease in remarriage after divorce.Cohabitation as a prelude, aftermath, andperhaps alternative to marriage has be-come more common. These patterns aremore evident among African Americans.

Childbearing

The declining institution of marriage hasimportant ramifications for patterns ofchildbearing. Typically, now, marriage nolonger regulates the timing of sex, and toan increasing degree, it no longer regu-lates the timing of first birth.30 Nonmaritalchildbearing has become more promi-nent over the past several decades as ratesof marital childbearing have declined andrates of nonmarital childbearing have heldsteady or increased. In 1960, only 5% of allbirths occurred to unmarried women; in1990, this proportion had risen to 28%.31

The increase for whites has been tenfold,from 2% to 20% in this 30-year period.

Figure 1 depicts the remarkable rise inthe number of first births among womenbetween the ages of 15 and 34 which haveoccurred before marriage for whites,blacks, and Hispanics. Among each of theracial/ethnic subgroups, the increase hasbeen remarkable over the past 30 years.For whites this number rose from 8.5% forbirths occurring in the early 1960s to21.6% for those that took place in the late1980s. The rise for blacks was even morespectacular, going from 42.4% in the early


Figure 1

Percentage of First Births Occurring Before First Marriage Among Women 15 to 34Years Old: 1960–64 Through 1985–89

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

White Black Hispanica

a May be of any race.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Households, families, and children: A 30-year perspective. Current Population Reports.Series P-23, No. 181. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992, Figure 6.

1960s to 70.3% in the late 1980s. The pro-portion for Hispanics doubled during thesame period, going from 19.2% to 37.5%.Clearly, out-of-wedlock childbearing hasbecome a far more important source ofsingle parenthood for all Americans andespecially so for African Americans, whonow have a sizable majority of first birthsbefore marriage.18 (See Figure 1.)

International Comparisons

The weakening of marriage as a socialinstitution is not unique to the UnitedStates. Most developed countries are wit-nessing similar demographic trends.32 Insome instances, the retreat from marriage

is even more pronounced. For example, inScandinavia cohabitation has become awidely accepted alternative to marriage.33

France and England have higher propor-tions of out-of-wedlock births than occurin the United States, though a higher pro-portion of these births occur to parentswho are cohabiting than in this country.34

Divorce rates have also risen sharply ina number of European nations, thoughnone equals this country in the prevalenceof divorce. Still, about a third of marriagesin Northern Europe will end in divorce; inEngland and Scandinavia, as many as twoin five marriages may dissolve.35 Thus, ex-planations for the de-institutionalization


of marriage cannot reside solely in thespecial features of American culture orsociety.

Explaining ChangingMarriage PatternsMuch recent scholarly activity has beendevoted to accounting for the decliningstrength of the marriage institution. Thecentrality of marriage and the nuclearfamily in the middle part of the twentiethcentury makes it especially puzzling to ex-plain what appears to be the rapid erosionof a high cultural commitment to lifelongmonogamy.9,36 As we have already seen,the view that change came suddenly and

Most Americans, perhaps womenespecially, are now less willing thanthey once were to settle for “goodenough” marriages.

only recently is certainly spurious. Many ofthe elements that were undermining theparticular model of marriage prevalent inthe 1950s have been evident for some time.

An explanation does not point to asingle source of change. A configurationof many changes, some long-standing andothers more recent, have shifted the bal-ance of individual interests away fromforming permanent unions to more fluidand flexible arrangements. The most im-portant of these was undoubtedly thebreakdown of the gender-based division oflabor that led men to invest in work andwomen to specialize in domestic activity.37

In the United States these changes oc-curred in a culture that has long trum-peted the virtues of individual choice and,more recently, personal freedom and self-actualization.38 Little wonder that Ameri-cans lead other nations in the divorcerevolution.39 Our ideology of individual-ism may have helped to grease the mainengine of change, the movement ofwomen into the labor force which sub-verted the model of marriage as an ex-change of goods and services betweenmen and women.

Other simultaneous developmentsmay have hastened the breakdown of thenuclear family. The sexual revolution inno small measure made marriage seem

less attractive. As premarital sex with de-creased risk of pregnancy became moreaccessible in the 1960s, the lure of earlymarriage lessened. The spread of birthcontrol to unmarried youth and the availa-bility of abortion played a part, but thegrowing visibility of sex that occurred inthe post-Kinsey era was probably as influ-ential as the availability of methods of fer-tility control in changing sexual practices.

Finally, the shift of public opinion fa-voring more liberal divorce laws may havefed the process of change.9 Clearly, the lawswere a response to a growing demand fordivorce.40 Increases in marital disruptionpreceded the legal changes or even theopinion favoring changes.41 However, thelaws, in turn, consolidated opinion institu-tionalizing alternative marriage forms, re-placing the permanent monogamy withconjugal succession and, of late, even moreconditional arrangements.

Apart from the development of newnorms, marital instability promotes moreinstability as individuals become morewary about the prospects of permanency.They prepare for the contingency of beingalone by spending time alone, and theyhedge their bets by entering temporarypartnerships.42 As they do, they developmore resources for independence and agreater commitment to living alone unlessthey are highly contented in unions. Thus,the standards for what constitutes a grati-fying relationship may have been rising tohigher levels, some would say to unrealis-tically higher levels. Whether this is trueor not, most Americans, perhaps womenespecially, are now less willing than theyonce were to settle for “good enough”marriages because they have the option ofseeking more gratifying relationships or ofliving alone in the event that such relation-ships prove elusive.43

Divorce and theChanging FamilyExperiences of ChildrenThe implications of these new marriagepatterns for children has been the subjectof enormous attention and mountingconcern.44 Close to a majority of childrengrowing up today are likely to spend sometime living in a single-parent family beforereaching adulthood.23,45 And, at least onein five will acquire a stepparent or surro-gate parent. Family instability is not novelto the latter part of the twentieth century.


Uhlenberg calculated that about one quar-ter of all children growing up in 1900 losta parent by death.46 If another 7% or 8%encountered a voluntary separation, thenclose to one in three spent time in a single-parent household during childhood. Bymid-century, families had become morestable: the rapid decline of mortality wasoffset to some degree by rising voluntarydissolution and slightly higher rates ofnonmarital childbearing. Still, the totaldisruptions probably did not affect morethan one quarter of all children.47

Since the 1950s, when rates of sta-bility were at their highest point, the riskof family disruption has more thandoubled, owing to much higher rates ofdivorce and separation and, more re-cently, an explosion of nonmarital child-bearing. Several estimates of children’sprobability of experiencing parental sepa-ration or divorce conclude that at leasttwo in five children will see their parentsseparate before their late teens.20,48

More than one quarter of children areborn to unmarried couples, generallycouples who are not living togetherwhen the birth occurs. Of course, thereis some overlap between these two popu-lations, but still, close to half of all chil-dren will spend time in a single-parenthousehold before age 18.

This staggeringly high figure doesnot even tell the whole story. AmongAfrican Americans, the proportion ofchildren who live continuously with twobiological parents throughout child-hood is certainly less than one in five andmay be as low as one in ten.49 Althoughdata are unavailable on the experiencesof different Latino groups during child-hood, based on family composition, it issafe to assume that the difference amongHispanic populations is at least as greatas the variation between Hispanics andeither whites or African Americans.Puerto Rican patterns resemble those ofAfrican Americans while Mexican Ameri-cans appear to have even higher stabilitythan white non-Hispanics.50

Marital disruption or nonmarital child-bearing for many children initiates a com-plex family career.47 Most are likely to seeone or both parents live with a partner fora time. Some of these partnerships even-tuate in marriage; others dissolve and aresucceeded by new relationships. Some re-marriages persist while others end in di-vorce. At least one quarter of all children

growing up today are likely to acquire astepparent by marriage, and others willlive with a quasi-stepparent. Beyond theirhousehold, children also may see theirnoncustodial parent enter new relation-ships. Thus, a high proportion of childrengrowing up today will have more than twoparents by the time that they reach age 18.Many more will gain additional parents inadulthood.

There has been considerable debateover the consequence of family flux onchildren’s development and well-being.Many researchers stress the considerablecosts incurred by children who are notraised in a nuclear family. Others cite thefact that most studies show relativelymodest effects on children’s adjustmentin later life and observe that divorcerepresents an improvement in familycircumstances for some children.51 (Seethe article by Amato in this journal issuefor an in-depth discussion of adjustmentin children of divorce.)


Given the diversity of experienceamong children whose parents do not livetogether, it is difficult to arrive at a simplebottom line when assessing the effects ofdivorce. The starting point for families isso different, ranging all the way frominstances where parents barely are ac-quainted to those who never live togetherto those who have lived together but areunsuccessful in collaborating to those whocollaborate well before they separate butpoorly afterwards to those who continueto collaborate effectively as parents evenwhen they are no longer partners.

A growing body of research has exam-ined how parents manage to raise childrenwhen they live apart.52 More than half ofall noncustodial parents effectively dropout, maintaining little or no contact withtheir children after divorce and providinglittle in the way of economic support. Onesurvey in 1981 revealed that a majority ofnoncustodial parents saw their childreninfrequently or not at all.53 Reports onchild support also confirmed that a major-ity of noncustodial fathers contributed lit-tle or no support to their children—eventhose with formal support agreements.54

(See the article by Roberts on child sup-port enforcement in this journal issue.)

Over the past decade, there appear tohave been some indications that paternalinvolvement after divorce may be increas-ing as laws both permit shared responsi-bility and enforce paternal obligations.47

Unmarried fathers, too, may be experienc-

Despite a growing pattern of joint cus-tody and shared responsibility, mostformerly married and never-marriedparents do not cooperate effectively.

ing the same opportunities and pressuresfor greater economic and emotional in-vestment. Evidence from several longi-tudinal studies indicates that fathers whomay be disconnected when children areyoung may become more involved withtheir offspring later in life.55 Still, the pre-ponderance of data indicates that a highnumber of nonresident fathers (and a sub-stantial minority of nonresident mothers)disengage from their children when theydo not live in the household. (See thearticle by Shiono and Quinn in this journal

issue for further discussion of paternal in-volvement with children after divorce.)

At the heart of the problem is thatmany regard parenthood as part of a“package deal” that is inextricably linkedwith marriage or a marriage-like relation-ship. Men, in particular, often relate totheir children in large part through theirwives or partners. The disintegration ofthat relationship reduces noncustodialparents’ willingness to invest resourcesin their children. This is especially soafter remarriage, when parents oftenfeel supplanted and disadvantaged by anew figure.

As many studies have shown, the with-drawal of economic support often hasdevastating effects on the living standardsof mothers and children.3,56 Though it isclear that stricter enforcement of childsupport will not lift all children in female-headed families out of poverty, the distri-butional effects would be substantial.57

There is ample evidence that women andtheir children are far worse off after di-vorce than men and that noncustodialfathers are not paying their fair share.58

The effects of paternal participationon children’s emotional developmentare less clear, though many experts be-lieve that children are better off whentheir noncustodial parents remain in-volved.59 In fact, the evidence for thisassumption is equivocal at best. (See thearticles by Amato, Kelly, and Thompsonin this journal issue for further discus-sion of paternal participation and chil-dren’s adjustment.) It may be that thelevel of paternal involvement is too lowto produce a benefit or that greater in-volvement is accompanied by more con-flict and ineffective collaboration.60

Despite a growing pattern of joint cus-tody and shared responsibility, most for-merly married and never-married parentsdo not cooperate effectively: they do notconsult with one another, share infor-mation, support each other’s efforts, orprovide consistent monitoring and disci-pline.53 Thus, the general axiom thatchildren are better off when both parentsare involved, even if they do not work welltogether, needs further consideration byresearchers and clinicians.

A growing body of evidence also sug-gests that remarriage can pose complica-tions for children even though theybenefit economically when the parentwith whom they live remarries.47 The eco-

37History and Current Status of Divorce in the United States

nomic status of households headed by aremarried couple appears to be similar tothat of couples in first marriages thoughfew investigators have given careful con-sideration to the potentially greater eco-nomic demands on parents in secondmarriages. Still, there is no doubt thatremarriage often lifts women and chil-dren out of poverty, probably becausewomen are much less likely to reentermarriage if their potential partners havelimited resources.

Remarriage not only reverses, to alarge extent, the economic slide resultingfrom divorce but also introduces a newset of challenges for children. Remarriagecan upset a stable family situation. It may,at least temporarily, divert attention andtime that children may be receiving fromtheir parents and perhaps create frictionsbetween stepparents and nonresidentparents. Family life can become morecomplex, uncertain, and possibly conflict-ridden, especially when households joinchildren from different families.61 (Seethe article by Shiono and Quinn in thisjournal issue for further information onstepfamilies and adjustment.)

Most studies show that children instepfamilies do not do better than chil-dren in single-parent families; indeed,many indicate that on average children inremarriages do worse.60,62 Remarriagecreates a new family form that has beendescribed by Cherlin as “incompletely in-stitutionalized.”63 Family rights and obli-gations are less clearly defined andunderstood than in nuclear households.The absence of normative consensus ex-tends beyond the household. A growingbody of research suggests that kinship tiesamong steprelations are more discretion-ary and probably less enduring.64 A posi-tive aspect for children in stepfamilies isthat they have access to a larger networkof kin; a negative aspect is that these re-lations may be less reliable and committedto extending support and sponsorship.

Several recent studies of the effects ofdivorce and remarriage on kinship rela-tions in later life indicate that marital dis-ruption may be giving our kinship systema matrilineal tilt.65 Children are less likelyto give and receive time and money fromtheir fathers and their fathers’ kin thanfrom their mothers and mothers’ kin. Re-marriage restores a measure of balancebetween maternal and (step)paternallines, but only to a limited extent. In sum,

divorce truncates the kinship network,and remarriage only partly repairs it.

Despite the evident disadvantages ofmarital disruption for children—loss ofeconomic status, instability of parentingfigures, and the complexity of new fami-ly arrangements—it is important to recog-

The vast majority of children whoexperience life in single-parentfamilies and stepfamilies do wellin later life.

nize that most studies show that the dif-ferences between children who grow upwith both biological parents in the homeand those who spend some time in non-nuclear families are relatively modest.47,60

Unquestionably, marital disruption raisesthe risks of adverse consequences; butcontrary to popular impression, the vastmajority of children who experience lifein single-parent families and stepfamiliesdo well in later life (see the article byAmato in this journal issue for an in-depth discussion of adjustment). This re-sult suggests that we have not givenenough attention to understanding whenand why disruption matters or, perhaps,to some of the advantages for childrenwhose parents improve their family situ-ation by divorce.66

The Implications ofMarriage Family Patternsfor Children’s WelfareDemographers and sociologists have hadlittle success in forecasting family trends.However, there are many reasons for be-lieving that the United States and otherWestern industrialized nations will con-tinue to experience high levels of maritalinstability. Western family systems, and theUnited States in particular, place a highpremium on individual choice and maritalhappiness.39,67 The combination of im-posing extremely high standards for inti-mate relationships while providing socialand economic alternatives to those whoare not achieving the desired standard ofmarital closeness is a virtual formula forproducing high rates of marital instability.The breakdown of the gender-based di-vision of labor accompanied and solidified


the divorce revolution, a revolution thathad already begun in the United Statesowing to Americans’ well-documentedtaste for conjugal contentment. It createdalternatives for couples (women es-pecially) who were discontent in marriageand, in turn, probably helped to changethe standards for a satisfactory marital re-lationship.

If this explanation for why divorce is soprevalent in the West is basically correct,there is reason to be pessimistic aboutcontaining divorce, either through moralsuasion or public policy measures. Even ageneration ago, when severe social andlegal sanctions against divorce were still inplace, rates of marital dissolution wererelatively high in the United States, as high

Raising the barriers to divorcemight convince some couples topostpone marital dissolution forthe sake of their children.

as they are in most European countriestoday. Restoring those sanctions, reim-posing stricter divorce laws, and mobiliz-ing social opinion against those who endtheir marriages probably would not per-suade individuals to remain in unreward-ing relationships.

Raising the barriers to divorce mightconvince some couples to postponemarital dissolution for the sake of theirchildren. Whether the net effect of suchefforts would benefit children is verymuch an open question. Existing researchstrongly suggests that children in poorquality marriages with high conflict do aspoorly, if not worse, than children in mar-riages that dissolve.60 On the other hand,children living with parents who aremerely disaffected probably benefit fromhaving them remain together. How muchchildren would be protected by a returnto the status quo ante, a regime with morerestrictive divorce practices, is a matter forspeculation.68

One likely consequence of restoringstricter divorce laws might be a furtherdecline in marriage and an increase innonmarital childbearing unless, of course,some effort was made to restigmatize un-married parenthood. Recently, some at-tempts have been made to discourage the

acceptance of single-parenthood. The mostdramatic of these was the discussion initi-ated by Vice-President Dan Quayle to con-demn the fictional character of MurphyBrown for having an out-of-wedlockchild.69 However, long before the publicdebate over Murphy Brown’s decision,various public campaigns had beenmounted to reduce nonmarital childbear-ing among teenagers. None of these, in-cluding national efforts by the UrbanLeague and the Children’s Defense Fund,have been notably successful.70 This is notto say that public opinion cannot shift as aresult of political dialogue. However, moralexhortation, however well-intentioned, isnot easily accomplished in a society that ishighly diverse and socially segmented. Ifmany devout Catholics cannot be dis-suaded from having premarital sex, usingcontraception, or even obtaining abor-tions, we should not hold out much hopeof raising cultural sanctions against di-vorce and nonmarital childbearing.

Many have argued that recent effortsto strengthen child support enforcementmay increase the men’s sense of familyobligations.71 Part of the rationale of theFamily Support Act of 1988 was to shiftsome of the costs of child care to men,relieving the high burden that womenbear for child support and the mountingpublic costs of programs like Aid to Fami-lies with Dependent Children (AFDC).72

Some have argued that, as legal and socialpressures for men to support their chil-dren mount, males may be less likely todesert their families because the economiccosts of doing so will be greater. Similarly,the knowledge that they will be requiredto provide child support may make malesmore careful about impregnating partnerswith whom they have only casual ties.71

Stricter child support obligation is un-likely to have more than a modest effecton increasing marital stability or reducingnonmarital childbearing.73 On the posi-tive side, these laws—and the publicitysurrounding them—convey an ethic ofresponsibility to children. However, thecertainty of child support could makemen more hesitant about entering mar-riage and women less reluctant to leaveunsatisfactory unions. The net effect maybe to reinforce the current retreat frommarriage. Indeed, since the passage of theFamily Support Act of 1988, marriagerates have continued to drop, marriageage has continued to rise, divorce rateshave remained stable, and nonmarital

History and Current Status of Divorce in the United States

childbearing has risen. This is not to saythat the Family Support Act has contribut-ed to these trends, but, not surprisingly,this legislation and the publicity surround-ing it seem to have had little effect on thefamily formation patterns of Americans.

Are there ways of stemming the ero-sion of marriage? At present, most publicpolicy discussion has revolved around waysof discouraging divorce and nonmaritalchildbearing, largely through publicrhetoric, rather than by designing meas-ures to make marriage a more attractiveand viable arrangement. Perhaps this em-phasis is predictable because it is unclearhow much can be done to shore up theinstitution of marriage. Besides, Ameri-cans are generally chary about policiesdesigned to promote particular familyarrangements.

At a minimum, most parents supportsome form of family life education in theschools that involves more careful con-sideration of the responsibilities and re-wards of parenthood, that raises issues ofgender roles and the difficulties of man-aging marriage. Efforts to prepare youngpeople for parenthood, for entering andmaintaining stable relationships are nothighly controversial, but there is little evi-dence that family life education fosterscommitment to marriage or encouragesplanned parenthood.

Much more controversial is the grow-ing pressure to extend various welfaremeasures—common in some Europeannations—aimed at aiding parents with de-pendent children. Job security and in-come supplements for parents who arepart-time workers, day care, parentalleave, and family support allowances areeconomic measures designed to relievestrain on overburdened parents. Whetherthey also help to reduce marital breakupis not known. It might be argued that thesetypes of family support programs makesingle-parent life more manageable and,thus, do little to reduce the breakup ofparental unions.

Assuming that the breakdown of agender-based division of labor is, at least,partly responsible for the destabilizationof marriage from the 1960s to the present,some observers have insisted that a re-vision of gender roles is required to re-new the institution of marriage. Familyresearchers have noted that considerableresistance exists to changes in the domes-tic division of labor.74 Some have seen the

surge of divorce as a reflection of theproblems of adjusting to changing genderexpectations and have argued that, withmore egalitarian marriages, marital dis-content may decline. How to bring aboutchanges in marital roles through publicpolicy is not obvious.

Clearly, there is a place for public edu-cation, but such efforts are likely to beeffective only if accompanied by struc-tural change in opportunities. Even if thisoccurs, it is not certain that changing gen-der expectations will result in more stableand secure family lives for children.Greater sensitivity to gender inequality

Some have seen the surge ofdivorce as a reflection of theproblems of adjusting tochanging gender expectations.

may actually continue to raise expec-tations about equity in marriage. At leastin the short term, expectations may con-tinue to rise more quickly than behavior.In other words, men may assume a greatershare of the domestic burdens, but theircontributions may be judged by more ex-acting standards if they continue to fallshort of true equality.

In sum, it is difficult to identify plausi-ble policies to strengthen the institutionof marriage by making divorce and non-marital childbearing measurably less at-tractive or marital stability more attractive.Accordingly, it is hard to foresee a rapidreversal of current family patterns in thedirection of greater family stability.

Therefore, it may be necessary to con-sider alternative approaches to strength-ening the situation of parents andchildren who are economically and so-cially disadvantaged by living in par-ticular family forms. At least part of thedeficit associated with growing up in asingle-parent household results fromrapid income loss and chronic povertycreated by the loss of a parent who isboth a wage earner and a supplier ofunpaid domestic labor.

There are some policies that mighthelp to reduce the huge income spreadbetween two-parent and single-parentfamilies and thereby improve the lifechances of children who grow up in a

39


nonnuclear family. Foremost among these American citizens generally agree thatis the provision of an effective child support we share responsibility for protecting ourassurance plan that provides income to children’s future.75 Presently, however,children whose parents cannot or do not there is little public consensus on whatcontribute to their support. Other meas- that responsibility involves. More than ourures, such as low-cost child care, health European counterparts, we Americanscare, and workplace benefits to reduce the are inclined to voice strong moral con-conflict between work and family roles, cerns about the family and the well-beingcould also help overburdened single par- of children. But, our willingness to act onents. I noted earlier that all of these meas- these concerns is undermined both byures might also contribute to the formation ideological disagreement and by distrustand preservation of unions between of government-sponsored interventions.parents or parent surrogates. In short, At least for the time being, America’sthese supports to parents are proposed to children are being held hostage to ourbenefit children regardless of whether or inability to reach any kind of public con-not parents marry and stay married. sensus on a course for the future.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Lichtenberger, J.P. Divorce: A social interpretation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931; Halem, L.C.Divorce reform: Changing legal and social perspectives. New York: Free Press, 1980.

O’Neill, W.L. Divorce in the progressive era. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973.

Weitzman, L.J. The divorce revolution: The unexpected social and economic consequences for womenand children in America. New York: Free Press, 1985.

Goode, W.J. World revolution and family patterns. New York: Free Press, 1963; Davis, K., ed.Contemporary marriage. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1985.

Hobbs, F., and Lippman, L. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Children's well-being: An internationalcomparison. International Population Reports, Series P-95, No. 80. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1990.

See note no. 1, Halem; Glendon, M.A. Abortion and divorce in western law. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 1987; Glendon, M.A. The transformation of family law. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Carter, H., and Glick, P.C. Marriage and divorce: A social and economic study. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 1976; Preston, S.H., and McDonald, J. The incidence of divorcewithin cohorts of American marriages contracted since the Civil War. Demography (1979)16:1-25; Weed, J.A. National estimates of marriage dissolution and survivorships: United States.Vital and Health Statistics, Series 3 (Analytic Statistics), No. 19. DHHS/PHS 81-1043.Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1980.

Stone, L. Road to divorce: England 1530-1987. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Cherlin, A.J. Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1992.

See note no. 7, Preston and McDonald.

National Center for Health Statistics. Advance report of final divorce statistics, 1988. MonthlyVital Statistics Report, Vol. 39, No. 12, Suppl. 2. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service,1991.

Martin, T.C., and Bumpass, L.L. Recent trends in marital disruption. Demography (1989)26:37-51.

Norton, A.J., and Miller, L.F. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Marriage, divorce and remarriage inthe 1990's. Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 180. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, 1992.

Saluter, A.F. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Marital status and living arrangements: March 1991.Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 461. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, April 1992.

Bianchi, S.M., and Spain, D. American women in transition. New York: Russell Sage Foun-dation, 1986.

Saluter, A.F. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Marital status and living arrangements: March 1992.Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 468. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, December 1992.

See note no. 7, Carter and Glick.


18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Households, families, and children: A 30-year perspective. CurrentPopulation Reports, Series P-23, No. 181. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1992, Figure 6.

See note no. 7, Weed. See also Bumpass, L.L., Martin, T.C., and Sweet, J.A. The impact offamily background and early marital factors on marital disruption. Journal of Family Issues(1991) 12:22-42.

Bumpass, L.L., and Raley, R.K. Trends in the duration of single-parent families. NationalSurvey of Families and Households, Working Paper No. 58. Madison: University of Wiscon-sin, 1993.

Bane, M.J. Here to stay: American families in the twentieth century. New York: Basic Books, 1976;Spanier, G.B., and Glick, P.C. Marital instability in the United States: Some correlates andrecent changes. Family Relations (1981) 31:329-38.

Bumpass, L.L., Sweet, J.A., and Martin, T.C. Changing patterns of remarriage. Journal ofMarriage and the Family (1990) 52:747-56.

Bumpass, L.L., Sweet, J.A., and Cherlin, A. The role of cohabitation in declining rates ofmarriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family (1991) 53:913-27.

Morgan, S.P., McDaniel, A., Miller, A.T., and Preston, S. Racial differences in householdand family structure at the turn of the century. American Journal of Sociology (January 1993)98:799-828; Ruggles, S., and Goeken, R. Race and multigenerational family structure,1900-1980. In The changing American family. S.J. South and S.E. Tolnay, eds. Boulder, CO:Westview Press, 1992, pp. 15-42.

Cherlin offers a cogent summary of the debate. See note no. 9, Cherlin.

Gutman, H.G. The Black family in slavery and freedom 1750-1925. New York: Vintage Books,1977; McAdoo, H.P. Black families. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981. See note no. 24, Morgan,McDaniel, Miller, and Preston.

Bennett, N.G., Bloom, D.E., and Craig, P.H. American marriage patterns in transition. InThe changing American family. S.J. South and S.E. Tolnay, eds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press,1992, pp. 89-108.

Espenshade, T.J. The recent decline of American marriage: Blacks and whites in comparative per-spective. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1985.

Bean, F.D., and Tienda, M. The Hispanic population in the United States. New York: RussellSage Foundation, 1988; U.S. Bureau of the Census. Hispanic Americans today. CurrentPopulation Reports, Series P-23, No. 183. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1993.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Fertility of American women: June 1990. Current Population Re-ports, Series P-20, No. 454. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991.

National Center for Health Statistics. Advance report of final natality statistics, 1990. MonthlyVital Statistics Report, Vol. 41, No. 9, Suppl. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service, 1993.

See note no. 4, Davis. See also Haskey, J. Formation and dissolution of unions in the differ-ent countries of Europe. In European population. Vol. 2. A. Blum and J.L. Rallu, eds. Paris:John Libbey Eurotext, 1993, pp. 211-29.

See note no. 32, Haskey.

Cherlin, A.J., and Furstenberg, Jr., F.F. The changing European family: Lessons for theAmerican reader. Journal of Family Issues (1988) 9:291-97.

Kieman, K., and Chase-Lansdale, P.L. Children and marital breakdown: Short- and long-term consequences. In European population. Vol. 2. A. Blum and J.L. Rallu, eds. Paris: JohnLibbey Eurotext, 1993, pp. 295-307.

See note no. 4, Davis.

Ross, H.L., and Sawhill, I.V. Time of transition: The growth of families headed by women. Washing-ton, DC: The Urban Institute, 1975. Goode, W.J. The family. 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall, 1982. Levinger, G., and Moles, O.C. Divorce and separation. New York: BasicBooks, 1979. Bernard, J. Women, wives, mothers. Chicago: Aldine, 1975. Nelson, R.R., andSkidmore, F. American families and the economy: The high costs of living. Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1983. Becker, G.S. A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard University Press, 1981. Sweet, J.A., and Bumpass, L.L. American families and households.New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1987.

Veroff, J., Douvan, E., and Kulka, R.A. The inner American: A self-portrait from 1957 to1976. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Thornton, A., and Freedman, D. The changing Ameri-can family. Population Bulletin (1983) 38:2-44. Bumpass, L.L. What’s happening to the


family: Interactions between demographic and institutional change. Demography (1990)27:483-98.

39. Lesthaeghe, R., and Meekers, D. Value changes and the dimensions of families in the Euro-pean community. European Journal of Population (1986) 2:225-68.

40. Wright, G.C., and Stetson, D.N. The impact of no-fault-divorce-law reform on divorce inAmerican states. Journal of Marriage and the Family (1978) 40:575-80.

41. Thornton, A. Changing attitudes towards separation and divorce: Causes and conse-quences. American Journal of Sociology (1985) 90:856-72.

42. See note no. 38, Bumpass.

43. Furstenberg, Jr., F.F. Conjugal succession: Reentering marriage after divorce. In Life spandevelopment and behavior. Vol. 4. P.B. Baltes and O.G. Brim, eds. New York: Academic Press,1982, pp. 107-46.

44. Blankenhom, D., Bayme, S., and Elshtain, J.B., eds. Rebuilding the nest: A new commitment tothe American family. Milwaukee, WI: Family Service America, 1990; Jost, K., and Robinson,M. The CQ Researcher: Children and divorce. Congressional Quarterly Inc. in conjunctionwith EBSCO Publishing (June 7, 1991) 1,5:349-68; Hewlett, S.A. When the bough breaks: Thecost of neglecting our children. New York: Harper Perennial, 1991; Gill, R.T. For the sake ofthe children. The Public Interest (Summer 1992) 108:81-96.

45. Bumpass, L.L., and Sweet, J.A. Children’s experience in single-parent families: Implicationsof cohabitation and marital transitions. Family Planning Perspectives (November/December1989) 21:256-60; Furstenberg, Jr., F.F., and Cherlin, A.J. Divided families: What happens tochildren when parents part. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.

46. Uhlenberg, P. Death and the family. In The American family in social-historical perspective. M.Gordon, ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983, pp. 169-78.

47. See note no. 45, Furstenberg and Cherlin.

48. See note no. 23, Bumpass, Sweet, and Cherlin. See also Furstenberg, Jr., F.F., Nord, C.W.,Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. The life course of children of divorce: Marital disruption andparental conflict. American Sociological Review (1983) 48:656-68.

49. Hofferth, S.L. Updating children’s life course. Journal of Marriage and the Family (1985)47:93-115. See note no. 45, Bumpass and Sweet.

50. U.S. Bureau of the Census. The Hispanic population in the United States: March 1989. CurrentPopulation Reports, Series P-20, No. 444. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1990.

51. Emery, R.E. Marriage, divorce, and children’s adjustment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988; Waller-stein, J.S., and Blakeslee, S. Second chances: Men, women, and children a decade after divorce.New York: Ticknor and Fields, 1989; Chase-Lansdale, P.L., and Hetherington, M. The im-pact of divorce on life-span development: Short- and long-term effects. In Life-span develop-ment and behavior. Vol. 10. P.B. Baltes, D.L. Featherman, and R.M. Lerner, eds. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990, pp. 105-50.

52. Furstenberg, Jr., F.F., and Nord, C.W. Parenting apart: Patterns of childbearing after maritaldisruption. Journal of Marriage and the Family (1985) 47:898-904; Seltzer, J.A., and Bianchi,S.M. Children’s contact with absent parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family (1988)50:663-77; Teachman, J.D. Intergenerational resource transfers across disrupted house-holds: Absent fathers’ contributions to the well-being of their children. In The changingAmerican family. S.J. South and S.E. Tolnay, eds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992,pp. 224-46.

53. See note no. 52, Furstenberg and Nord.

54. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Child support and alimony: 1987. Current Population Reports,Series P-23, No. 167. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990.

55. Furstenberg, Jr., F.F., and Harris, K.M. The disappearing American father? Divorce and thewaning significance of biological parenthood. In The changing American family. S.J. Southand S.E. Tolnay, eds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992, pp. 197-223; Ring, V. Nonresidentfather involvement and child well-being: Can dads make a difference? Journal of FamilyIssues (March 1994) 15:78-96.

56. Duncan, G.J., and Hoffman, S.D. A reconsideration of the economic consequences of mari-tal dissolution. Demography (1985) 22:485-97.

57. Garfinkel, I. Assuring child support: An extension of Social Security. New York: Russell Sage Foun-dation, 1992.


58. Garfinkel, I., and McLanahan, S.S. Single mothers and their children: A new American dilemma.Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1986.

59. Wallerstein, J.S., and Kelly, J.B. Surviving the breakup: How children and parents cope with di-vorce. New York: Basic Books, 1980.

60. Amato, P.R. Children’s adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypotheses, and empirical support.Journal of Marriage and the Family (1993) 55:23-38.

61. Pasley, K., and Ihinger-Tallman, M., eds. Remarriage and stepparenting: Current research and the-ory. New York: Guilford Press, 1987; Ihinger-Tallman, M., and Pasley, K. Remarriage. New-bury Park, CA: Sage, 1987.

62. This conclusion is surprising, especially in view of the fact that most existing research relieson comparisons of children in single-parent and remarried families instead of carryingout longitudinal analyses of children making the transition from divorce to remarriage.Cross-sectional comparisons often fail to account for differences in families where remar-riage does and does not occur. They also frequently ignore the experience of childrenwhose parents have remarried and redivorced, counting them as continually divorced.

63. Cherlin, A.J. Remarriage as an incomplete institution. American Journal of Sociology (1978)84:634-50.

64. Johnson, C.L. Ex familia: Grandparents, parents, and children adjust to divorce. New Brunswick,NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1988; Cooney, T.M., and Uhlenberg, P. Divorced men andtheir adult children after mid-life. Journal of Marriage and the Family (1990) 52:677-88.

65. Cherlin, A.J., and Furstenberg, Jr., F.F. The new American grandparent. New York: Basic Books,1986.

66. Barber, B.L., and Eccles, J.S. Long-term influence of divorce and single parenting on adoles-cent family- and work-related values, behaviors, and aspirations. Psychological Bulletin (Janu-ary 1992) 3:108-26.

67. Skolnick, A. Embattled paradise: The American family in an age of uncertainty. New York: BasicBooks, 1991; Bellah, R.N. Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life.Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.

68. Cherlin, A.J. Nostalgia as family policy. The Public Interest (Winter 1993) 110:77-91; Gill, R.T.Family breakdown as family policy. The Public Interest (Winter 1993) 110:84-91.

69. Whitehead, B.D. Dan Quayle was right. The Atlantic (April 1993) 271:47-84.

70. Hayes, C.D. Risking the future: Adolescent sexuality, pregnancy, and childbearing. Washington,DC: National Academy Press, 1987.

71. Chase-Lansdale, P.L., and Brooks-Gunn, J., eds. Escape from poverty: What makes a difference forpoor children? New York: Cambridge University Press. In press.

72. Ellwood, D.T. Poor support. New York: Basic Books, 1988.

73. Furstenberg, Jr., F.F. Supporting fathers: Implications of the Family Support Act for men.Paper presented at the forum on the Family Support Act. Washington, D.C., November1990.

74. Goode, W.J. Why men resist. In Rethinking the family: Some feminist questions. B. Thorne andM. Yalom, eds. New York: Longman, 1982, pp. 131-50; Thompson, L., and Walker, A.J.Women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family(1989) 51:845-71; Hochschild, A. The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home.New York: Viking Press, 1989; Gerson, K. No man's land: Men's changing commitments to fam-ily and work. New York: Basic Books, 1993.

75. National Commission on Children. Beyond rhetoric: A new American agenda for children andfamilies. Washington, DC: National Commission on Children, 1991.

history and current status of divorce in the united states · pdf filelaw and shunned in...

Documents