Family Dissolution
 

Estimated Number of Printed Pages: 12
 
TOPICS COVERED: Till Death, Divorce, Abandonment, Separation or Something Else Do Us Part. In the modern era, when we hear the word "dissolution" in the context of marriages or families, we understand that to mean "divorce." But the fact is that, historically, the most common form of marital dissolution was death. Abandonment and separation have also been equally potent forms of ways men and women choose to end their marriages and cut their family ties.
 
The real issue isn't if a legal process has ended a relationship. The real concern should be about what's going on within the relationship – before, as well as after, the papers have been drawn up. In sociological circles, they talk about this in terms of "family stability." So in this memo, here's a look at what experts have said about family stability and dissolutions, facts about those different forms of dissolution – and then, just as a reminder, facts about marriages in "stable" environments (times or places with lower divorce rates). We've included some of the recent historical information to provide a frame of reference – but there's more material elsewhere in the related memos. Also, make sure you check out our Marriage/Divorce analysis, for why we think the media too often is unfair and inaccurate in its coverage of divorces in U.S. society.
 
 
MEMOS ON RELATED INFORMATION: Marriage/Divorce analysis, Marriage Part One, Marriage Part Two, Divorce, Family Structures, Single Parents, Stepfamilies, Domestic Violence
 
Links to Sources for this material are available below. Please also see The Factbook Sources page for further information regarding Factbook sources and their availability.
 
 

PAGE INDEX:

 

WHAT EXPERTS HAVE SAID ABOUT FAMILY DISSOLUTIONS

FACTS ABOUT FAMILY DISSOLUTIONS

A LITTLE DIRTY LAUNDRY ABOUT TIMES AND SOCIETIES WITH MORE STABLE MARRIAGES

 
 

WHAT EXPERTS HAVE SAID ABOUT FAMILY DISSOLUTIONS

 
 
In the present,
we think things have been going downhill since the 1950s.
 
In the 1950s,
they thought things had been going downhill since . . . the Civil War.
 
 
 
As sociologist Ray H. Abrams wrote in 1950: “Another popular assumption is that in the United States family stability has been steadily going down hill since shortly after the Civil War inasmuch as the general trend of the divorce rate has been going up rather consistently since that time. However, the belief that there was a Golden Age of family life in America does not appeal to the historians . . . . Any careful survey reveals that since the settlement of this country there have been periods of stresses and strains. . . .” 1.
 
 
 
It hasn't changed –
the average or median duration of marriage hasn't changed. It's what effects the duration – death, divorce, separation, life expectancy – that has changed. For example, life expectancy for a white American increased over 25 years during the Twentieth Century. For non-white Americans, the increase was even higher: over 30 years. And that increase is greater than the total increase of the 250 years before that. 2.
 
 
 
As of 1993, ". . . despite the recent increase in the divorce rate, the rate of family dissolution--by death, desertion, or divorce--is no greater today than it was a century ago . . . ." 3.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Ray H. Abrams wrote, “If we were to add to the divorce rate the desertions, the separations, and those who would like to sever the marriage bonds but for one reason or another do not, the sum total of marital disorganization would be at least two to three times that represented by the divorce statistics. Whatever our norm may be, it can scarely be maintained that the marriage and family system in this country is very stable.” 4.
 
 
 
Divorce
is considered by at least one expert as a no longer valid way to measure couples' stability – because it fails to take into account couples who live together and separate. Which if included would increase the number of separations and dissolutions. 5.
 
 
 
"Not unable, but unwilling" –
How in 1905 Charities Magazine described the "ordinary deserter" of his wife and family. Since 50 percent of them were skilled laborers – some were literate, or had specialized skills – the magazine sadly determined that these men were "not unable, but unwilling, to fulfil [sic] his duty to his family." 6.
 
 
 
50 to 60 percent
of the working class families in 1950 were broken "once, and often more, by desertion, divorce, death, or separation, often due to imprisonment of the man, between marriage, legal or companionate, and its normal dissolution through the marriage of adult children and the death of aged parents." And the sociologist who made this report, August B. Hollingshead, had also decided these families also suffered from "amoral behavior that ranges from the flagrant violation of conventional sex mores to open rebellion against formal agencies of social control.” 7.
 


In 1950, sociologist Abrams wrote,“However, there is little concerted effort to face and come to grips with the problem of love and the stability of marriage . . . . When the cult of romantic love is promoted, it is thought that everything else will take care of itself. The argument goes on this way: If people are really in love they can make a go of their marriage. If their marriage does not succeed, then they did not try hard enough or they were not really in love.” 8.

 
 
In 1950, sociologist Abrams went further: “Ever before us is the blind worship of social institutions and the failure to re-alize that these institutions do not necessarily give us genuine stability.” 9.

 
 
And sometimes, stability is a synonym for fear –
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead determined that the established American upper-class family was very stable, but it was because of extreme internal social and family pressures. It kept itself in check by an elaborate network of kin and more importantly, trust funds. In one community, he found were 37 separate nuclear families benefiting from a single trust fund – and that these families considered themselves as a single unit. So did their community. And the entire family was proud of the fact that there had not been a single non-Protestant marriage in the family for seven generations. One was proposed – but elders in the family stopped it. There had been five divorces and possibly a desertion – but none of these were ever discussed, as if if they'd never occurred. All of which was made more important because the wealthy only married within their community: at least a third were also receiving money from another family's trust fund. 10.

 

He also wrote that the nuclear upper-middle-class and lower class families – a husband, wife and two or three dependent children – were very stable units. "Divorce is rare, desertion by the husband or wife is most infrequent, and premature death rates are low,” he wrote. This was true not just because of the family unit – which was generally a happy unit – but also because of moral pressures from family and professional colleagues, and concerns for the husband's career – his success being the motivating goal for all of a family's life. 11.

 
 
A plowshare and a sword –
Working class families in 1950 were helped by extended family members – but they were also driven apart by them. They shared the scant resources they had – but with so few resources between them – that "sharing" brought families to the breaking point. 12.

 

In 1950, sociologist Ray H. Abrams wrote, “ . . . part of the confusion in our thinking con-cerning what constitutes a ‘stable’ or ‘ideal’ family type. What is the truly ‘ideal’ family? Are the popularly conceived ‘ideal’ or ‘model’ families always stable units, do they actually function on all levels of human experience, or do they frequently simply go through the motions . . . ?” 13.

 
 
In 1950, sociologist Abrams wrote, “The concepts of family solidarity, of unity, and of stability are certainly confused.” 14.


 
Americans have always had a much higher rate of divorce than European nations. As sociologist Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr. explained: “Many scholars who have studied the matter believe that divorce is an inevitable byproduct of a marriage system that puts a high premium on voluntary choice and that values emotional satisfaction above all. . . . Even before the industrial revolution, Americans were unusually willing to give young people a high amount of discretion in mate selection. Broader kinship concerns figured little into marriage decisions, and parents exercised minimal control either in the timing of marriage or in children’s choice of a partner. “ 15.
 
 
 
“The more that marriage was touted for its personal benefits, the less stability was valued for its own sake. As emotional gratification became the sine qua non of marriage, divorce became in an indispensable element in the institution of matrimony, permitting couples to rectify poor choice. Gradually, the standard shifted from one which required couples to remain married even if they were not in love to one which virtually demanded divorce unless they remained in love.” 16.

 
 
 

WHAT SOCIOLOGISTS HAVE SAID ABOUT FAMILY DISSOLUTIONS
A LITTLE DIRTY LAUNDRY ABOUT SOCIETIES WITH MORE STABLE MARRIAGES AND TIMES


 
 

FACTS ABOUT FAMILY DISSOLUTIONS

 
 
 
Total rate of U.S. marital dissolutions – marriages ending in death or divorce – in 1860:
33.2 per 1000 marriages. 17.
 
 
 
Total rate of U.S. marital dissolutions in 1970:
34.5 per 1000 marriages. 18.
 
 
 
Total rate of U.S. marital dissolutions in 1970s:
41 per 1000 marriages. Approximately. 19.
 
 
 
Total rate of marital dissolutions in 1989:
38.7 per 1000 marriages. 20.
 
 
 
Most Common Endpoint of an American Marriage –

before to the 20th century – was death. 21.
 
during the 20th century – was divorce. 22.

 
 
In 1900,
death ended two-thirds of all marriages within 40 years. 23.
 
 
 
1974
was the year when the U.S. made the switch having from more marriages end in death to more marriages end in divorce. 24.
 
 
 
In 1976,
death ended just one-third of all marriages within 40 years. 25.
 
 

The Seven Year Itch –
one-fourth of U.S. marriages will dissolve by the seventh year. 26.
 
 
 
By the twentieth year –
approximately half of all American marriages will have ended by divorce or separation. 27.
 
 
 
A golden anniversary –
The remaining half of marriages will last until the death of a spouse – probably another 10 to 30 years. 28.
 
 
 
A child born in the U.S. in 1996 may have a marriage of 60 years or more. 29.
 
 
 
About a quarter –
of U.S. children living at the turn of the Twentieth century had had one or both parents die by the time the child had reached 15 years old. 30.
 
 
 
Less than one in ten –
of U.S. children living in the middle of the Twentieth century had had one or both parents die by the time the child had reached 15 years old. 31.
 
 
 
An estimated one-third –
Through parental death, divorce, and desertion, an estimated one-third of U.S. children in the early 1900s lived in a single parent families by the time they were teenagers. 32.
 
 
 
An estimated one-fourth –
Through parental death, divorce, and desertion, an estimated one-fourth of U.S. children born in the 1940s and 1950s lived in single parent families by the time they'd been teenagers. 33.
 
 
 
In 1905, Charities Magazine reported that desertions by husbands were responsible for

– ten percent of U.S. families who needed to turn to charities for financial aid. 34.
 
– more than 30 percent of the applications filed in 1905 in order to commit children to New York City's Department of Charities – making the child a ward of the city – were due to their father's desertions. 35.

 
 
12.9 percent –
of U.S. brides and grooms' marriages in 1910-1919 were remarriages for at least one of them. 36.
 
 
 
Nine percent –
of brides in the U.S. in 1930 were divorced. 37.
 
 
 
32 percent –
of brides in the U.S. in 1987 were divorced. 38.
 
 
 
40 percent –
of U.S. marriages in 1994 were a remarriage for at least one of the two spouses. 39.
 
 
 
Stablizing, or even decreasing –
by the 1990s, the rate at which couples have been divorcing in Northern Europe, in the United Kingdom and the United States. 40.
 
 
 
613,000 divorces –
Number of divorces in the U.S. in 1946. 41.
 
 
 
In 1948, Newsweek reported, "The largest 30 cities in the United States average nearly one divorce for every two marriages, and the national average – the world's highest – is nearly one divorce for three. Worried sociologists estimate that by 1963, 31 per cent of all marriages will end in divorce. In several cities, divorces already outstrip marriages. In Chattanooga, Tenn., for example, they are three and a half times as numerous." 42.
 
 
 
In 1948, Parents' Magazine reported, “In 1946, the peak of 613,000 divorces was reached, and in 1947 there were about 450,000. However, these record divorces figures also reflect the record increase in the num-ber of marriages in recent years. ¶ Our young people marry early; they choose their own marriages; some make mistakes because they are not prepared for marriage and family life. With the risks inherent in marriage, it is comforting that more than three-quarters of all marriages stick. ¶ More important than divorce is the problem of marital separation. Last year there were 750,000 homes from which the husband was absent and more than 300,000 homes from which the wife was absent. In some of these families the husband is working far from home; in some the husband or the wife is in prison or in an institution for mental or chronic disease; in some the separation is due to other causes. The number of these families is almost 50 percent greater than the number headed by a divorced person.” 43.
 
 
 
Three-quarters of a million homes –
were headed by divorced persons in 1948. 44.
 
 
 
Studies have shown that combat veterans – (WWII, Korean, and Vietnam) historically have a higher rate of divorce. One 1990 study determined that the unstable marriages of servicemen had a lot to do with the high post war rate of divorce. In that study, it wasn't the young, but the older recruits who were getting divorced, which they explain in part may be because of the increased stress of the responsibilities they had. (whereas a younger family would not be as set in its ways/expectations). 45.
 
 
 
In 1934, a sociologist determined that “. . . roughly one sixth or one seventh of all relief families . . . did not include both husband and wife; that is, they consisted of a man and his children, a woman and her children, either of these groups with other persons in addition, or several adults without children. These families may be termed ‘broken families.’ About five sixths of all relief families where ‘normal families’ in the sense that they centered in a married couple. Broken families were a somewhat larger frac-tion of all relief families in urban than in rural areas. Also, they were relatively more numerous among Negro than among white relief families." 46.
 
 
 
One-fourth to one-third
of the working class families raising children in 1950 were broken by divorce, desertion, and death of a marital partner before those children had left the family home on their own. 47.
 
 
 
One in nine children under 18
lived in a "broken family" in 1948, according to Parents' Magazine, which observed that “these children often lose the opportunity for an education and are more readily exposed to delinquency.” 48.
 
 
 
A million homes –
where the husband and wife had separated in 1948. 49.
 
 
 
Almost 4.8 million –
2.2 percentof American population 15 years and over in 2000 – who were separated from their spouse. 50.
 
 
 
Too expensive to get–
Divorces, during the Great Depression. So people didn't divorce – they just separated or even outright abandoned their spouses. 51.
 
 
 
Over 1.5 million
married women were living apart from their husbands in 1940. 52.
 
 
 
Five percent
of U.S. Blacks were separated in 2000. 53.
 
 
 
Seven percent
of U.S. Blacks were widowed in 2000. 54.
 
 
 
11 percent
of U.S. Blacks were divorced in 2000. 55.
 
 
 
10 percent
of U.S. Black women were widowed in 2000, compared to just three percent of Black men. 56.
 
 
 
Five percent
of Hispanics women are separated. Hispanic women are more likely to remain separated without getting a legal divorce than are women of most other groups. 57.
 
 
 
More are separated
Blacks and Hispanic women in the U.S. have the highest percentages as separated: six percent and five percent of those women are separated from spouses, respectively. That does not, however, indicate they have a greater willingness to split up. Instead, research has shown that Black and Hispanic women are more likely to remain permanently separated from their spouses, but never proceeding to get a legal divorce, while women in other ethnic groups are more likely to ultimately get a divorce. 58.
 
 
 
14.1 percent
of Hispanics in the U.S. in 2000 were separated, widowed, or divorced, less than the national rate of 18.5 percent. 59.
 
 

WHAT SOCIOLOGISTS HAVE SAID ABOUT FAMILY DISSOLUTIONS
FACTS ABOUT FAMILY DISSOLUTIONS

 
 
 

A LITTLE DIRTY LAUNDRY ABOUT TIMES AND SOCIETIES WITH MORE STABLE MARRIAGES

 
 
 
In Greece,
fewer marriages end there than in the rest of Europe. But those that do end, end more quickly than elsewhere in the region. 60.
 
 
 
22 percent of men in Hong Kong
think that it's all right for a married woman to have affairs. 61.
 
 
 
16 percent of women in Hong Kong
think that it's all right for a married woman to have affairs. 62.
 
 
 
57 percent of men in Hong Kong
think that it's all right for a married man to have affairs. 63.
 
 
 
20 percent of women in Hong Kong
think that it's all right for a married man to have affairs. 64.
 
 
 
Sex, alcohol and a consuming career –
How American married men in 1950 handled unhappy family lives – each of which being a way of coping that was not as available to wives. 65.
 
 
 
Maybe we're the real Victorians –
since, in that era, they had a "vast amount" of prostitution. 66.
 
 
 
"Free" Love colonies, Mormon polygamy
were other American movements revolting against the "traditional nuclear family." 67.
 

 
In Hinduism, the Laws of Manu decreed that since marriage was eternal and indissoluble for women – but not men. Therefore, they were unable to divorce or remarry if widowed. Women have had no recourse in the event that a husband commits adultery. Reform efforts during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries secured the right of remarriage for widows, and, since 1955, the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Act allows them to divorce – but divorce only allowed for specific reasons (e.g. terminal illness, impotence, or insanity) – but it is still relatively rare. Men, on the other hand, have always had the right to dissolve a marriage for virtually any reason – and all they have to do for a divorce is just lock the woman out of the house. More recent laws have expanded the reasons a woman can divorce, but only for marriages of less than twenty years. 68.
_________________________________________________________________________
 
1. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 2.
2. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620 (citation omitted)
3. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
4. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 2.
5. Robert Cliquet, "Major Trends Affecting Families In the New Millennium – Western Europe and North America," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf
6. William Baldwin, "Family Desertion and Non-Support Laws," Charities, pp. 660-665 (April 15, 1905), p. 660.
7. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950), p. 44.
8. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 4.
9. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 5.
10. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950), pp. 41-42.
11. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950), pp. 42-43.
12. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950), p. 45.
13. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 1 .
14. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 1 .
15. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., “Divorce and the American Family,” Annual Review of Sociology, vol 16, p 380 (citations omitted.) (1990).
16. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., “Divorce and the American Family,” Annual Review of Sociology, vol 16, p 380 (citations omitted.)(emphasis added) (1990).
17. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 25 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
18. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 25 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
19. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 25 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
20. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 25 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
21. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620 (citation omitted)
22. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620 (citation omitted)
23. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620 (citation omitted)
24. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620 (citation omitted)
25. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620 (citation omitted)
26. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620 (citation omitted)
27. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620 (citation omitted)
28. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620. See also Stephanie Coontz, "The American Family and The Nostalgia Trap," Phi Delta Kappan (March 1, 1995). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:16765761
29. Kimberly A. Faust and Jerome N. McKibben, "Marital Dissolution: Divorce, Separation, Annulment and Widowhood," Handbook of Marriage and the Family, 2nd ed, Marvin Sussman, Suzanne K. Steinmetz, and Gary W. Peterson (eds.), Plenum Press, New York (1999), p. 480. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0306457547/qid=1123777024/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
30. Frank F. Furstenberg Jr., "Divorce and the American Family," Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 16, pp. 379-403 (1990), p 383 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0360-0572%281990%2916%3C379%3ADATAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G
31. Frank F. Furstenberg Jr., "Divorce and the American Family," Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 16, pp. 379-403 (1990), p 383 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0360-0572%281990%2916%3C379%3ADATAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G
32 Frank F. Furstenberg Jr., "Divorce and the American Family," Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 16, pp. 379-403 (1990), p 383 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0360-0572%281990%2916%3C379%3ADATAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G
33. Frank F. Furstenberg Jr., "Divorce and the American Family," Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 16, pp. 379-403 (1990), p 383 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0360-0572%281990%2916%3C379%3ADATAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G
34. William Baldwin, "Family Desertion and Non-Support Laws," Charities, pp. 660-665 (April 15, 1905), p. 660.
35. ________, "Conference of Family Desertions," Charities, pp. 483-486 (May 9, 1903).
36. Samuel H. Preston and John McDonald, "The Incidence of Divorce Within Cohorts of American Marriages Contracted Since the Civil War," Demography, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 1-25 (February 1979), p. 5 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-3370%28197902%2916%3A1%3C1%3ATIODWC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T
37. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 27. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
38. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 27. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
39. Carl L.Bankston and R. Kent Rasmussen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Family Life (5 vols.) Salem Press (1999) p. 1133.
40. Robert Cliquet, "Major Trends Affecting Families In the New Millennium – Western Europe and North America," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf
41. ________, Facts on File Yearbook, 1947, Facts On File, Inc., p. 428 (1950).
42. ________, "Marriages Patched Up," Newsweek. p. 27 (January 26, 1948).
43. Louis I. Dublin, “Look at the Bright Side of Marriage: Some Facts and Figures Concerning American Family Life,” Parents' Magazine, Vol. 23, pp. 11, 68-70 (December 1948). p. 68.
44. Louis I. Dublin, “Look at the Bright Side of Marriage: Some Facts and Figures Concerning American Family Life,” Parents' Magazine, Vol. 23, pp. 11, 68-70 (December 1948). p. 68.
45. ________, "World War II and Divorce: A Life-Course Perspective," Amer. Journal of Sociology, p 1218 (1990) pp. 1227, 1229 (citation omitted).
46. Corrington Gill, “A Study of Three Million Families on Relief in October 1933,” Annals of the Amer. Acad of Political and Social Science, pp. 25-36 (November 1934). p. 33. Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162%28193411%29176%3C25%3AASOTTM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y
47. August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences in Family Stability," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 39-46 (November 1950), p. 44.
48. Louis I. Dublin, “Look at the Bright Side of Marriage: Some Facts and Figures Concerning American Family Life,” Parents' Magazine, Vol. 23, pp. 11, 68-70 (December 1948). p. 68.
49. Louis I. Dublin, “Look at the Bright Side of Marriage: Some Facts and Figures Concerning American Family Life,” Parents' Magazine, Vol. 23, pp. 11, 68-70 (December 1948). p. 68.
50. ________, Table DP-1, "Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, Geographic Area: United States." U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/tables/dp_us_2000.PDF
51. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
52. ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
53. Rose M. Kreider, Marital Status: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-30. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 24 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf
54. As of 2000. Jesse D. McKinnon and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Blacks in the United States, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-25. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-25.pdf
55. As of 2000. Jesse D. McKinnon and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Blacks in the United States, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-25. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-25.pdf
56. As of 2000. Jesse D. McKinnon and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Blacks in the United States, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-25. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-25.pdf
57. As of 2000. Jesse D. McKinnon and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Blacks in the United States, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-25. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-25.pdf
58. Rose M. Kreider, Marital Status: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-30. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 24 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf
59. Roberto R. Ramirez, We the People: Hispanics in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-18. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 6. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-18.pdf
60. Christos Bagavos, The Situation of Families in Greece, 2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), p. 2. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_greece_bagavos.pdf
61. Cecilia L.W. Chan, "How the Socio-cultural Context Shapes Women's Divorce Experience in Hong Kong," Journal of Comparative Family Studies (January 1, 2004). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:113302752
62. Cecilia L.W. Chan, "How the Socio-cultural Context Shapes Women's Divorce Experience in Hong Kong," Journal of Comparative Family Studies (January 1, 2004). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:113302752
63. Cecilia L.W. Chan, "How the Socio-cultural Context Shapes Women's Divorce Experience in Hong Kong," Journal of Comparative Family Studies (January 1, 2004). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:113302752
64. Cecilia L.W. Chan, "How the Socio-cultural Context Shapes Women's Divorce Experience in Hong Kong," Journal of Comparative Family Studies (January 1, 2004). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:113302752
65. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 3 (citation omitted) .
66. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 3 (citation omitted) .
67. Ray H. Abrams, "The Concept of Family Stability," Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science, Vol. 272, pp. 1-8 (November 1950), p. 4 . See also ________, "Family Structures," Encyclopedia of American Social History. 3 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, Reproduced in the History Resource Center, Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. Archived at: http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC Document No. BT2313027032 (1993).
68. John Renard, Responses to 101 Questions on Hinduism, Paulist Press (March 1999). Available throught: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080913845X/104-9145697-0978338?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance