Throughout most of the 20th century marriage became a more common experience. By the early 1970s approximately 95% of men and women were or had been married by the time they were in their mid 40s. Marriage age also decreased over this period, with the average age of first marriage for men being 23 and for women 21 in the late 1960s. Since the mid 1970s, though, demographic aspects of marriage and partnership formation have altered markedly. To begin with, age at first marriage has shown a steady increase. By 2004 the average age had risen to 30.4 for men and 28.3 for women (Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2007a) (Table 9.1). In part this reflects the massively increased levels of cohabitation now occurring (Kiernan 2004, Seltzer 2004). In this regard, marriage is becoming less normative as a mode of household and family formation. Until the 1970s, very few couples cohabited prior to marriage, with most of those who did being separated or divorced. At the beginning of the 21st century, some 80% of all marrying couples had previously cohabited (ONS 2007a). Importantly too, many couples now live together without marriage being an explicit project. Indeed, in 2004 over a quarter of all unmarried women aged 18–59 were cohabiting (ONS 2005a). Thus, while religious and ethnic variations persist, behaviour that was censured a generation ago is now accepted by most as an uncontentious and morally appropriate way of developing romantic/sexual relationships.

Along with these changes in the demography of marriage and partnership formation, there is also a widely held belief that the basis of these relationships has been altering. Contemporary visions perceive marriage as being much more of a partnership between equals than it was in the past. It is now seen as an emotionally closer relationship, based on developing conceptions of personal compatibility, commitment and love. It consequently carries with it a heightened range of expectations, including a greater belief that personal expression and mutual satisfaction provide the central rationale for the relationship. It is this which people forming partnerships and getting married seek. More than their grandparents or even their parents, they want their unions to encompass a mutual sharing, a partnership between equals, premised on contemporary images of romantic love as a means to personal fulfilment. In this light, changing terminology is also important. The increased use of the term ‘partnership’ reflects these changing aspirations, as well as solving the ‘dilemma’ of what status to give cohabitation.

However, despite these ideologies, the basic organization of marriage and ‘coupledom’ has remained relatively constant. While cohabitation appears sometimes to entail a more symmetrical and equal relationship, once married, couples usually develop a more traditional pattern. Moreover, the division of labour and domestic responsibilities between a couple, and consequently the division of opportunities and constraints affecting each partner, become most marked when (and if) the couple have children. Generally, men are still seen as having a primary commitment to the job market and the main responsibility for securing household finances, while women take on the principal responsibility for domestic labour, childcare and household management (Oates and McDonald 2006).

The patterns here of course are not identical to those occurring in the past. There have undoubtedly been important changes, particularly with respect to wives’ employment. For example, in 1961 fewer than 40% of wives aged 16–59 were in employment. In 2005 70% of married and cohabiting women in this age range were employed, with 30% in full-time employment (ONS 2007c). Equally mothers return to employment much sooner after childbirth than they did even 20 years ago. Yet while most couples now depend on two incomes for their household’s standard of living, men’s earnings are still seen as ‘primary’ in a way in which women’s are not. In turn, even when employed full time, wives/mothers are still taken to be the person with primary responsibility for the smooth functioning of household and family matters. (For a fuller discussion of these issues, see Allan and Crow 2001.)

As children grow older, as mothers return to employment and as the couple develop different commitments outside the home, we might expect that some aspects of their division of work are renegotiated. Yet, while there are modifications over time, rarely does such renegotiation appear to lead to radical change (Crompton and Harris 1999). Husbands and older children may help somewhat more in household tasks, but the primary responsibilities for domestic management and familial care usually continue as before. Even following major changes in household circumstances, as for example with male unemployment, the renegotiation of responsibilities appears to be limited. In general, the household division of labour continues to be patterned in the gendered ways established earlier.

The continuation of a high division of labour within marriage and other committed relationships is linked very strongly to the inequalities which flourish within the job market. Notwithstanding British and European Equal Opportunities legislation, occupations still tend to be highly gendered. For example, many women employees work in a few female-dominated service occupations, e.g. as secretaries, healthcare workers, teachers, sales staff and cleaners. Importantly too, the jobs women are in typically pay significantly less than male occupations. For the last three decades, and with very little variation between years, full-time women employees have received approximately 70% of the wages male employees receive, with this relationship being broadly consistent across different skill levels. Part-time employees, the vast majority of whom are married women, usually receive even lower proportional pay (Crompton 1997).

Overall, it is not really surprising that a conventional division of labour continues to be ‘negotiated’ by most couples. As well as husbands earning more than wives, women are socialized into being more accomplished at domestic activities than men and tend to have childcare and other relationship responsibilities built more into the construction of their personal and social identities. Of course, in principle a division of labour need not be associated with an unequal distribution of resources within a marriage or other partnership, nor with the dominance of one spouse over the other. Yet research has regularly shown that within most marriages, though not all, this is the outcome. Despite the prevalence of ideologies of coupledom, men have greater control of financial resources, more freedom for leisure and more control over key decisions than their wives do (Allan and Crow 2001). So notwithstanding modifications in employment patterns, in marital ideology, in domestic standards, in childcare practices and the like, the point remains that individual couples construct their marriages within an economic and social context which remains structurally unequal and usually provides men with more options and a greater access to resources than women.

Divorce is another aspect of family life where there has been a clear change in the last 30 years. Whereas in the late 1960s there were only 45 000 divorces each year, over the last decade there have been between 140 000 and 150 000. This is a rise in the annual rate from 4 per 1000 marriages to 14 per 1000 in 2004. Each year approximately 150 000 children under the age of 16 experience their parents’ divorce, almost a doubling since 1971. Alongside this there has been an expansion in the number of lone-parent families, not all of which arise through divorce of course, and a large increase in the number of step-families. This has resulted in much more diversity in family patterns compared to even a short while ago. It also means that many individuals now experience different forms of family life at first hand, moving, say, from a two-parent family to a lone-parent one, and then later forming a step-family.

It is difficult to be precise about the reasons for the rise in divorce. Divorce, like marriage, is a legal procedure, so at one level the heightened rate of divorce merely reflects changes in the law, with the 1969 Divorce Reform Act having been especially important. However, the law itself reflects changed marital ideologies; moreover the fact that divorce is made more available does not of itself explain why people have increasingly chosen it as an option. Three factors seem particularly important. First, as we have already noted, there have been changes in marital ideologies. Increasingly people are expecting continued personal satisfaction from marriage and not just a convenient domestic, sexual and economic arrangement. Indeed, the 1969 Divorce Reform Act – which is still the basis of current divorce law – itself symbolized this. Instead of viewing marriage as essentially a legal contract between two people which could be terminated only if broken by a specific action of one of the spouses, for example adultery or desertion, under the 1969 Act, marriage was understood more as a personal arrangement which could be terminated if it had ‘irretrievably broken down’, irrespective of what led up to this or of the behaviour of either spouse.

Second, increasing divorce rates are feasible only if both spouses normally have access to sufficient material resources to sustain themselves. Of particular importance here are the changes there have been over the last 50 years allowing separated women to maintain a sufficient standard of living independently of their (ex-)husbands. The creation of increased employment opportunities for married women has been significant in this, as has the availability of social security payments and the protection given in divorce settlements to the housing needs of those caring for children. Third, divorce is now far less stigmatized than it once was. It is seen as personally undesirable, but is no longer treated as a moral issue in the way it was, nor as indicative of questionable character. As divorce becomes accepted as an unfortunate but not unusual occurrence, so it comes also to be seen as a solution to marital difficulties that in a previous era would have been tolerated. It is this ‘normalization’ of divorce in both legal and social terms which lies at the heart of the currently high levels of divorce.

In understanding the impact which divorce has on those involved, it is crucial that it is viewed as a process occurring over time, rather than as a specific event. While divorce is the legal ending of a marriage and in that sense takes place at a particular moment in time, it is also the result of a (usually quite drawn out) process of relational disharmony and conflict. The factors that lead up to the separation and ending of the marriage, and the understandings each spouse has of these, will have a significant influence on the way in which the divorce and its aftermath are managed. This is particularly important when there are children, for as is now better recognized, divorce represents the ending of a marriage but not the ending of parenting. Legislation since the 1990s has highlighted the continuing financial responsibilities parents have to their children, irrespective of their household arrangements, but increasingly there is also social and legal recognition of the importance of the non-residential parent–child relationship continuing after separation and divorce. Research, particularly in the US, has demonstrated that children usually cope better with the experience of divorce if they are able to maintain an active and positive relationship with both parents (see Richards 1999).

Of course, separation and divorce are generally traumatic for all those involved, whether adults or children. As a consequence, the negative impact of divorce on children is always a concern for parents and others involved in a child’s life. Much research has focused on the negative outcomes of divorce, showing for example that children whose parents divorced tended to do less well at school, to form committed relationships earlier and do less well occupationally. However, the differences here between children whose parents did or did not divorce are relatively small. Moreover there is a good deal of variation among those whose parents have separated. Increasingly research on the impact of divorce on children has examined the diversity of their experiences. Often parental separation is just one of a series of changes. As we will discuss, separation and divorce may result in household poverty. It may also result in housing change and geographical mobility, with consequences for the child’s friendship networks as well as their schooling. Moreover, in the longer term parental separation and divorce may be followed by further domestic changes, such as the formation of a step-family when a parent re-partners. The cumulative consequences of these various changes, and how they are managed, will shape the outcomes of the parental separation for the child, rather than the simple fact of divorce itself.

A key issue within this is how the parents manage their conflict both prior to the separation and after it. As noted above, it is best for the child to maintain positive relationships with both parents following their separation. Indeed, it is in the child’s interests that the two parents develop a consistent and cooperative relationship with one another with respect to parenting. However, this is rarely easy, given the history of hostility and conflict characterizing much pre- and post-divorce behaviour (Smart and Neale 1999). When parents continue to be in conflict over, say, financial arrangements or childcare responsibilities, or indeed when recrimination, jealousy and other strong emotions are still being experienced, it is difficult to develop a mutually consistent and supportive stance in relation to children. Given the tensions and problems which can be generated, it is perhaps not surprising that a third of non-residential fathers appear to see their children less than once a month (Bradshaw et al 1999).