CG submission to Ministerial Group on the Family


to : Katharine Bramwell, Voluntary and Community Unit

Room 230, Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London, SW1P 2AW

 

Are we Supporting Families ?

A Response to the Consultation Document

Supporting Families [1]

from the Ministerial Group on the Family, late 1998

 

The Cheltenham Group, 8 January 1999

 

Contents

page

Summary

2

0.

Introduction

4

1.

Matrimonial and Family Law

5

2.

Social and financial policies in support of families

8

3.

Other issues not addressed in Supporting Families

11

4.

Response to individual Consultation Questions

12

5.

Conclusions

15

References

16

Annex : quotations from Marriage and Fatherhood [3]

17

 

Summary

Critique of Supporting Families : a Consultation Document

The Cheltenham Group welcomes the attention given to the family in Supporting Families.

We do not however believe that the issues addressed will benefit the present situation to any significant extent. The reasons for this are :

  • the two most significant issues are almost entirely absent from the proposals :

  • matrimonial and family law,

  • and social and financial policy in support of the family;

  • the issues addressed are largely marginal, although some may have a marginal benefit;

  • other marginal issues which could have been addressed are absent;

  • little or no evidence is provided in Supporting Families to indicate that the measures proposed are known to be beneficial, so the measures are in the main only speculative ideas;

  • further to the previous point, there is no definition as to what would constitute success in the future, to confirm that the policies in support of the family had been a success or not.

The consultation document does not define the term ‘family’. Many recent definitions, and the implications of public policy, imply that the term ‘family’ has come to mean ‘a woman and her children, and whoever she cares to live with from time to time’. This definition deliberately excludes men and fathers. Without a definition of ‘family’ which includes a man and father, the rights of men and fathers are automatically marginalised if not excluded from ‘family’ life.

Issues to be addressed if families are to be supported

There are two most significant issues almost entirely absent from the proposals which are destructive to marriage, in that they act both as encouragement to separation and divorce, and act as discouragement to commitment within a marriage. The issues are identified under two areas :

Matrimonial and family law

The principles applied by the courts to resolve cases of separation and divorce are not those of the letter or spirit of the laws made by Parliament under the terms of the Matrimonial Causes and Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Acts. Further, the principles would not receive the support of the public, if they were known to the public. Matrimonial and family law is therefore comprehensively and seriously compromised, and the principles applied may only be described as degenerate. The only person ‘protected’ by the law is the woman, and less than equal protection is available to the man in most cases. The objective needs and interests of children as defined under the Children Act 1989 are in most cases not being met. The law now allows marriages to be destroyed on trivial and fabricated grounds, and the issues of children and assets are causing immense injustices. Most marriages are ended by a petition from the woman, who knows, before proceedings begin, that she will gain from the process, at the expense of the man. Women may retain many benefits from the marriage after divorce, but this is not the case for the man.

Those men who have sought remedies have found that none are available, and so the legal system involved is also out of control of responsible authority.

Social and financial policy in support of the family

Social and financial policy currently disproportionately supports the ‘family’ consisting of a woman and ‘her’ children, and whoever she cares to live with from time to time. A remarried woman usually obtains unearned income in the form of child maintenance, and so is better off than a normal family. The single-parent family is given greater support than the normal two-parent family, and the single parent has more disposable income after tax than the normal family for every level of gross income.

Other issues not addressed in Supporting Families

Included in this are :

  • support for excluded fathers, in terms of legal, financial and practical support from lawyers, welfare officers, judges, schools, doctors and hospitals, social services, etc, etc;

  • child benefit available to excluded fathers;

  • the same level of local support and networking which is available to single mothers.

Response to individual Consultation Questions

We give responses to those questions we are qualified to answer, and comment here that the issue of men’s and father’s rights within the family, which is currently negligible, is largely ignored in the questions.

Conclusions

The proposals in Supporting Families are likely to have a very marginal effect in support for the family, and particularly men’s position within the family. They provide support primarily for the unit consisting of a woman and ‘her’ children, and her current ‘partner’. All Government initiatives in recent years have likewise failed to address the basic issues, and as we know, have failed to have any significant effect on family breakdown and stability. The UK is rightly known to have one of the worst records in Europe in the area of the family, and these proposals will benefit the situation little if at all.

The law and social policies require radical change, to once more recognise, and to provide incentives for the normal two-parent family, involving the re-introduction of men’s and father’s rights within the family, to meet the children’s objective needs, to provide justice, to provide rewards for good behaviour and appropriate role models for children to follow, and above all else, to reinstate social stability in this area.

 

0. Introduction

The Cheltenham Group welcomes the attention given to support for the family by the Ministerial Group on the Family.

The background situation in the UK includes :

Most recent developments, and we may mention the Child Support Act 1991 and Family Law Act 1996, neither of which support families, were passed with all-party support. Initiatives from recent Governments, and the present Labour government is no exception, have had no benefit.

This is the background situation against which Supporting Families is presented. There is therefore considerable scepticism among men’s groups about the benefits to their lives, to the family, or to society in general, about any new proposals.

This response to Supporting Families is intended to introduce Government to :

  • matrimonial and family law,

  • and social and financial policy in support of the family;

 

1. Matrimonial and Family Law

The scope of this section

We can only provide an outline of this area, and to make reference to other Cheltenham Group publications for further details. We provide below a synopsis of :

The significance of this issue

The importance of this area cannot be overestimated. It is the knowledge of the likely outcome of divorce, determined by courts of law, which to a large extent drives the process. The outcomes we refer to are control of children and asset allocation, and ongoing maintenance for children - all of which are allocated in the woman’s favour, whatever her past behaviour.

We explain below that :

The last major reform of matrimonial law was in 1969. Case law decisions in 1973 based on this law in fact overturned Parliament’s intentions, and this was compounded with the introduction of the ‘special procedure’ in 1976. Since this time the divorce rate has increased four-fold. There are now approximately 180,000 divorces per year in the UK, and of these about 100,000 men and 120,000 children have their lives seriously damaged in a process they did not cause and were helpless to prevent.

Due to the changes which we outline, most divorces are now brought using trivial and fabricated reasons. It is no surprise that more than 70% of divorces are now brought by the woman, and that marriage rates have declined.

How this situation came about

This history is explained in full in other Cheltenham Group publications, notably The Emperor’s New Clothes : Divorce Process and Consequence [2], Marriage and Fatherhood : Important Information for Young Men [3], and The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies [4].

The principal causes are :

The most significant aspect of the law which has changed is that concerned with the basis for divorce and the allocation of assets. The provisions concerning the parties’ behaviour and the relevance of this to the outcome of divorce are defined in the Matrimonial Causes Act and the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act. The corruption of Parliament’s intentions were introduced by case law in 1973 over assets, and this date coincides with the dramatically increased rate of divorce. Previous case law decisions about children, from 1948, had already ensured that women had priority over children.

The basis for divorce, until 1969, that is on the grounds of desertion, cruelty and adultery, were replaced by irretrievable breakdown as evidenced by five factors. One of the five factors was ‘unreasonable behaviour’, and it was for a court to decide what was unreasonable. The senior judges overturned this principle in 1973, by allowing the term ‘unreasonable’ to apply to whatever the person making the allegation thought was ‘unreasonable’, that is to provide a subjective test as to what was ‘unreasonable’. Since then trivial and fabricated grounds have become common, and the unreasonable behaviour petition accounts for most divorces. Solicitors and barristers have accommodated this practice by ensuring that few divorces are contested.

More recent changes to matrimonial and family law have included the Child Support Act 1991, which for the first time ever caused mass public demonstrations due to the unjust treatment of fathers, and the Family Law Act 1996, which incorporates the ‘no-fault’ principle, already introduced by stealth and without public knowledge, into the written law for the first time ever. The architects of this include Brenda Hoggett, former Law Commissioner, now a judge in the Court of Appeal who has expressed clear feminist and anti-male views which we describe in Marriage and Fatherhood : Important Information for Young Men [3]. During the passage of FLA96, a MORI poll indicated that 64% of the public did not support no-fault divorce.

There have been attempts by feminists (see section 3.5 of [3]), to obtain the same outcomes of separation for cohabiting couples as for married couples.

The effects of current matrimonial and family law

The effect of this corruption of the laws has been to marginalise men and fathers within the family. The extent to which this has already been achieved is unknown to most of the public. The response of individuals, when presented with the facts, is often one of disbelief, except for those who have been subjected to these ‘laws’.

The public however are increasingly aware of the rate of divorce, but are unaware of the practices and likely outcomes in detail. It was for this reason that the Cheltenham Group have described the situation in Marriage and Fatherhood : Important Information for Young Men [3], and we can do no better than to quote sections from this work. We do this in the Annex to this reponse. It should be noted that much of the information we present has never been collected by any Government department. The derivation of the statistics may be obtained from the Cheltenham Group on request.

A review of the social effects of these issues

While most young men do not have access to the information collected by the Cheltenham Group, there is nevertheless some appreciation by the public that men have few rights in marriage. The increase in cohabitation, and falling marriage rate are linked to this knowledge.

A matrilineal society is being produced, with about one third of children raised by single mothers [7].

A young man now contemplating marriage :

Further, such young men live in a society in which an increasing proportion of employment opportunities are outside of the roles suited to males.

Proposals in Supporting Families

There are no proposals in Supporting Families which address the fundamental issues of support and protection for men and fathers through matrimonial and family law.

 

2. Social and financial policy in support of families

Definition of ‘family’

It is worth defining the term ‘family’. The Cheltenham Group are concerned solely with the usual two-parent family, i.e. a father and a mother who raise their own children. We refer to this as a ‘normal’ family. We do not recognise any other grouping as requiring the level of protection which should be afforded to the ‘normal’ family.

Some background

The single-parent unit has expanded due to both the illegitimate birth rate, which has grown from 3.2% to 34% of live births in 30 years, and the divorce rate having increased four fold in the same period. However, about one half of single-parent units are of divorced women, the majority of whom have abandoned a husband using trivial and fabricated grounds.

We know from statistics that the cost to the nation of single-parent units is approximately 15 billion per annum. If polled the taxpayer would not support this arrangement to which they each have to contribute an estimated 422 per year. Even if they do not agree with the lifestyle, the subsidised payment for the single-parent unit is enforced through the taxation system. The nation is burdened financially and socially with the single parent unit, and those who have acted responsibly are the very people asked to support the irresponsible.

What has led to this situation in the last 30 years is the abandoning of the previous rules of society, particularly of responsible behaviour and loyalty towards others. Inappropriate role models are now provided to children as they grow up. Further, and equally importantly, social policy has been devised without reference to men and fathers and without input from their organisations.

entral and local government grants, funding and community aid is made available to all types of organisations - primarily women’s, and rarely men’s or father’s. Organisation and funding of men’s groups is minimal, and this must surely change. Assistance and protection sought from the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) to protect men’s and father’s interests is rejected. Since its inception some 25 years ago the EOC has only become involved in 7 men’s related cases.

Social policy, in recognising mothers and women as ‘primary carers’, excluded those men who are also primary carers. Lone fathers get a far rougher deal than lone mothers with fewer services and amenities notified or made available to them. This indirect discrimination pervades the benefits system and continues into pension provision and minimum NI contributions and multifarious state entitlements. Direct discrimination leaves families with a father poorer for all levels of income [8] than fatherless lone parent families.

The present thrust of law which underpins those principles is to reward bad behaviour in women, and to hold men responsible whatever the events which led up to separation and divorce. At the same time social and financial policy supports such women. The terminology used hides the reality. Examples include :

The one common denominator in all this sea of trouble and incompetence is the omission, or rather the deliberate exclusion, from debate and policy formulation of father’s representatives and men’s groups.

Feminist campaigns

It is now clear that feminist ideals, of promoting women’s rights, and of removing men’s equitable rights within the family, have been massively successful. The public are only beginning to be aware of just how successful the feminist campaign has been [2, 3, 4].

Aspects of concern

In the present situation, we have two aspects of concern :

The Cheltenham Group have concern for two major principles :

  1. that responsible behaviour within the family should be rewarded, and that irresponsible behaviour should not be rewarded as it is at present;

  2. that self supporting families, who are net taxpayers, should not be burdened financially with support for other units.

The Home Secretary’s speech at the launch of Family Matters (a report from the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group, July 1998)

We shall not critique this in depth, but simply point out that none of the fundamental principles which we identify here have been addressed, and mention two examples of lack of integrity.

Mr Straw says "It is not for governments to lay down how adults conduct their personal relationships" and "We are not in the business of telling law-abiding adults how to lead their lives", but all recent legislation and his proposals do and will interfere.

Mr Straw says, of some fathers who have complained about the CSA, that they "no longer want to meet their responsibilities" when in fact these fathers are the innocent victims of a vastly unjust system, and when they are forced to send monies to someone who has become a stranger, if not an enemy, and who has gained by the process and is better off than a normal family, at the expense of the men who Mr Straw claims ‘don’t want responsibility’.

We regard this latter comment from Mr Straw is one example of the confused if not deliberately misinforming statements made by government which obscure the reality of the present situation.

Proposals in Supporting Families

To summarise the social and financial issues of concern, we currently have :

There are no proposals in Supporting Families which address these social and financial policy problems in this area.

 

3. Other issues not addressed in Supporting Families

Support for excluded fathers

There is very little support for excluded fathers, in terms of legal, financial and practical support from lawyers, welfare officers, judges, schools, doctors and hospitals, social services, etc, etc. In fact they are treated in many cases with direct abuse.

Many excluded fathers report to the men’s and father’s groups the neglect and abuse to which they are subjected from those in authority. Examples are available in Cheltenham Group publications, especially The Emperor’s New Clothes : Divorce Process and Consequence [2].

Child benefit available to excluded fathers

Many excluded fathers care for their children throughout the year, usually during weekends and holidays. These periods usually amount to a significant proportion of the year. For example, weekend care of two days and nights every week amounts to a total period of care of 104 days or 15 weeks or more than 3 months.

The father rarely obtains any share of the child benefit for this period of care. The mother usually receiving all of the benefit, even though, with child maintenance from the excluded father, she is usually financially better off than the mother in any normal family.

Lone mothers are supported by the state with special provisions which are not available to the excluded father, and child benefit is only one example. Other benefits include housing benefit.

Local support and networking which is available to single mothers

Many voluntary groups provide support for lone mothers, while excluded fathers obtain little or no support, even though they may be in a far more difficult domestic and financial situation.

 

4. Response to individual Consultation Questions

 

Q1:

Almost all law and policy making in the last 50 years, especially since the 1960s, has been heavily influenced by feminist ideals. This is due to the predominance of women, and feminists on those bodies of influence. For example, all university social science departments, who have contributed to the debates, are heavily biased against men’s and father’s equitable rights, and denigration of men and fathers is the norm.

The success of a National Family and Parenting Institute will depend to a large extent on the constitution of its management. It will be essential that right-minded people are involved, and not the usual groups of feminist campaigners. The involvement of fathers’ representatives is seen as essential.

One of the functions of such an Institute must be to disseminate information about men’s and father’s rights within the family, in order to counteract the current marginalisation of fathers. Another function should be to identify any failings in the legal system or bias in social and financial policies affecting men and fathers, and report those to the appropriate authority.

 

Q3:

The various local contacts for the father’s groups in the UK receive a few to several thousand phone calls per year from excluded fathers in distress. There are about 30-40 venues at which regular local meetings are held by the father’s and men’s groups on a weekly, fortnightly or monthly basis. There is therefore a clear need for further support for men and fathers.

A similar comment applies here as in Q1, that it is essential that those operating such a national helpline are right-minded people who have the interests of the family and society in mind and not more women’s rights.

 

Q5:

At present there is no specific legal requirement on a school to provide an excluded father with information about his child’s progress, school reports, newsletters, etc. Such excluded fathers must explicitly ask for such information, and reports are regularly received about difficulties. Many excluded fathers live at a distance from their child’s school, and this adds to the problems in difficulty of attendance at school events and open evenings etc. Some have difficulty in attending in case the ex-wife should also be present and on-going conflict, caused by the lack of father’s rights, should create an unpleasant situation. All these issues contribute to the exclusion of fathers in education issues.

Schools should have mechanisms to provide information and services to separated parents, and special provisions for excluded fathers.

As an additional comment, doctors and hospitals should be likewise required to support excluded fathers.

 

Q13:

Some young men have witnessed the treatment of their own fathers or brothers or friends, and choose not to marry or to found a family. Other young men are entering into marriage and starting families without the least knowledge of their rights and responsibilities.

On the other hand, young women are marrying and starting families in the knowledge that, with or without a husband, they will always be fully supported by the legal and social provisions, including those for lone mothers. That is, they will have massive privilege and priorities. They know they do not require to have a man involved at all, and can even count on child support subsequent to a single encounter which produces a child.

Of all the issues addressed in Supporting Families, the provision of a statement of rights and responsibilities to intending spouses or parents is the most significant. In particular, the statement should include certain knowledge of the present situation which the Cheltenham Group has produced in its publications, notable in Marriage and Fatherhood : Important Information for Young Men. The statement should stress :

  • the current lack of rights of fathers,

  • the lack of responsibility demanded of mothers,

  • the privileges and priorities given to mothers,

  • and the responsibility of mothers to respect the father’s rights should there be a separation.

The Cheltenham Group offers to make its information from publications available for this purpose.

 

Q14:

We respond to this question much as for Q13.

We should also add that there is essentially a serious problem in the UK, with respect to what we can refer to as culture and attitudes, which has created the problems we address in this response to Supporting Families. This culture applies to :

  • the public who may intend marriage,

  • but also of social science, Government Departments, lawyers, judges, court welfare officers, etc, etc, who themselves promote the culture and attitudes we refer to.

This culture requires to be changed dramatically. This will only happen when the public and those in authority are educated further.

In terms of how such information should be disseminated, it will be essential to involve the media, and information packs should be readily available to young men and women. While use could be made of existing services, such as Relate, our experience of the usefulness of this body is not good, as they have no track record of saving marriages in difficulty.

There is no reason why a separate organisation such as a marriage and parenting rights commission should not be established, again it being essential to involve right-minded people.

 

Q15:

One of the greatest problems with the state of marriage and parenthood is that those entering it do not know their rights and responsibilities, or what will happen in practice on a separation or divorce. It is the certain knowledge of outcomes of separation and divorce for the parties and children which will reinstate family stability.

Another problem is that judges have discretion to determine outcomes. Spouses and parents should have certain knowledge what will happen before, not after, committing themselves.

Many men and fathers are in deep shock after separation when they understand the reality of what is done to them, and this is due to lack of certainty and knowledge.

Written agreements should be available, and should cover not only finance but also children. No court should be able to vary these agreements unless it is proven that the children or parties may be in danger.

There is no reason why agreements should be drawn up covering all aspects, and any obstruction to such a scheme by the judiciary or lawyers, who have been proven to be corrupt [2] must to prevented.

 

Q16:

Whether register offices have a role is largely a marginal issue. It may be convenient to use them to disseminate information.

The period of notice of 15 days is far too short.

The form of ceremony is a spurious issue, and suggesting changes in it only gives encouragement to the latest trend or fad in social opinion. To emphasise the seriousness of commitment, and the enduring nature of the fundamental principles involved, which should be common to all marriages, a fixed and traditional ceremony is essential.

 

Q17:

There is no evidence that mediation has significant effect on the outcomes of separation, and any tinkering here will have negligible benefit.

 

Q18:

Counselling services may be useful if right-minded people are involved. There is no evidence that Relate has helped to significantly save marriages.

The arrival of babies is not a time when marriages are under strain. At the time of separation and divorce, the average age of children is 6 to 7 years, and of parents about 40 years [2].

 

Q19:

Courts are expensive processes, funds for which seriously deplete assets required by the parents and for children. Legal processes are open to abuse and corruption, as is now the case [2].

Most if not all issues should be taken out of the court’s and judge’s hands, as these authorities have abused their position and done great damage to the family and our society over the last 25 years.

Prenuptial contracts should determine all issues.

 

5. Conclusions

Significance of the Issues

It is impossible to overestimate the importance of the issues that surround family life and the way in which 50% of the population have been adversely affected and been effectively silenced in the national debate on this matter.

Likely benefits of the proposals in Supporting Families

The proposals in Supporting Families are likely to have a very marginal effect in support for the family, and particularly men’s position within the family. They provide support primarily for the unit consisting of a woman and ‘her’ children, and her current ‘partner’.

The proposals no nothing to define ‘family’ in an appropriate manner.

All Government initiatives in recent years have likewise failed to address the basic issues, and as we know, have failed to have any significant effect on family breakdown and stability. The UK is rightly known to have one of the worst records in Europe in the area of the family, and these proposals will benefit the situation little if at all.

This response to Supporting Families is intended to introduce Government to the facts that :

  • matrimonial and family law,

  • and social and financial policy in support of the family;

Remedies

The law and social policies require radical change, to once more recognise, and to provide incentives for the ‘normal’ two-parent family, involving the re-introduction of men’s and father’s rights within the family, to meet the children’s objective needs, to provide rewards for good behaviour and appropriate role models for children to follow, to provide justice, and above all else, to reinstate social stability in this area.

 

References

  1. Supporting Families : a Consultation Document, Ministerial Group on the Family, late 1998.

  2. The Emperor’s New Clothes : Divorce Process and Consequence, 2nd Edition, The Cheltenham Group, February 1998, ISBN 1 900080 03 6.

  3. Marriage and Fatherhood : Important Information for Young Men, 2nd Edition, The Cheltenham Group, 1998, ISBN 1 900080 05 2.

  4. The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies, The Cheltenham Group, 11 June 1998.

  5. Equal Rights / Anti-sexism, National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO), 4 Chivalry Road, London, SW11 1HT, September 1996.

  6. Letter, from Gaenor Kyffin of NAPO Administration, 4 Chivalry Road, London SW11 1HT, 23 April 1997.

  7. Divorce Law Practice : The Invisible Engine of a Matrilineal Society, Dr John Campion, The Cheltenham Group, 31 January 1998.

  8. Farewell to the Family ?, Patricia Morgan, Institute of Economic Affairs, January 1995, ISBN 0 255 363 56 7.

 

Annex : quotations from Marriage and Fatherhood [3]

Quote 1 : some statistics to illustrate the effects

We give here a selection of statistics. The probabilities are out of 1, e.g. 0.53 means that this applies to 53% of the relevant population. The occurrences are those estimated from the probabilities, based on the assumption, and no better information exists at this time, that these probabilities apply to the whole population. The populations are those of all currently married men, and those divorced in one year.

Outcomes: occurring to a married man

during marriage

Population : all currently married men

P

(outcome)

Occurrences to

currently married men

be divorced

0.53

7,355,900

be divorced by his wife using fabricated grounds

0.24

3,338,800

lose custody of his child(ren)

0.24

3,417,800

lose custody, and never see child(ren) again

0.08

1,069,600

lose his home

0.39

5,516,900

lose a significant part of his life savings

0.49

6,923,200

 

Outcomes: occurring to a married man

during divorce

Population : men divorced in 1 year

P

(outcome)

Occurrences to married men

per year

have no effective defence to a wife’s petition

0.61

110,000

not receive legal aid

0.64

115,000

have false allegations made against him

0.58

105,000

be the victim of malpractices in his legal case

0.87

156,000

 

Outcomes: occurring to a married man

after divorce

Population : men divorced in 1 year

P

(outcome)

Occurrences to divorced men

per year

suffer obstruction to contact with his children

0.61

109,800

suffers stress

0.83

149,300

will not remarry

0.77

138,300

have attitudes to women in general

0.63

113,900

have attitudes to the law

0.90

162,800

 

Item : of assets and legal costs

at marriage and divorce

Value : given in s

Average

per case

Total per year

transferred to women at marriage

9,913

1,748,250,000

transferred to women at divorce

18,804

3,384,720,000

paid to lawyers at divorce (men only data)

29,306

5,275,080,000

 

Item : of maintenance

after divorce

Value : given in s

Average

per case

per year

Total

per case

(made over 10 years)

%age of

cases to

which this

applies

Total for cases

in 1 year

(made over

10 years)

maintenance for children

3,216

32,160

47.6

2,752,053,300

maintenance for

(ex-) wives

5,292

52,920

13.4

1,276,430,400

 

Quote 2 : some simple comparisons to illustrate the effects

It is possible to estimate the probability that a married parent will raise his or her own children, in a normal family setting, to adulthood. We have 47% of parents who raise their children within the usual two-parent family. For the other 53% who divorce, we know from the survey statistics that about 86% of mothers and only 9% of fathers will continue to have custody of all children. Taking 86% and 9% of the 53% who divorce, we obtain data about those divorced couples, that 46% of women and 5% of men retain custody. Adding these figures to 47% we obtain the figures that 93% of mothers and 52% of fathers will be primary carers responsible for raising their own children to adulthood. The probability that a married mother will remain a primary carer of her own children is therefore 0.93, but for a father the figure is 0.52.

Expressed in simple lay terms, if a man takes the step of marrying and has children there is :

If a woman takes the step of marrying and has children there is :

If a wife tires of a husband, she may :

However if a husband tires of his wife, he may :

It is worth considering the situation of cohabiting couples with children. If a woman tires of a cohabiting man, she may :

However if a man tires of a cohabiting woman, he may :


Copies of this response are available from The Cheltenham Group :

Price 5.00, inclusive of postage & packing

For further information you may contact :

The Cheltenham Group

PO Box 205, Cheltenham, Glos, GL51 0YL

 

Director : Barry Worrall BSc MSc MBCS CEng