North America (Part Three)
 

Estimated Number of Printed Pages: 50+
 
This information duplicates items from the rest of The Factbook, selecting only those items that relate to North America. However, numbers don't mean much without a comparison to family life in other continents. And that is why we may have included a lot of information on certain issues, but it seems like we have less regional information for others. Actually, that isn't the case – we just chose what were for us notable commonalities or exceptions, cross-culturally. For further information about a particular region, see the regional studies we've referenced in the footnotes: they probably have any additional information you might need on a particular country or region.
 
 
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.
 
 

AT RISK BEHAVIORS AND CRIMES OF CHILDREN

 
 
 
8.4 percent
of U.S. eighth graders surveyed reported using illegal drugs within 30 days of the survey. 1.
 
 
 
25.7 percent
of U.S. white twelfth graders surveyed reported using illegal drugs within 30 days of a survey on drug use. 2.
 
 
 
16.8 percent
of U.S. black twelfth graders surveyed reported using illegal drugs within 30 days of a survey on drug use. 3.
 
 
 
A 48 percent drop –
in U.S. juvenile violent crime in the last 10 years (from 1994 to 2003). 2003 had the lowest number of juvenile arrests for violent crime since 1987. 4.
 
 
 
2.2 million
Estimated number of arrests of U.S. juveniles – those under the age of 18 – in 2003. 2003 is the ninth consecutive year that number has decreased, from a high in 1994. 5.
 
 
 
15 percent
of those arrested in the U.S. for violent crimes in 2003 were juveniles. That's a 32 percent drop since 1994. 6.
 
 
 
Completely disproportionate –
 
the rate of crimes committed by Black juveniles was four times that of white juveniles. 7.
 
and the rate of Black juveniles in every single category of the juvenile system – from the number of arrests to the number of those placed into custody to the number sent to adult criminal court. And that disproportionally isn't explained by the Black juveniles' higher rate of crimes, because the disproportionally of the rate of Black juveniles in the system was higher than that of the crimes committed. 8.

45 percent
of the U.S.'s 2003 juvenile arrests for violent crimes were arrests of Black juveniles – but Blacks only make up 16 percent of the juvenile population. Whites, on the other hand, are 78 percent of the juvenile population, but only 53 percent of juvenile violent crime arrests. In that study, Hispanics were included in the white population. 9.
 
 
26 percent
of juvenile arrests for drug use were arrests of Black juveniles – ten percent higher than the percent of Black juveniles in the population. 10.
 
 
In 2000, for every 100,000 U.S. juveniles, 1,004 juvenile Blacks were in custody. That's more than twice as high as the rate for Hispanics (416) and almost five-times the number for non-Hispanic whites (212). 11.
 
 
In 1998-1999, Black juveniles made up 16 percent of the juvenile population – but they were 39 percent of the juvenile population in custody. 12.

 
 
And here's the real kicker –
 
in every single category of the juvenile system – the overrepresentation of Black youths in the system has gone down. It was even worse in the past. 13.

In 2003, Black juvenile were arrested for violent crimes at a rate four times that of whites. But in 1980, the disparity was even worse: for every one white juvenile arrested for violent crimes, 6.3 Black juveniles had been arrested. 14.
 
 
In 1990-1991, Black juveniles made up 15 percent of the juvenile population – but they were 46 percent of the juvenile population in custody. That's seven percent higher than it was in 1999. 15.

 
 
In Illinois, there were 2,457 drug arrests of juveniles for every 100,000 juveniles. 16.
 
 
 
In Maryland, there were 1,235 drug arrests of juveniles for every 100,000 juveniles. 17.
 
 
 
In California, there were 523 drug arrests of juveniles for every 100,000 juveniles. 18.
 
 
 
In New York, there were 569 drug arrests of juveniles for every 100,000 juveniles. 19.
 
 
 
In West Virginia, there were 157 drug arrests of juveniles for every 100,000 juveniles. 20.
 
 
 
A 19 percent increase
in the arrests of juveniles for drug-related charges, from 1994 to 2003. But the increase as dramatically higher for females – their arrests went up 56 percent, while males' arrests increased by 13 percent. 21.
 
 
 
51 percent
of those arrested in the U.S. for arson in 2003 were juveniles. 22.
 
 
 
39 percent
of those arrested in the U.S. for vandalism in 2003 were juveniles. 23.
 
 
 
16 percent
of those in the U.S. arrested for forcible rape in 2003 were juveniles. 24.
 
 
 
Nine percent
of those in the U.S. arrested for murder in 2003 were juveniles. 25.
 
 
 
1,130
U.S. juveniles were arrested for murder and non-negligent manslaughter in 2003, 68 percent lower than the number in 1994. 26.
 
 
 
 

VIOLENCE COMMITTED AGAINST CHILDREN

 
 
 
No Constitutional duty to protect a child –
While there are various state requirements for reporting suspected incidents of child abuse and neglect, under the U.S. Constitution, the state does not have to duty a child to protect a child from an abusive family once they've been notified of that abuse. In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, social workers knew for two years that a child was being beaten, but they failed to remove him from the home. Then, when the child was four years old, his father bashed the child’s head in enough to send the little boy into a coma; he had such severe brain damage that he had to be institutionalized – probably for life. The Supreme Court held that, although it was tragic, the government has no affirmative duty to provide government aid to its citizens, and, therefore, isn’t liable for injuries when it did not provide them. Neither of the key facts – that the child could not have done anything on his own to leave the family and that the state knew what was happening – did changed the analysis. 27.
 
 
 
More than 2 million violent crimes
are committed against children in the U.S. each year. 28.
 
 
 
23 percent
of children under age 13 were 23 percent of murder victims killed by a family member, while they were just over three percent of nonfamily murder victims. 29.
 
 
 
Seven Years Old
The average age among sons or daughters killed by a parent in the U.S. Four out of five children killed by a parent were under age 13. Among incidents of parents killing their children, 19 percent of them involved one parent killing multiple victims. 30.
 
 
 
1,550 out of 16,500
Out of the 16,500 U.S. reported murders in 2003, 1,550 of the victims were juveniles. 31.
 
 
 
Hands or feet –
are the apparent weapon of choice for child murder. Hands or feet were the only weapon used in the 51 percent of the murders of U.S. children under the age of five, making physical assault the most common method of child murder. For the total population, the most common lethal weapon was the handgun. 32.
 
 
 
More than 100,000 incidents
of sexual assaults and sexual abuse are committed against children in the U.S. each year. 33.
 
 
 
More than half
of U.S. women who had reported in a survey that they had been raped at some point in their lives, said that the first rape occurred before they were 17 years old. 22 percent were under 12; 32 percent were between 12 and 17 years old. 34.
 
 
 
52 percent
of U.S. women in a survey who reported that they had been been physically assaulted as a child. 35.
 
 
 
Two-thirds
of teenage pregnant mothers in a 1996 California study were the victims of child abuse. One-fourth reported that they had been raped. Among the victims, the first attack usually happened when the child was 12. The attacker, sometimes a friend or family member, was 22 years old. 36.
 
 
 
 
56,900
U.S. children were permanently abandoned in 1993. 42.
 
 
 
1,682,900 children in the U.S.
ran away or were thrown out of the house in 1999. Of these, 68 percent where between 15 and 17 years old. 43.
 
 
 
No evidence to support it –
despite the ever-increasing media attention on missing children, there is no evidence to support that the incidence of missing children rose in the U.S. from 1988 to 1999. 61.
 
 
 
99.8 percent
of missing children (1,312,800) in the U.S. in 1999 were returned home alive or located. 0.2 percent or 2,500 had not returned home or been located, and the vast majority of these were juvenile runaways from institutions. 62.
 
 
 
374,700
Number of U.S. children were missing for benign reasons in 1999. Of these, 315,300 were home within six hours. 44.
 
 
 
204,500
Number of times U.S. children were involuntarily missing, because they were lost, injured or stranded in 1999. Of these, 175,400 were home within six hours. 45.
 
 
 
The police were called in
for just one-third of the instances when U.S. children were missing because they were lost, injured or stranded in 1999. 46.
 
 
 
From less than one hour, to six hours –
85 percent of the time, when U.S. children are missing because of benign reasons – a miscommunication, a child forgets to call, a babysitter takes a child to the wrong place – the children are back with their caregivers within one to six hours. 47.
 
 
 
From less than one hour, to six hours –
85 percent of the time when U.S. children are missing because they are lost, injured or stranded – the children are back with their caregivers within one to six hours – exactly the same as those who were missing for benign reasons. 48.
 
 
 
Within 24 hours
96 percent of the time when U.S. children are missing for benign reasons, the children are back with their caregivers within 24 hours. 49.
 
 
 
Within 24 hours
93 percent of the time when U.S. children are missing because they are lost or injured or stranded, the children are back with their caregivers within 24 hours. 50.
 
 
 
21 percent of time
that U.S. children who are involuntarily missing, it's because they've been injured. 51.
 
 
 
48 percent of the time,
U.S. missing children are missing because they ran away, or were thrown out of the house. 52.
 
 
 
28 percent of time, U.S. missing children are missing for benign reasons –
are missing because the child skipped school, visited a friend's house without permission, stayed out past curfew without calling. And they were returned home unharmed. 53.
 
 
 
Nine percent of all U.S. missing children are missing because they were abducted by a family member –
That's an estimated 117,200 who were abducted by a parent or other family member. 54.
 
 
 
Three percent of all U.S. missing children are missing because they were abducted by someone other than a family member –
That's an estimated 33,000 who were abducted by someone other family member.
53 percent of the time, the child knew the person.
But that amount does not include just the classic kidnapping you hear about on the news. That includes any child who was kept for over an hour or more by an adult who threatened to injure them. Tragically, it includes, for instance, strangers catching a child on his way home from school, forcing him to have sex. But that number also includes:
A babysitter who won't let the children go home until she's paid.
A 17-year-old ex-boyfriend who forces his 15-year-old girlfriend to ride around in his car or have sex with him.
A child taken on a joyride by a bus driver. 55.
 
 
 
Just 0.47 out of every 1,000 –
33,000 out of 70,172,100 U.S. children are abducted by a nonfamily member. The number is so small, that it's considered difficult to calculate an exact amount. 56.
 
 
 
115 children in the U.S.
were taken in a classic stranger kidnapping in 1999. 57.
 
 
 
46
of the children in the U.S. in 1999 taken in a stereotypical kidnapping were killed. Another five were not found by at least 2002. 58.
 
 
 
98 percent of children
taken in nonfamily abduction return home uninjured. 59.
 
 
 
1.3 million U.S. children
were missing in 1999. Estimated number, including both reported and nonreported incidents. 60.
 
 
 
 

CHILD LABOR

 
 
 
 
One-fifth
In 1900, nearly a fifth of all children in the U.S., aged 10-to-16-year-old, were working. That had been a larger percentage than had been found in any previous census year. 65.
 
 
 
"In its various phases child labor had existed in America from earliest times, but it did not become a serious menace until the later decades of the nineteenth century when increasing numbers of children were caught in the toils of the spreading factory system. By 1900 the number under sixteen engaged in gainful occupations was at least 1.7 million, and some students of the child-labor problem placed the figure even higher. The majority (60 percent) were agricultural workers who labored under conditions that might not be deleterious, but the reports that came in of the twelve-hour day in the berry fields of New Jersey, of the congestion, overwork, and immortality among the young workers in the vegetable gardens of Delaware and Maryland, the beet-sugar fields of Michigan, Nebraska, and Colorado, and the tobacco fields and stripping farms of Connecticut, Kentucky, Virginia and Pennsylvania were anything by encouraging." 66.
 
 
 
"The worst conditions, however, prevailed in manufacturing in which about 16 percent of the child workers were engaged. The picture of chil-dren kept awake during the long night in a Southern mill by having cold water dashed on their faces, of little girls in canning factories "snipping" sixteen or more hours a day or capping forty cans a minute in an effort to keep pace with a never exhausted machine, of little ten-year-old breaker boys crouched for ten hours a day over a dusty coal chute to pick sharp slate out of the fast-moving coal, of boys imported from orphan asylums and reformatories to wreck their bodies in the slavery of a glass factory, or of a four-year-old baby toiling until midnight over artificial flowers in a New York tenement. . . ." 67.
 
 
 
Less than one-twentieth
By 1930, less than one-twentieth of the 10-to-16-year-old children in the U.S. were working. But that may have had more to do with the joblessness of the Depression, than a new conviction against child labor. 68.
 
 
 
 

CHILD POVERTY

 
 
 
29.0 million
The average number of U.S. children in need fed each month through the national school lunch program. 77.
 
 
 
30 percent
the childhood poverty rate in the U.S. in the 1950s. 78.
 
 
 
17.8 percent
of U.S. children – 13.0 million – under 18 years old live in poverty. 4.7 million of the children are under the age of six. The poverty rate for children is higher than that of adults – including senior citizens. 79.
 
 
 
Higher –
The poverty rate for U.S. children is higher than that of adults – including senior citizens. 80.
 
 
 
35.2 percent
of those in poverty in the U.S. are children – despite the fact that they are just 25.2 percent of the total population. 81.
 
 
 
19.9 percent
The 2003-2004 poverty rate for related U.S. children under six living in families – 4.7 million.and the number in poverty for related children under 6 living in families were 19.9 percent and 4.7 million, both unchanged from 2003. Of related children under 6 living in families with female householders with no husband present, 52.6 percent were in poverty, about five times the rate of their counterparts in married couple families (10.1 percent). 82.
 
 
 
Five times as likely
U.S. children living in mother-only family groups are almost five times more likely to be in poverty as children who live in married-couple family groups (39 percent and 8 percent, respectively). 83.
 
 
 
23 percent
of U.S. children who live with a foreign-born householder are in poverty – compared to 15 percent of those living with a native-born householder. 84.
 
 
More than one-third
of U.S. children aged 16 and 17 who are enrolled in school are also in the labor force. 85.
 
 
 
Seven percent
of U.S. children live in households which receive some type of state or local assistance. 86.
 
 
 

CHILDREN IN COLONIAL AMERICA

 
 
 
“. . . moments after birth when the midwife placed the newborn on her lap and began molding and smoothing the head and pulling the arms and legs to their full extension, rubbing and shaping them so that the child would grow straight and tall. She then preserved her handiwork by swaddling the infant in bands of linen wrapped tightly around the legs and torso. Another band held the child’s arms straight against the body. Yet another piece of cloth, the stay band, she secured at the forehead and shoulders with additional strips of cloth. The end result was an immobile little mummified package, about the size and shape of a loaf of bread, which could be placed in a cradle or basket or even hung from a peg on the wall. . . .

“Beyond the perceived physical benefits from swaddling, adults believed that, without swaddling bands to keep the legs extended and the back straight, the naturally curving infant body would never grow into an upright human being.” 12.
 
 
 
“The swaddled infant slept in a cradle, a term that referred to any bed prepared for a babe, whether it was a wicker basket, old box, chest . . . . What really mattered was that any separate bed was believed better for the infant than being put to sleep with its mother, nurse, or some other older person. Adults, exhausted by hard physical work and commonly dulled with alcohol, could all too easily roll on an infant in the night and smother it. Since ‘laying over’ [an adult sleeping with an infant accidentally smothering the baby to death while asleep] was a highly feared form of infant mortality, the child who slept alone slept most safely.” The cradle was moveable, and went with the parents, in different parts of the house, near the fire, near the parents’ bed, as needed." 13.
 
 
 
“Babies outgrew both swaddling clothes and cradles by the end of their first year. Long petticoats helped to keep infants warm and effectively foiled any attempt the baby made to crawl. Parents and physicians alike viewed crawling on all fours, not as a natural stage of human development, but as a bad habit that, if not thwarted, would remaining the baby’s primary form of locomotion for the rest of his life. As late as 1839 . . . many American mothers still prohibited their little children from crawling.” 14.
 
 
 
“Infancy represented such a precarious existence that parents regarded it essentially as a state of illness. Babies needed to be protected assiduously and pushed beyond infancy as quickly as possible. Growing up meant growing strong and gaining sufficient autonomy to be able to take care of oneself.” 15.
 
 
 
 

CHILDREN IN EARLY AMERICA (1770-1830)

 
 
 
 
As young as three,
children were working in British and American cotton mills and other factories of the 1700s. Children were sometimes flogged if they couldn't keep up with the work. 23.
 
 
 
 

CHILDREN IN THE VICTORIAN ERA (1830-1900)

 
 
To stop them from an early loss of innocence, Victorian parents fed their children plain, bland, simple foods (believing spicy food might stimulate them too much), had them wear clothes that wouldn’t lead to accidental genital stimulation, wouldn’t let them play games that would lead to problems (ride a hobby horse), wouldn’t engage in activities that would lead to intimate situations, etc. 30.
 
 
 
Children were now sleeping in cribs – from infancy to toddlers. The idea was now not to prevent them from walking, but it was to keep them in a safe environment. The young babies/kids were isolated from adult activity in the home, kept in “swings” (indoor swing seats they couldn’t get out of, be it a baby or toddler) – or the nursery (which was a playroom / bedroom) with cribs and regulated schedules, etc. (Except for dinner – in the US, the kids usually ate with the adults, but they ate the bland puddings while grown-ups ate grown-up food; in Europe, the kids wouldn’t have eaten with them either). When the American kids got older, they got their own rooms, because getting their own room was a start of their individualism. (In Europe, even wealthy families, had the siblings sharing rooms.) 31.

 
 
Over 100,000
children at work in New York area factories in 1873. 32.
 
 
 
25,000
The number of New York street children sent to the West by the Children's Aid Society by 1873 – sending about 3,000 a year for 20 years. The society had another 9,000 in night school in New York. 33.
 
 
 
12,000
The number of homeless children being taken in a year by a few New York shelters in 1873. 34.
 
 
 
 

CHILDREN IN THE MODERN ERA (1900 TO PRESENT)

 
 
“The popularity of educational toys [begun in the 1770s] continued and expanded in the twentieth century, but what was really new was the acceptance and encouragement of a fantasy world for children. Colonial and Victorian parents shunned make-believe as the propagation of falsehood. At best, make-believe confused children; at worst, it was lying . Only with the gradual acceptance of the mischievous child in the twentieth century did middle-class parents accept fantasy as a harmless pleasure for children. To the traditional stories of children facing moral dilemmas now were added the stories of Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, Winnie the Pooh, The Wizard of Oz, and the tale of Beatrix Potter. Soft cuddly Brownies, Kewpies . . . and, of course, bears, filled the playroom. These were the first stuffed toys, and the tactile pleasure the toys offered their little owners brought a sense of comfort and security. . .. Children live in a world where everyone is bigger, stronger, and smarter than they. They therefore can find relief and delight in the company of someone smaller and weaker than themselves whom they can dominate or protect. . . Soft toys have remained popular throughout the twentieth century and beyond and have become such a commonplace of childhood that we tend to forget how very modern the concept actually is. 35.
 
 
 
By 1903, the New York Foundling Hospital had been in operation 30 years: it had had to find homes for over 40,000 children, while in New York, the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children took in as many as 15,000 children ("in many cases cruelty on the part of their own parents, in others on the part of those in whose custody the children have been left by parents unwilling or incompetent to take care of them.") in one year. 36.
 
 
 
“Separate children’s rooms remained important, but by the last half of the twentieth century few parents believed that it was possible to isolate their children from the realities of the world in order that they might remain carefree and innocent as long as possible. . . . The modern home became permeable to knowledge . . . . The protected child was once again the child who has been prepared to cope successfully when faced with the adult world. What Victorian parents sought to preserve as innocence in their children, modern parents feared as ignorance that put a child at risk.” 37.
 
 
 
Pink and Blue
didn't really start being used for baby clothes until the 1950s. Before that, their clothes didn't saying anything about their gender: all children, boys and girls, wore white. And there really wasn't a historical gender difference between children's clothing. Instead, their clothes were interchangeable: baby boys wore dresses until the Depression. Later, as boys were wearing shorts and pants, girls gradually adopted those clothes as their own – but boys never emulated the girls in the same way. 38.
 
 
 

EDUCATION IN THE U.S.

 
 
74.9 million
Students in the U.S., from nursery school to college. That amounts to more than one-fourth of the U.S. population age three and older. 1.
 
 
 
3.1 million
The estimated number of high school diplomas that will be given out in the U.S. in 2005. 2.
 
 
 
Between 3 and 4 percent
of high school students dropped out of school during the 10th to 12th grades from 2001-2003. 3.
 
 
 
46 percent
U.S. high school graduates aged 18 to 24 are in college. 4.
 
 
 
56 percent
– a clear majority – of those U.S college students are women. 5.
 
 
 
2.7 million
The estimated number of college degrees that will be awarded in the U.S. in 2005. 6.
 
 
 
12.1 million
The number of students in U.S. colleges and universities in 1980. 7.
 
 
 
16.7 million
The estimated number of students in U.S. colleges and universities in 2005. 8.
 
 
 
In 1920, only 16 percent of children graduated high school. 9.


 
In 1948, two-thirds
of American parents were under 30 years old, and had no education beyond grade school. Mothers had a slightly higher educational attainment – but both the mothers and the fathers had little more than an eighth grade education. 10.
 
 
 
Today, 84 percent of children graduate high school. 11.
 
 
 




At the right is a U.S. Census chart showing the dramatic increase in the number of men and women enrolled in college from 1955 to 2003.

For college students under 25 years old, it's been an almost five-fold increase – from just under 2 million to over 10 million.

Census doesn't have data for older students prior to 1973, but the growth just since then has been a tripling of their enrollment. 12.

 
 
 
 
How far does the apple far from the tree?
 

78 percent
of U.S. students who began post-secondary education from 1992 to 2002 had at least one parent who had gone to college. 13.
 
 
 
22 percent
of U.S. students who began post-secondary education from 1992 to 2002 were the first in their families to go to college. Almost one-half of these students left school without graduating. 14.
 
 
 
68 percent
Of U.S. students who began post-secondary education from 1992 to 2002 and had at least one parent with a Bachelor's degree at a minimum, 68 percent completed their degrees: just 20 percent left school without the degree. 15.
 
 
 
59 percent
of U.S. medical students have at least one parent with a graduate or professional degree of his or her own. 16.
 
 
 
43 percent
of U.S. law students have at least one parent with a graduate or professional degree of his or her own. 17.

 
 
 
12 percent
of U.S. elementary and high school students are enrolled in private institutions. 18.
 
 
 
21 percent
of U.S. elementary and high school students in 1970 were members of a racial or ethnic minority other than non-Hispanic white. 19.
 
 
 
40 percent
of U.S. elementary and high school students in 2005 are members of a racial or ethnic minority other than non-Hispanic white. 20.
 
 
 
22 percent
of U.S. elementary and high school students have at least one parent who was not born in the U.S. Of these, six percent of the students themselves were born elsewhere. 21.
 
 
 
60 percent
of U.S college students have jobs while they are in school. 22.
 
 
 
68 percent
of U.S college students are non-Hispanic whites. 23.
 
 
 
13 percent
of U.S college students are black. 24.
 
 
 
Seven percent
of U.S college students are Asian. 25.
 
 
 
10 percent
of U.S college students are Hispanic. 26.
 
 
 
14 percent
of the U.S. Black population, 25 and older had a bachelor’s degree or more education, compared with 24 percent of the total U.S. population. For Black women, the rate is 15 percent, two-thirds of that for all U.S. women. The percent of college educated black men is half that of the rate for all U.S. men – 13 percent compared to 26 percent. 27.
 
 
 
28 percent
of the U.S. Black population, 25 and older has an associate degree, or some college education, slightly over the national rate (27 percent). percent of the total U.S. population. 28.
 
 
 
44.1 percent
of Asians in the U.S. have a Bachelor’s degree or higher– almost twice the U.S. national rate of 24.4 percent. And Asian Indians in the U.S. have a rate nearly three times the national average: 63.9 percent have graduated from college. 29.
 
 
 
37 percent
of U.S college students are 25 years old or older. That's been a fairly consistent percentage since the late 1980s. 30.
 
 
 
Doubled –
the percentage of Americans aged 20, 25, and 30 enrolled in school from 1960 to 2000. 31.
 
 
 
Less than seven dollars a year –
The amount of money spent on educating their children in 1948, by an average U.S. family with an income of under $2,000. 32.
 
 
 
$1,386
Annual tuition at a public, four-year college in 1985. Private four-year institutions cost $6,843 that year. 28.
 
 
 
$5,135
Annual tuition at a public, four-year college in 2003. Private four-year institutions cost $22,686 that year. 29.
 
 
 
About 500,000 of over 8 million
Number of U.S. children enrolled in U.S. nursery schools in 1964, compared to the number of children aged 3-4 years old. 30.
 
 
 
About 5 million of 8 million
Number of U.S. children enrolled in U.S. nursery schools in 2005, compared to the number of children aged 3-4 years old. 31.
 
 
 
34 percent
of U.S. children of mothers who aren't high school graduates were in nursery schools in 2005. 32.
 
 
 
64 percent
of U.S. children who have college-educated mothers were in nursery schools in 2005. 33.
 
 
 
48 percent
of U.S. children with stay-at-home moms were in went to nursery schools in 2005 – which isn't much lower than the percent for working moms (53 percent). 34.
 
 
 
In the U.S. "In 2000, 70 percent of men aged 30 had left home, were financially independent, and had completed their schooling, just 12 points lower than was true of 30-year-old men in 1960. Nearly 75 percent of 30-year-old women in 2000 met this standard, compared to nearly 85 percent of women in 1960." 35.
 
 
 
To the right is a U.S. Census chart that dramatically illustrates the differences of educational attainment between the American generations. 36.

 
 
In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the United States Supreme Court decided that children have a right to get an education -- but the state’s societal interest in that individual child is not outweighed by the family’s wishes. That is, an Amish family can stop their child from going to school because of their religion – even though the state believes that children benefit from from education, and thus requires more schooling. 37.
 
 
 

INTENDED AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF EDUCATION


 
Think the generation gap is hard? The real problem may be an "education gap" –
 

Higher educational attainment "may break down traditional values and norms, including family values, which entails a specific obligation for the children to support and care for their elderly parents." Experts aren’t sure why, but it could be for two reasons:

"1. increased schooling results in children spending less time receiving care and guidance from their parents, and hence the feeling of debt towards the parents is reduced
 
2. because of the content in formal schooling which in some developing countries is heavily westernized and the system tends to inculcate western values of individualism and self realization." 44.
 
 

In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead determined that an education gap between parents and children was one of the major problems confronting lower-middle-class U.S. families. He wrote: “Parents generally have high educational aspirations for their children, but income limitations often compel them to compromise with less education than they desire, an possibly different kind from what they would choose. Parents acutely see the need for a good formal education, and they make heavy sacrifices to give their children the educational training that will enable them to take over positions held by persons in the upper-middle class. By stressing education for the child, parents many times unwittingly create conflicts for themselves and their children, because the educational goals they set for the child train him in values that lead him away from this family. This process, while it does not have a direct bearing on the stability of the nuclear family, acts as a divisive factor that splits parents and children apart, as well as brothers and sisters who have received different amounts of education and follow different job channels.” 47.

 
 
$18,734
Average annual earnings for U.S. workers aged 18 and over, who do not have a high school diploma. 48.
 
 
 
$27,915
Average annual earnings for U.S. workers aged 18 and over, who have a high school diploma, but no further education. 49.
 
 
 
$51,206
Average annual earnings for U.S. workers aged 18 and over, who have a bachelor's degree. 50.
 
 
 
$74,602
Average annual earnings for U.S. workers aged 18 and over, who have an advanced degree (e.g., a masters or doctorate). 51.
 
 
 
Just to stay in the Middle Class –
it is "almost imperative" that Americans remain in school until at least their early 20s, if they want to enter or remain in the middle class, economically. 52.
 
 
 
During the nineteenth century, the amount of American women forgoing marriage increased, and was particularly large among those women who were college educated. Instead of getting married, the women sometimes lived in a partnership called "Boston marriage." 53.
 
 
 
 
Less kids
In 1948, Newsweek reported the American parents with the least education had the biggest families – those who had just five years of schooling had 2.5 children for parents, while college-educated parents had just 1.8 children. 58.
 
 
 
 

WHAT MAKES A GROWN UP?

 
 
 
“And as the inner life--this is all in Western history, of course--as the inner life takes over our philosophy of work, as people start asking, What do you want to be when you grow up?' it becomes impossible to stop that question from seeping into the rest of your life. Who do you want to be with when you grow up?' That's really a large question about who you are inside, What do you want to be when you grow up?' And once it's asked, once your work is no longer handed down to you, you know, you don't wear your parents' clothes or use the loom that your parents used, but have to go invent your life for yourself . . . .” 1.
 
 
 
"By the 1950s and 1960s, most Americans viewed family roles and adult responsibilities as nearly synonymous. In that era, most women married before they were 21 and had at least one child before they were 23. For men, having the means to marry and support a family was the defining characteristic of adulthood, while for women, merely getting married and becoming a mother conferred adult status." 2.
 
 
 
In the U.S., leaving home is a particularly important element of becoming an adult, because "for much of the twentieth century, home-leaving was the starting point for a range of processes that signaled the transition from youth to adulthood. Most young people left home to marry, complete their education, serve in the military, or to work. With those changes came parenthood and economic independence. The timing of the components of home-leaving has changed, making the whole process occur earlier or later, or even become reversible as people return home. In these transitions we see the outline of change in their lives and in the experiences of American society as a whole." 3.
 
 
 
70 percent
of 25-year-old women in 1960 had attained traditional adult status defined as: leaving home, finishing school, getting married, having a child, and being financially independent. 4.
 
 
 
25 percent
of 25-year-old women in 2000 had attained traditional adult status defined as: leaving home, finishing school, getting married, having a child, and being financially independent. On the other hand, in 2000, 25-year-old women had increased their participation in the labor force to levels approaching those of 25-year old men. 5.
 
 
 
65 percent
of 30-year-old American men in 1960 had achieved all of the traditional benchmarks of “becoming an adult,” defined as: leaving home, finishing school, getting married, having a child, and being financially independent. 6.
 
 
 
Less than half of that –
31 percent – of 30-year-old American men in 2000 had achieved all of the traditional benchmarks of “becoming an adult,” defined as: leaving home, finishing school, getting married, having a child, and being financially independent. 7.
 
 
 
77 percent
of 30-year-old American women in 1960 had achieved all of the traditional benchmarks of “becoming an adult,” defined as leaving home, finishing school, getting married, having a child, and being financially independent. 8.
 
 
 
About two-thirds of that –
– 46 percent – of 30-year-old American women in 2000 had achieved all of the traditional benchmarks of “becoming an adult,” defined as: leaving home, finishing school, getting married, having a child, and being financially independent. 9.
 
 
 
70 percent
of 30-year-old American men in 2000 who had achieved all of modern benchmarks of “becoming an adult,” defined as: leaving home, finishing school, and being financially independent, but did not include getting married or having a child. While higher than the traditional benchmarks, if the modern benchmarks were applied to 1960, a still greater number of those 30-year-old men (82 percent) would have accomplished all of these. 10.
 
 
 
75 percent
of 30-year-old American women in 2000 who had achieved all of modern benchmarks of “becoming an adult,” defined as: leaving home, finishing school, and being financially independent – but did not include getting married or having a child. While higher than the traditional benchmarks, if the modern benchmarks were applied to 1960, a still greater number of those 30-year-old women (85 percent) would have accomplished all of these. 11.
 
 
 
Two-thirds
The amount of U.S. adults in their early 20s who receive economic support from parents. 40 percent still receive financial assistance in their late 20s. "A century ago, it was the other way around: young adults typically helped their parents when they first went to work, if (as was common) they still lived with their parents." 12.
 
 
 
70 percent
of American men in the mid-1990s, age 24-28, earn enough to support themselves. 13.
 
 
 
But less than half of them –
that is, American men in the mid-1990s, age 24-28 – earned enough to support a family of three. 14.
 
 
 

WHEN ARE THEY LEAVING HOME?

 
 
 
 
 
62 percent
of American college students surveyed expect to live at home after graduation. 24.
 
 
 
20 percent
of U.S. men aged 25 to 29 were living with their parents in the 1990s. 25.
 
 
 
12 percent
of U.S. women aged 25 to 29 were living with their parents in the 1990s. 26.
 
 
 
Seven percent
of U.S. women 25-34 years old were living with their parents in 2003. 27.
 
 
 
13.5 percent
of U.S. men 25-34 years old were living with their parents in 2003. 28.
 
 
 
"In England, the Netherlands, and the United States, for example, young adults often remain at home past 20 years of age, while in Spain and Portugal some people leave home before marriage and others continue to live with their parents after marriage, at least for awhile. In fact, temporary coresidence of parents and married children, and even prolonged periods of economic help, have never been infrequent, either in the past or today. Nevertheless, these moments of help were always considered as exceptional by everyone. These exceptions only underlie the great differences between northern and southern Europe on this point." 60.
 
 
 

LEAVING HOME – A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

 
 
 
"From at least the latter part of the Middle Ages until the second half of the nineteenth century or the early years of this century, it was common in rural England for young adults to leave their parental households to work as agricultural servants in other households for a prolonged period." 61.
 
 
 
"The history of home-leaving in the U.S. since 1880 largely reflects changes in social conventions, family relationships, and individual characteristics. During the Long First Half of the Twentieth Century, one of the most important factors in the rising age of home-leaving was declining adult mortality, which led to declining rates of orphanhood. High rates of immigration into the U.S. up until the 1920s also influenced the age at which young people left home, because young adults who immigrated by themselves during the peak years were necessarily away from the home of their parents. Finally, social change that led to decreased child labor and increased schooling in the first decades of the century led to later home leaving." Another element – parental life expectancy increased, so that involuntary home-leaving also went down. 62.
 
 
 
Therefore, in the U.S., from 1880 until 1940 for males and 1950 for females, the age at leaving home rose. The decline occurred during the 1950s and 1960s – with falling ages for marriage and men entering the military. The process continued with the instigation of the G.I. Bill and state-sponsored college educations, so that more people moved away from home to attend school. Then, beginning with 1970, the age of home-leaving began to rise again, reaching relatively high levels by 1990. 63.
 
 
 
In the U.S., "Economic opportunity in the community also influenced when a child left home. A young adult who could not find a way to contribute to the family economy while remaining at home might leave to look for work. . . . The change was due in part to technological advances in factories and legal reforms requiring children to be in school. New cultural perspectives also contributed to the change. One result was that while middle class parents viewed urban or non-family related work as damaging to young people, they believed that labor involvement in a family farm or small business was morally and physically wholesome." 64.
 
 
 
In the U.S., "American children had worked as preparation for adult occupations. By the 1960s, however, young workers were increasingly likely to be employed in service jobs, such as pumping gas or serving food, which financed personal consumption but were unrelated to later work. As the U.S. service economy expanded, young adults were more likely to work, but their jobs were less likely to lead to economic self-sufficiency." 65.
 
 
 
"Where the strong family flourishes, the familial group more than the individual tends to predominate in the socialization of the young. In these contexts, the family is seen as defending its members against the difficulties imposed by social and economic realities. A child receives support and protection until he or she leaves [home] for good, normally for marriage, and even later." 66.
 
 
 
"In weak-family areas, the value attributed to the individual and to individualism tends to predominate. Young adults leave home, encouraged by their parents, so as to acquire the experiences they need to handle life as autonomous individuals. Leaving home at an early age is considered an important part of their education. Where the strong family flourishes, the familial group more than the individual tends to predominate in the socialization of the young. In these contexts, the family is seen as defending its members against the difficulties imposed by social and economic realities. A child receives support and protection until he or she leaves [home] for good, normally for marriage, and even later." 67.
 
 
 
"In northern Europe and in the United States, young adults normally abandon their parental households when they have acquired a degree of maturity so as to start out their adult lives on their own, lives that are occupied by their studies or by efforts to establish economic independence from their parents. Their jobs, even if often unstable or only seasonal, might also enable them to save for their own marriages, although nowadays this sense of saving is much less important than their effort to settle into an independent life. Often these initial forays into the adult world are made while sharing housing with friends and colleagues who are at a similar stage of their own lives. Later, often years later, these young people marry and once again start a new household, albeit this time with the intention of founding a family within the context of a stable relationship with another person." 68.
 
 
 

TIMING OF MARRIAGE – NORTH AMERICA

 
 
 
27.1
The 2003 median age for a U.S. male’s first marriage. 1.
 
 
 
25.3
The 2003 median age for a U.S. female’s first marriage. 2.
 
 
 
The Northeast
Men and women who live in the Northeast marry significantly later than those in the rest of the United States. 3.
 
 
 
The Northeast
Men and women who live in the Northeast marry significantly later than those in the rest of the United States. 4.
 
 
 
U.S. Census analysis has shown that the states with higher percentages of unmarried couples also usually have higher ages at first marriage. But is it that they are living together, because they aren't getting married, or are they not getting married because they're living together? 5.
 
 
 
Washington, DC
The District of Columbia's age at first marriage is the highest in the U.S.: 30.1 for men and 29.9 for women. D.C. also has the nation's highest percentage of its population with a Bachelor's Degree or higher – 47.5 percent. And it has one of the higher percentage of unmarried couple households. 6.
 
 
 
 



In our chart at the right, the y-axis represents the U.S. median age at first marriage, the x-axis being the years 1890 (on the far left) to 2003 (to the right).



In 1890, the median age for a woman's first marriage was just 22.0 for women and 26.1 for men.



For almost a century, marriage ages were lower than they were in 1890.


It wasn't until 1979 that women were consistently getting married at an age higher than that of 1890 levels.

And it wasn't until 1989 that the men were getting married at the same age as those who got married in 1890. 7.

 
 
“Millions of men and women had been forced to postpone marrying during the hard times of the 1930s and the austerity and separation brought about by the war. It was not surprising, then, that they married in record numbers in the late 1940s and . . . the birth rate soon rose dramatically. What was surprising was that years after this pent-up demand for marriage and children should have been satisfied, the birth and marriage rates remained high.” 8.
 
 
 
According to an 1948 article in Science News-Letter, Met Life Insurance Company had predicted that there would not be much of a war boom in marriages during the Korean War, because there simply were "not very many spinsters and bachelors left in the country." More than 2/3 of the population age 15 and over was already married. "The number of married people in the United States, estimated at almost 75 million, is now at an all time high." 9.
 
 
 
Also in 1948, an essayist wrote in Parents' Magazine: “Not only do more of our young people marry– they marry much earlier than anywhere else in the western world. Half of our men are married before they are 24 years old, and half of our women before they are 22. Over three-fourths of our men and women are married by the time they are 30 years old. By way of contrast, in Ireland only one-third of the 30-year-old men and just over half of the women of that age are married.” 10.
 
 
 
1956
The year U.S. women were getting married the youngest, from 1890 to 2003. In 1956, the median age for a woman's first marriage was just 20.1 years old – almost two years younger than the women's median age of marriage in 1890. 11.
 
 
 
1956 - 1959
The years U.S. men were getting married the youngest, from 1890 to 2003. From 1955 to 1959, the age hovered between 22.5 and 22.6 – about 3.5 years younger than the men in 1890. 12.
 
 
 
Almost half
According to 1956 Census estimates, of the women in the U.S. who would get married at some point in their lives, almost half of them would have been married before they were 20. 13.
 
 
 
And it was actually the 1960s when couples got married at the youngest –
On average, couples in the U.S. got married earlier in 1960 than they did in 1950. 14.
 
 
 
In 1961, Science News Letter reported, “Brides and Bridegrooms in the United States are younger and closer in age at first marriage than those in any other urban-industrialized country in the world. . . . Men are now marrying about three years earlier and women two years earlier than at the turn of this century. The 1890 census showed that half the bridegrooms were under 26 and half the brides were under 22. The U.S. has one of the highest marriage rates among Western industrial nations . . . .” 15.
 
 
 
“It is the fathers of the baby boomers, the men born between the early 1920s and World War II, whose behavior is problematic. To say that in the 1970s and 1980s men were ‘postponing’ marriage is justifiable only if the unusual decade of the 1950s is chosen as the frame of reference.” – sociologist Andrew Cherlin. 16.
 
 
 
"Ring by spring or your money back" –
“. . . getting married within weeks of graduation was a symbol of success for many college-educated women in the 1950s and early 1960s. . . in a generation in which half of all women married before age 21.” 17.
 
 
 
More than 30 percent
of American women graduating from 1900-1919 who were unmarried by 50, a rate four times that for women who had not attended college. Men had about the same marriage rate, whether or not they had attended college. 18.
 
 
 
More than 30 percent
of American women graduating college from 1900-1919 were unmarried by 50, a rate four times that for women who had not attended college. Men had about the same marriage rate, whether or not they had attended college. 19.
 
 
 
15-20 percent
of American women graduating from college in 1920-1945 were unmarried by 50. 20.
 
 
 
Eight percent
of American women graduating from college in 1946-1965 were unmarried by 50. 21.
 
 
 
12 percent
of American women graduating from college in 1966-1979 were unmarried by 50. 22.
 
 
 
 
 
36 percent
of U.S. women in 1970, ages 20 to 24 who had not married. 12 percent of women 25 to 29 had not married. 23.
 
 
 
69 percent
of U.S. women ages 20-24 in 2000 who had not married. 38 percent of women 25-29 still had not married. 24.
 
 
 
22 percent
of U.S. women 30 to 34 were never married in 2000. That is also about triple the percent of never-married women in that age group in 1970. 25.
 
 
 
“Since World War II, then, a historical difference between blacks and whites in marriage timing has been turned on its head: blacks used to marry earlier than whites, but now they marry later.” 26.
 
 
 
“In the nineteenth century. . . and throughout the first half of the twentieth century, blacks tended to marry at a younger age than did whites. Between 1940 and 1950, however, the average age at which whites married began to decrease, and by mid-century there was little difference between the two groups.” Then, the percentage of single white women kept falling, since they kept getting married earlier and earlier. But for nonwhites, the percentage of nonwhite women who were single began to rise, and has continued to rise ever since. 27.
 
 
 
23
according to a study, the median age for men in Mexico who migrate to the U.S., which is a year earlier than the median age for non-migrating men. 75 percent of migrating men are married by 27, which is almost two years earlier than non-migrating men. And only five percent of migrating men don’t marry, compared to 11 percent of non-migrating men. 28.
 
 
 
24
the median age at marriage for men in Mexico, which "has remained virtually unchanged . . . since the early 1940s. The stability in marriage reflects both the central economic role the family plays in providing individuals with a network of support and exchange in a context of heightened economic insecurity and the prevalent societal ideology that portrays marriage as an important social objective." 29.
 
 
 
In Mexico, early marriage can threaten completion of job training or experimentation, and educational attainment – the primary mechanism for upward mobility. 30.
 
 
 
 
In Mexico, women’s employment doesn't delay marriage; instead, their income allows men to get married earlier, because they don't have to earn as much before getting married. 31.
 
 
 
“Ahora sí te puedes casar.”
(trans: Now, you can get married.) Expression/cliché in some Mexican and El Salvadorian communities (abroad and in the U.S.), said to girls – beginning around age 13 – and single women, used when she successfully completes a domestic task such as cooking dinner. Depending on the family and the the target of the expression, it can be meant as a compliment or joke. In the U.S., the more Americanized the family, the less likely they are to be familiar with the expression. 32.
 
 
 
 

THE MEDIA "TREND": YOUNG ADULTS ARE MOVING BACK HOME
MORE YOUNG ADULTS AREN'T LIVING AT HOME
MOVING HOME IS TIED TO THE ECONOMY
THERE ARE CULTURAL ISSUES PRESENT AS WELL
IT COULD BE A GOOD THING – RESTORATION OF EXTENDED FAMILIES?
HOW MANY WILL MOVE BACK?
WHAT WILL THE PARENTS SAY WHEN YOU DO?

 
 
THE TREND AS IDENTIFIED IN MASS MEDIA:

The trend is to see a new and or growing phenomenon of "boomerang kids," that is, adults who return home either after college and/or a few years out on their own.
 
HOW THEY GET IT WRONG:
 
Point 1: There are less adult children 25-34 living at home now than they were in 1996, and, while there are more 18-24 year-olds living at home than in previous decades, the recent figures are still less than other recent years.
 
In other words, this "rising phenomenon" is so not true, it's hard for us to believe it; at first, we thought just didn't have enough data to find the support for the phenomenon.
 
According to the U.S. Census, in 2003, 7.0 percent of women 25-34 years old were living with their parents or in college dorms. That's the lowest percentage of women at home since 1986, and lower than the same percentage it was in 1960, despite the fact that women were getting married much younger then. 1.
 
In 2003, 13.5 percent of men 25-34 were living with their parents or in college dorms. Men have varied from 13.1 to 13.9 percent since 1999. 2.
 
Yes, it's higher than 1970, and for men, higher than 1960, as well but in the past 20 years, the highest percentages for both sexes were actually in 1996, when 16 percent of men 25-34 and 9.0 percent of women 25-34 were living at home. And it's generally been going down – though there was with a bump up from 2001-2002 with the change in the Post-September 11 economy and environment. 3.
 
Of 18-24 year olds, in 2003, 54.8 percent of 18-24 year old males and 45.7 percent of females were living with their parents. And, yes, the articles are technically correct when they say that is a higher percentage than were in 1960, 1970, or 1980. But that's also misleading, because those weren't the years with the highest percentages of adult children at home. The highest percentages for 18-24 year old men to be living at home was more than 20 years ago – 1984 when 61.7 percent of them lived at home. For 18-24 year old women, 1999 was the highest year. That's more recent, but still, long enough ago that none of the women who were in that age group then, are still in it today. (49.0 percent). 4.
 
Here's a thought: the Census counts people who live in college dorms as still living at home. So we should expect the numbers of adult children at home to be higher than it was in earlier decades (and continue to grow), because more people are going to college – and living in dorms or staying home while they do it.
 
And we shouldn't be surprised when the newly educated, as of yet unemployed, move back home until they get settled.
 
What could possibly be the explanation for the media attention on boomerangs, then? Our guess is that the ones catching the eye of media are those who are moving home and were supposed to have it all, and haven't. They lost – or couldn't get – careers in the bust. Yes, it's another upper white collar / white driven media story again. Our support for this conclusion is a number of articles say it isn't just the economy being tough that's the reason the kids are moving home, but that the children were too spoiled when they were growing up to function on their own. It's unlikely that children in a lower class environment were spoiled to such an incapacitating amount. And it would seem like more of a disappointment / affront for those who were supposed to be successful as a given, to be struggling now.
 
Point 2: It isn’t a new phenomenon anyway: it’s driven by economic cycles.
 
Depending on the article, it's supposedly a "new" or "growing" trend. It isn't new: it's cyclical. We've seen articles covering adult kids coming home in the recession years of the mid-1980s, 1989, 1992, 1999, 2000, and for the past three years consecutively. Basically, the articles about a new trend in "boomerangs" have appear every time there's been an economic downturn or recession for the past two decades.
 
Beyond the past twenty years, there was a severe housing shortage during and after WWII, so many adult children – including those with children of their own – moved home.
 
Even the terms "boomerangers" or "boomerang kids" aren't new. They have been around since at least 1987 – with the release of a book entitled Boomerang Kids: How to live with Adult Children Who Return Home. 5.
 
Point 3: Whether or not this is considered a problem is defined cultural context / expectations.
 
Of the articles about boomerang kids that do consider that the motivations for moving home are primarily economic, they don't consider racial, class, or cultural differences – which are just as much of an issue for returning home as they were for leaving home in the first place.
 
Point 4: Perhaps this is a good thing: restoration of nuclear / extended families.
 
It's amazing to us, but unless it's an article critiquing the norm, the articles usually see this as a sign of a failure by the kid and/or parent. Couldn't it just as easily be seen as a sign of strength of family as a continuing viable entity, right? Couldn't it be a sign that the parents successfully forged close emotional ties with their children – and that that should be praised, rather than criticized?
 
Especially if those who return to their parents' homes have children of their own. That isn't a new phenomenon. That's a return to the older, once-familiar extended-family structure – where Grandma's watching the kids just like she's supposed to do. If economic realities in the urban industrialized society seemed to end the role of extended families in society, perhaps we should consider the possibility that an older, post-industrial society may move back into an era of extended family living.
 
 

HOW MANY WILL MOVE BACK?

 
 
15 percent
of American Baby Boomer parents surveyed have grown children who have returned home. 9.


 
And another 25 percent
of American Baby Boomer parents surveyed think it's likely that their adult children will move back in with them. 10.
 
 
 
So a combined 40 percent
of American Baby Boomers surveyed either think that it's likely their adult children will move back in with them, or they already have their adult children already living with them, while only 30 percent of them expect their own parents or in-laws will move in, or they are already there. 11.
 
 
 

WHAT WILL THE PARENTS SAY WHEN YOU DO?

 
 
65 percent
of American Baby Boomer parents surveyed would "be happy" to help their grown children, if they financially needed to move back home. More than that, nearly one-fourth of the parents (23 percent) would feel “obligated” to help. And the kids should feel grateful it's that high – only 51 percent of the Boomers would be as happy to have their own parents or in-laws move in. 12.
 
 
 
Of those eager for their kids to leave again,
more than twice as many Boomer dads (33 percent) as mothers (14 percent) would be helping them pack. 13.

 

Do you think they require a security deposit?
28 percent of American Baby Boomers surveyed would charge their adult children rent for living at home. Older Boomers – aged 59 to 70 – are more likely to charge rent – 40 percent of them would do it. 14.
 
 
 
 

LOVE, HISTORICALLY:

 
 
Yes, there was adultery even in Plymouth, but the women were punished for it harshly (men less so) The Pilgrims expressed their devotion to God in terms of love and his devotion to them in equally human terms, so that effected how they viewed each other. Calvinism demanded strict self-awareness and self-inspection (remember, you had to prove you were by your acts one of the graced ones). Marriage was described as “the little church within the church” where each day you proved / experienced God/marriage as a sacrament. (This is a Puritan twist on Luther, who according to at least one historian thought marriage was a second rate institution). (Remember that the Mid Atlantic / Southern colonies were settled for different reasons by different people, so different rules applied there.) 22.
 
 
 
From 1740 to 1865 (as seen increasingly in popular media over time), developed a new construction of love, a “romantic love ideal” which included a belief in
1) love at first sight,
2) there is one true love,
3) love conquers all,
4) the beloved is near perfection, and
5) one should marry for love. 23.

 
 
A “new romanticism” began in England in the late 18th Century, spread to Europe, and then hit America’s shores by the beginning of the 19th century: “It was pluralistic, its manifestations were as varied, as individualistic, and as conflicting as the cultures and the intellects from which it spring. Yet romantics frequently shared certain general characteristics; moral enthusiasm, faith in the value of individualism and intuitive perception that the natural world was a source of goodness and man’s societies a source of corruption. Romantic values dominated American politics, art, and philosophy until the Civil War. The romantic exaltation of the individual suited the nation’s revolutionary heritage and its frontier egalitarianism. The romantic revolt against traditional formalities gratified those displeased with the narrow limits of neoclassic literature, painting, and architecture. The romantic rejection of rationalism comforted those opposed to religions encrusted with the intellectual remnants of Calvinism and led increasing numbers of Americans to turn to the fervors of camp-meeting revivalism or to the tenets of New England transcendentalism.” 24.
 
 
 
By 1800-1830, the American middle class was getting married for love. There are many different reasons, e.g. The French Revolution and the War of 1812; women’s rights movements and industrialization as discussed; early Puritan roots in self-awareness and self-knowledge took off in the emotionalism of the mid-1800s Great Awakening. It also acted to bridge the cultural gap between men and women in public society. The Victorian Era of self-control was self-control within society: it was equally about passionately revealing one’s true self within the private sphere/love. Therefore, Lystra too argues that rise of romantic love was about individuation within the society: two people declare their true identity as a way to express/create/establish their individualism. 25.
 
 
 
However, romantic love is this era wasn’t all happy endings, hearts and flowers; pain -- from loss, months long separations, death, war, etc. -- was an inherent part of love. 26.
 
 
 
“Strictly speaking, marriages arranged by parents for purely economic reasons had been infrequent even in the colonial period, and so they remained in the nineteenth century. Historians have found, however, that by the antebellum period people increasingly looked for romantic affinity between prospective partners while downplaying the economic considerations of the match. Strong romantic attachments now became the centerpiece of courtship. Ellen Rothman's study of the passionate courtships of middle-class northerners shows courting couples developing ‘genuine closeness in their relationships with one another.’ Prolonged courtships, marked by long letters and conversations, she argues, belie the notion that there was emotional distance between the sexes. Once married, couples often continued to enjoy close attachments to their partners. Historian Karen Lystra, while noting that such love faced an uphill struggle as long as ‘men still maintained massive legal, economic, and physical bases of superiority,’ points out that ‘the glue of companionate marriage’ could link men and women in an emotional bond that could weaken patriarchal authority. In antislavery households, husbands and wives tended to share their commitment to abolition and both would often join antislavery groups.” 27.
 
 
 
In the 1800s, sexuality, love, and marriage were seen as distinct and separable experiences; however, gradually, sexuality/eroticism became a goal of romantic relationships: “people who were in love were expected to be sexually attracted to each other (and people who were sexually attracted to each other were expected to be in love).” Happiness and sexual fulfillment became a goal for a relationship; duty, character, and spiritual union became less important. 28.
 
 
 
As American romantic literature is concerned, we’re talking about folks like Edgar Allen Poe, Nathaniel Hawthorne, James Fenimore Cooper, Washington Irving, into arguably the transcendentalists (Ralph Waldo Emerson et al.). 29.
 
 
 
In The Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote:

“But, in the lapse of the toilsome, thoughtful, and self-devoted years that made up Hester’s life, the scarlet letter ceased to be a stigma which attracted the world’s scorn and bitterness, and became a type of something to be sorrowed over, and looked upon with awe, yet with reverence too. And, as Hester Prynne had no selfish ends, nor lived in any measure for her own profit and enjoyment, people brought all their sorrows and perplexities, and besought her counsel, as one who had herself gone through a mighty trouble. Women, more especially, – in the continually recurring trials of wounded, wasted, wronged, misplaced, or erring and sinful passion, – or with the dreary burden of a heart, unyielded, because unvalued and unsought, – came to Hester’s cottage, demanding why they were so wretched, and what the remedy! Hester comforted and counselled them, as best she might. She assured them, too, of her firm belief, that, at some brighter period, when the world should have grown ripe for it, in Heaven’s own time, a new truth would be revealed, in order to establish the whole relation between man and woman on a surer ground of mutual happiness.” 30.

 
 
But the Age of Realism brought on by the Civil War and industrialism see the romantic ideals as folly: “Intense individualism and soaring optimism had deteriorated into . . . self-centeredness, disappointment, and frivolous addiction to the pleasures of despair, pathos, and nostalgia. Romanticism had encouraged the worship of heroic outcasts and worthless chivalric ideals.” 31.
 
 
 
But elements of it – exaltation of love, intense introspection – had left their mark on American psyche which still have not been erased.
 
Between 1880 and 1940, love, sex, and marriage came to be defined as integrated, with the emphasis on marriage. That meant new demands on marriage, such as falling out of love or not being sexually fulfilled. 32.
 
 
 
By early 1900s, only romantic love was a valid reason to marry; arranged marriages – particularly those by immigrants – were seen as suspect/just ways to get around immigration laws. 33.
 
 
 
 
“Since 1940, sexuality has gradually been separated from marriage.” 34.
 
 
 

CONTINUING ROLE OF ROMANTIC LOVE IN OUR SOCIETY

 
 
 
In case you’ve thought that we have gotten past that “marriage for social gain” idea – some scholars point to the success of books like The Rules to dispute that. 35.
 
 
 
Described in more than one place as the “Stephen Hawking of love,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Irving Singer “wonders whether modern society may be replacing the pursuit of romantic love with the avoidance of it, possibly for reasons that are more than merely cynical. ‘For career reasons, people have been turning away from romantic love as we have known it,’ he observes. ‘It may be that the human race is evolving away from a need for this kind of love. Perhaps in 1,000 years there'll be some substitute. Technology may be taking us in that direction already -- even now, some MIT students fall in love with their computers.’" 36.
 
 
 
Even today, Father Ken Deasy regularly has to inform his congregation that marriage – that romantic attachment between a couple – is a valuable, holy, spiritual institution, and not of a lower order, because it’s still news to Catholics, who were taught – and often still believe – that when people marry for love, it's because they can’t bear the better, holier life of being celibate clergy. 38.
 
 
 

WHY GET MARRIED?

 
 
 
 
Always a Love Match
While other countries relied upon arranged marriages, most scholars seem to believe that U.S. has always predominantly had its marriages based in love matches – and that such a tradition had been in place literally since the Pilgrims were here. The Pilgrims' views came from a Protestant belief that marriage was a holy expression of God's love for man – a radical view elsewhere in the world (including the Catholic tradition which still saw marriage as a civil institution). 4.
 
 
 
An Unequal marriage of equals?
 
Marriage matches were historically a based in union of families and political dynasties, and families were hierarchies just as everything else was. And, while loveless, the low number of divorces in England until the late Nineteenth Century indicate that these marriages may have been more stable than the modern U.S. type of love matches between two equal partners. 5.
 
And in fact, historically, divorces are almost just as much a part of the American marriage tradition as are love matches. 6.
 
 
 
I will never get married if I'm not in love –
What 86 percent of U.S. students said in a 1995 survey. 9.
 
 
 
Two-Thirds
Number of surveyed Japanese-American women and Chinese-American single women who explained that their refusal to get married was in large part due to the fact that their parents had gotten married because of familial responsibilities and obligations, rather than on love. 11.
 
 
 
“Black women are less likely to marry, stay married, and remarry. Those who marry do so at an older age than do whites. The differences between blacks and whites . . . are greater than they were a generation ago. As a result, black women spend far less of their life in a marriage than do white women. . . . white women now can expect to spend less than half of their lives married. But among black women, the corresponding figure has plunged from 40 percent to 22 percent – about the same proportion of life that the average college-educated person spends attending school. Marriage has become just a temporary stage of life for blacks, preceded by a lengthening period of singlehood and followed by a long period of living without a spouse. . . . For blacks, even more so than for whites, a long, stable marriage is the exception rather than the rule.” 12.
 
 
 
"I don't":
There were four reasons why surveyed Chinese-American and Japanese-American women were not married: their parents's marriage was not love based, their status as elder daughters who had to care for their family, their educational goals, and their belief that there wasn't anyone appropriate to marry. 14.
 
 
 
In 1886, Reverend Talmage wrote, in a collection of sermons, “Better for a woman to live alone, though she live a thousand years, than to be annexed to one of these masculine failures with which society is surfeited. The patron saint of almost every family circle is some such unmarried woman, and among all the families of cousins she moves around, and her coming in each house is the morning, and her going away is the night.” 15.
 
 
 
In 1886, Reverend T. DeWitt Talmage wrote, in a collection of sermons, “That marriage is the destination of the human race is a mistake that I want to correct before I go further. There are multitudes who never will marry, and still greater multitudes who are not fit to marry. In Great Britain to-day there are nine hundred and forty-eight thousand more women than men, and that, I understand, is about the ratio in America. By mathematical and inexorable law, you see, millions of women will never marry. The supply for matrimony greater than the demand, the first lesson of which is that every women ought to prepare to take care of herself if need be. Then there are thousands of men who have no right to marry, because they have become so corrupt of character that their offer of marriage is an insult to any good woman.” 16.
 
 
 
In 1948, a Parents' Magazine essayist wrote that women have always had the upper hand in marriage. As he explained, “The opportunity for marriage and for family life has been particularly favorable to our women. In large part, this happy situation reflects our pioneer traditions as well as our good social and economic conditions. The preponderance of young people, the relative scarcity of women, and the fact that it is impossible to hew a civilization out of a wilderness without the aid of large families were conducive to early marriages. The responsibility of pioneer wives made their position in our society secure.” 17.
 
 
 
 

WHO'S THE LUCKY GUY (GIRL)?

 
 
Twice as many
U.S. black men have a spouse of a different race or origin than do black women: 10 percent of black men are in an inter-racial or ethic marriage while only five percent of black women are in one. 35.
 
 
 
 
Don't want to be their mothers –
Three-fourths of Japanese-American women and Chinese-American women surveyed said that dating Asian-American men was difficult, because the men wanted the women to adopt traditional, submissive gender roles, while the women were looking for men who would share child-rearing and household responsibilities. 42.
 
 
 
24
The number of U.S. states that prohibit marriage between first cousins. Of the 26 states that do allow first-cousin marriages, a number of them have special requirements for marriages between relatives. In Wisconsin and, of all places, Utah, cousins can only get married if they won't have any children. In Maine, the marriage can go forward, but only after the related couple has first had genetic testing to see if a child from the marriage would be at risk from a commonly-held gene for disease. 47.
 
 
 

CULTURAL TRADITIONS IN MARRIAGE AND WEDDINGS

 
 
 
In the Hawaiian language, the root of the word for marriage is "to try." Now, is that "try" as in attempt to accomplish something, or as in “get on my very last nerve,” I don’t know. 59.
 
 
 
 

RELIGIOUS AND STATE INVOLVEMENT IN MARRIAGES, HISTORICALLY

 
 
Generally, in the UK/US Anglo-Saxon tradition, civil and religious rule grew in parallel over the centuries, really taking root following the Norman Conquest. Civil law would recognize nullification while religious law would come up with rules like don’t marry your sister. both religious and civil courts ruled over issues such as consummation (required), eligibility to marry, etc. Actually, it wasn’t until the 12th century that the Church recognized marriage as an official sacrament and therefore required church approval, and not until 1563 (when Henry VIII was giving the world headaches) that a priest had to marry for it to be recognized. Which is not to say that you couldn’t get in trouble with the church before that; married women could be excommunicated for being adulterous sluts hundreds of years before that (men were just slapped on the wrist because we’re expected to be unfaithful). 72.
 
 
Anglo-Saxon (and subsequent) courts have always recognized the importance of the marital state to the society and have therefore limited the ability to regulate marriage.
 
 
In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, the marriage contract – remember it’s a real contract – is really between the husband, wife and the state, whereas in other traditions, it's a contract between families. Regardless, the contract was that a husband promise to her and the state that you will provide for your wife and your progeny. The contract can be, to a certain extent, modified by the real parties in interest (take care of me or else). The state will go along with those “contract modifications” if they are reasonable, and don’t discourage creation of marriages. That’s why Pre-Nup’s are so controversial in the U.S., because they are thought to encourage divorce. (It wasn’t until 1983 that there was a Uniform Antenuptial Agreement Act for the states to discuss/review). In Islamic marriages, there's frequently a negotiated contract of marriage, with specific terms – what the wife must do, what the husband can't do, what during the marriage will constitute grounds for divorce, etc. 73.
 
 
 

MARRIAGES IN THE U.S.
How Many Are Getting Married?

 
 
 
120.2 million
Number of U.S. married men and women in 2000. 1.
 
 
 
2,327,000
Number of marriages in the U.S. in 2001. 62 percent of these marriages were first marriages for both the husband and wife. 2.
 
 
 
70 percent
of all U.S. current marriages are a first marriage. 3.
 
 
 
56 percent
of U.S. adults were ever-married – currently married, divorced, separated and widowed – in the late 1990s – a fall from the early 1970s, when three quarters of adults were ever-married. 4.
 
 
 
54 percent
of American women are 15 and over and currently married. 5.
 
 
 
57 percent
of American men are 15 and over and currently married. 6.
 
 
 
100 million
Number of unmarried and single Americans. That is 44 percent of all U.S. residents age 15 and over. 7.
 
 
 
53 percent
of unmarried and single Americans are women. 8.
 
 
 
64 percent
of unmarried and single Americans have never been married. 9.
 
 
 
22 percent
of unmarried and single Americans are divorced. 10.
 
 
 
14 percent
of unmarried and single Americans are widowed. 11.
 
 
 
14.9 million
Number of unmarried and single Americans who are age 65 and over. That's 15 percent of all unmarried and single people. 12.
 
 
 
87
Number of unmarried men age 15 and over for every 100 unmarried women in the United States. 13.
 
 
 
25 percent
of U.S. women 15 and older have never been married. 14.
 
 
 
31 percent
of U.S. men 15 and older have never been married. 15.
 
 
 
About 4
out of every 10 U.S. black men and black women had never been married in 2000. That is the highest proportion for any racial category. 16.
 
 
 
42 percent
of U.S. black men are married. 17.
 
 
 
31 percent
of U.S. Black women are married. That 10 percent difference between the marriage rates of black men and women is the largest difference between any of the U.S. ethnic or racial groups. Possible explanations for this are black males' higher mortality rate and their higher rate of intermarriage with other race or origin groups. 18.
 
 
 
60.2 percent
of Asians in the U.S. are married, higher than the national rate of 54.4 percent. 19.
 
 
 
51.3 percent
of Hispanics in the U.S. who are married, slightly less than the national rate. 20.
 
 
 
51 percent
Pacific Islanders in the U.S. are married. 21.
 
 
 
In 1948, Parents' Magazine reported that “The first fact is that the rate of marriage in this country has been higher than in virtually any other in the world. In 1947 there were 14 marriages for every 1000 population in the United States. The nearest to this record were New Zealand and Czechoslovakia, each of which had a marriage rate of almost 11 per 1000 population. Last year at least 2,000,000 couples in this country were married. In 1946, an all-time peak of 2,-250,000 marriages took place – 60 percent more than in prewar 1939.” 22
 
 
 

What's the Probability of Getting Married?

 
These are estimates for the probability of men and women getting married, on a general basis. For information relating to the likelihood of unmarried cohabiting partners getting married, see our memo on Unmarried Partners.
 
 
 
"Nearly everyone marries."
According to the U.S. Census Bureau. 23.
 
 
 
Over 65 percent
of the U.S. men age 40 in 2006 had already been married by the time they were 30. 24.
 
 
 
About 90 percent
of the U.S. men age 40 in 2006 are projected to have been married some point in their lifetimes. 25.
 
 
 
Over 71 percent
of the U.S. women age 40 in 2006 were married by the time they were 30. 26.
 
 
 
Almost 92 percent
of the U.S. women age 40 in 2006 are projected to have been married some point in their lifetimes. 27
 
 
 
Over 95 percent
of men and women age 60 in 1996 were projected to marry at some point in their lives. 28.
 
 
 
However, American blacks "are increasingly less likely to ever marry. . . . Among the most recent cohort, women born in the 1950s, these estimates suggest that 91 percent of whites, but only 75 percent of the blacks, will ever marry. Another recent study estimates that only 70 percent of black women will every marry.” 29.
 
 
 
72 percent
of Australian men will marry in their lifetimes, down from 79 percent 12 years ago. 30.
 
 
 
77 percent
of Australian women will marry in their lifetimes, down from 86 percent 12 years ago. 31.
 
 
 
 
 

REMARRIAGES (U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL)

 
 
 
 
About seven to eight percent
of all U.S. current marriages are a second marriage for one of the spouses. 40.
 
 
 
3.6 percent
of all U.S. current marriages are third or subsequent marriage. 41.
 
 
 
About eight to ten percent
of U.S. brides and grooms married in 2001 had been married before. 42.
 
 
 
21.1 percent
of U.S. brides and 20.5 percent of grooms married in 1949 had been previously married. 43.
 
 
 
75 percent
of U.S. women form a new union – either cohabitation or a remarriage – after breaking up a union. 44.
 
 
 
80 percent
of U.S. men form a new union – either cohabitation or a remarriage – after breaking up a union. 45.
 
 
 
 

TRANSITION OF UNMARRIED COHABITATION INTO MARRIAGE

 
 
 
58 percent
In the U.S., if your daughter has been living with some guy for three years – and this is the first guy she’s lived with – the chance they’ll finally marry is 58 percent. 1.
 
 
 
48 percent
of cohabitations in the U.S. transition into marriage. 2.
 
 
 
39 percent –
the probability of that an American woman’s first premarital cohabitation will end within three years of cohabitation. The probability raises to 49 percent within 5 years of cohabitation. These probabilities include those cohabitations that resulted in marriage. 3.
 
 
 
Not surprisingly, American cohabitations last longer if the women:
have a higher educational background;
grew up in an intact two-parent family;
consider religion to play an important role in their lives;
have a high family income; and
live in a community with high median family income, low male unemployment, and low poverty. Those factors increase the longevity of a marriage as well. 4.

 
 
Twice as likely to break up as marriage
In the U.S., the likelihood that a first cohabitation will break up within five years is 49 percent – twice the rate that a first marriage will end in separation or divorce (20 percent). In 10 years, a cohabitation will have have broken up 62 percent of the time, while the probability of a marriage ending in separation or divorce is 33 percent. These cohabitations include those that have transitioned into marriage – which seems to indicate that marriages that follow cohabitation have a higher rate of dissolution. 5.
 
 
 
But that mean not mean living together is the reason for a greater risk of divorce –
Among Australians, while the divorce rate is higher for those who have lived together before marriage, it may not be that living together is the cause. Instead, the fact is that the population that is likely to live together is largely the same population that's more likely to divorce in any event – those who are less religious, lived in a broken home, etc. And those who are without those characteristics but live together are no more likely to divorce if they live together before marrying. So Australian research has determined that it isn't the living together that's the determinant of marriage success or failure.

A study of American women has somewhat similar findings: for example, women with weak religious backgrounds are both more likely to cohabit and divorce. So it may be the couple's background, generally, not the fact that they lived together, that increases the risk of dissolution. 6.
 
 
 
53 percent
The probability of a U.S. woman choosing to cohabit with a new partner, five years after the end of her first marriage. After 10 years, that rises to 70 percent. Black women are significantly less likely to cohabit after a broken marriage: the probability of postmarital cohabitation is 50 percent for Hispanic women, 58 percent for white women, but only 31 percent for black women. 7.
 
 
 
Black women are significantly less likely to cohabit after a broken marriage: the probability of postmarital cohabitation is 50 percent for Hispanic women, 58 percent for white women, but only 31 percent for black women. 8.
 
 
 
36.1 percent
of cohabitations in Canada transition into marriage. 12.
 
 
 
 
 

UNMARRIED PARTNERS / PERCEPTIONS AND LEGAL STATUS

 
 
 
 
For many, if not most, couples who live together in the U.S., cohabitation represents a major step toward marriage; it isn't an end in itself. 14.
 
 

 

UNMARRIED PARTNERS / PREVALANCE

 
 
 
In North America and Western Europe, the prevalence of unmarried cohabitation is increasing– and not just prior to marriage, but also following separation, divorce or widowhood. "However, there is still a considerable between-country variation: in some of the Scandinavian countries, premarital cohabitation is a quite generalised form of behaviour; in countries such as France and the Netherlands, it is fast increasing; in some regions, such as Flanders, Scotland, and Wales, and in Southern European countries it is still a minority phenomenon." 23.
 
 
 
About 45 percent
of women in Canada are expected to have lived with someone by age 45. 30.
 
 

U.S. DEMOGRAPHICS OF UNMARRIED PARTNERS

 
 
 
“ . . . starting with people born about 1940, cohabitation began to increase among young adults regardless of their level of education. Among those born about 1950, who entered adulthood after 1970s, conventional wisdom was recent college graduates, rejecting the values of their parents, had started the trend. But . . . college graduates were not the trendsetters; at all times over the past several decades, persons with less education were more likely to cohabit. To be sure, there was a sharp rise in cohabitation among college graduates in the 1970s, so the claim that they were radically changing their behavior was correct. But so was everyone else.” 43.
 
 
 
5.5 million
U.S. couples (both and same sex) were living together as unmarried partners in 2000. That’s up from 3.2 million in 1990. Note, however, that the Census Bureau thinks that unmarried partners are likely to be underreported (e.g. a mother with kids living with her boyfriend, filing out the one form the house got, may have to, for a host of reasons, reply “single” instead of “unmarried partner.”). 44.
 
 
 
9.2 million
U.S. men and women live in 4.6 million unmarried-partner households. 45.
 
 
 
About 33 percent
of American young couples are cohabiting. 46.
 
 
 
Seven percent
of American women born in 1933-1942 lived with someone before getting married. 47.

 
 
Less than one percent
The percentage of cohabiting, unmarried couples in the U.S. in 1960. 48.
 
 
 
Seven percent
The percentage of cohabiting, unmarried couples in the U.S. in 1998. 49.
 
 
 
64 percent
of American women born in 1963-1974 lived with someone before getting married. Therefore, it is the norm for women born in this period. 50.
 
 
 
Over half
of U.S. women age 30 to 34 were currently living with someone, or had previously lived with someone prior to marriage, in 1995. 51.
 
 
 
So, not surprisingly, they're younger –
Partners in U.S. opposite-sex unmarried-partner households are an average of 12 years younger than partners in married-couple households. 52.
 
 
 
More dual-career households
In U.S. unmarried partner couples without children present, both of the couple work 61 percent of the time. That is 10 percent higher than married-couple households (at 51 percent). But among households with children, there are more dual-earner families among the married couples: 56 percent of unmarried couples with children are dual-earner families while 61 percent of married couples with children are dual-earners. 53.
 
 
 
The women are more educated
29 percent of U.S. women in U.S. unmarried-partner households are more educated than their partners – which is slightly higher than the rate in married couples (22 percent). 54.
 
 
 
And they probably make more, too –
U.S. women in unmarried-partner households are also more likely than married women to earn more than their partners. 23 percent of women in unmarried-partner households earn at least $5,000 more than their partners – compared with 17 percent of married women. 55.
 
 
 
Or, at least, it's closer to equal –
In 15 percent of U.S. unmarried partners, the men earned at least $30,000 more than their partners or wives. In married-couples, the proportion of men earning that substantially different an income was twice that (31 percent). 56.
 
 
 
California
the U.S. state with the most unmarried- partner households: 684,000, or 12 percent of the U.S.’s 5.5 million total. Of these, 591,000 were opposite-sex and 92,000 were same-sex couples, representing 12 percent and 16 percent, respectively, of these types of households in the nation. 57.
 
 
 
 

UNMARRIED PARTNERS WITH CHILDREN

 
 
 
 
43 percent
of U.S. opposite-sex unmarried-partner households have at least one child under 18 present. (Child may be related or unrelated to householder, e.g. daughter of unmarried partner of householder.) 58.
 
 
 
 
2.9 percent
of American children lived with unmarried parents in 2002, up from 2.0 percent in 1997. 61.
 
 
 
One third
of U.S. children will have their mother in a cohabiting relationship by the time the children are 16 years old. 62.
 
 
 
Eight percent
of all 2002 U.S. births (307,000) were to women in cohabiting unions. 65.
 
 
 
Six percent
of U.S. children lived in unmarried-partner households in 2000. 66.
 
 
 

FAMILY STRUCTURE - U.S. COLONIAL ERA TO 1899

 
 
The father’s control over his family was first just unjustified beyond the fact that God had given a father “flesh of my flesh,” and you (as a father) had as much right to do with your issue as you had rights over your own person. And women, remember, weren’t considered individuals, so this only worked for men. (Even later U.S. cases cite to Adam and Eve, the Creator as having given us family, the family as the cornerstone, etc.).
 
 
 
However, as early as 1600s, the father's right to control his children -- arrange guardianship, have the fruits of their labor -- became justified on the basis that he provided for the child’s needs. In the Colonies (and the UK), slowly the father became legally required to be responsible for the child: feeding, clothing, and housing, education, training for a trade, inculcation of religious beliefs, etc. ownership of the children. This only solidified his authority over the house/family: The mother wasn’t involved, because under the coverture system, she legally a) didn’t exist, because she and her husband were considered “one” and b) she couldn’t provide for the children anyway, since she didn’t have any legal ability to have property, ability to contract for anything, etc.
 
 
 
Also, in colonial times, children were looked upon as essentially chattel. (Arguably, so too were women, for that matter.) If something is considered to be chattel, it's a form of property a person owns and controls. So children, as chattel, were thought of a source of labor, and not much else. Families would apprentice children at the age of 10, or send them to serve other families. Slave children, of course, could be bought and sold at any time.
 
 
 
In 1620, London decreed that its “street children” could be sent by force to Virginia to be indentured servants. While most New Englanders came as families, more than half of those who emigrated to the Southern colonies were indentured servants – the average age of them being between 14 and 16 years old (and as young as six).
 
 
 
Now, all along, there was the occasional crack in the system, granting that a woman could take care of children “in the tender years” – three or seven years old. Sometimes a mother just got her child until they were weaned, but even that wasn’t always determinative. But mostly this wasn’t followed, even if the father was abusive.
 
 
 
In the mid-1800s, society began to change rapidly. Civil war, industrialization, and a huge immigrant influx of Irish, then later, Germans. As fathers left to fight wars and work in factories, there developed a belief that the father was the earner/in charge of the family’s societal and financial affairs, and that the women were in charge of domestic life/raising the family. This wasn’t the reality, since women and children were working in factories as well, but it was a middle class concept which took hold.
 
 
 
Social reformers/Progressives started tackling social problems in all spheres. “Child savers” first took kids off the street, worried about children in factories, and then started going into the homes. But there was an ebb-and-flow to the movement to it. Women, now arguing for their rights in the world were also arguing for their rights in the family. Compare that to the South, where marriages between former slaves/blacks were next to impossible, so that the plantation could still own the lives of the children (or, worse, where white men raped the black women and then claimed ownership of the children and were loath to give that up). Following the civil war, the reformers came back in full force.
 
 
 
 
By the mid to late 1800s, children (depending on where you lived) were no longer chattel -- because you can do what you want with chattel (throw it out, ignore it, enjoy the fruits of its labor, abuse it – even to death) but you had responsibilities to children you couldn’t just walk away from.
 
 
 
From the late 1800 to the early 1900s, the social reformers were more and more concerned about the state of children, especially in the factories. Child psychology began to develop, and reported that children needed to play to develop/learn. States began to pass child labor laws and mandatory schooling laws. At the same time, women started getting property/legal rights, and societal control of the homestead, so they chipped away at the parental preference.
 
 
 
Paralleling this movement, was the growth in the US of the belief in parens patriae. There was a growing belief that the child was not just property of the family, but belonged to the state; it was in the state’s interest that the child be brought up well, and become a productive, responsible citizen. The Progressives believed this. So did the anti-immigrant conservatives, who thought that immigrants weren’t capable of teaching their children to be good American.
 
 
 
A national child labor law was attempted in the late 1800s, but was struck down by the Supreme Court at the time on the basis that the federal government couldn’t regulate the state in that way (that’s a gross over/understatement of a complicated legal issue).
 
 
 
". . . the "new" family history has challenged social scientists to reconsider many traditional notions about the historical evolution of the family. It has shown that diversity, and not uniformity, has been the defining characteristic of American family life since the beginnings of colonization. It has challenged the older view that industrialization produced a shift from an extended family system to the modern nuclear family.

 
 
"In structure, role, and conception, seventeenth-century families differed profoundly from their twentieth-century counterparts. Then, the household's functions were broad and diffuse, and its boundaries elastic. Not only were seventeenth-century families the economic center of production, they were also responsible for religious instruction, transferring occupational skills to the next generation, and caring for the elderly and infirm. They were flexible units which took in orphans, the destitute, and the elderly, and housed servants and apprentices. In New England, as many as a third of all households contained servants or other distant kin or non-kin at any one time."

 
 
Puritan couples might have a childbearing period of as much as 20 years, so that a “household of a man forty-five years old might well contain a full-grown son about to marry and begin his own farm, an infant still at the breast, not to mention all of the children in-between.” (Note that this argument for Puritan longevity is cited by others, but challenged as well.)

 
 
"More than any other colonists, New Englanders emphasized nuclear-family ties. Adult sons and their aging parents often inhabited neighboring households, a pattern that has been described as a "modified extended family structure." Compared with other settlers, New Englanders were more likely to name eldest children for the parents, less likely to take in servants, and much less likely to bequeath property to cousins or other extended kin."

 
 
 
“In contract, immigrants to the Chesapeake experienced an immediate and profound disruption in the patterns of family life, first in the selection of their mates, then in family politics, and finally in relationships with their children. As a result, traditional family arrangements were much less successfully transplanted there in the seventeenth century.”

 
 
“Immigrants to the Puritan settlements included larger numbers of women and children, and they more often arrived in family groups. In addition, a much smaller proportion of the immigrants were bound laborers. Since New En-glanders not only had a greater opportunity to marry but also outlived their fellows in Maryland, they raised more children.”

 
 
“The situation in Maryland was different. A majority of the immi-grants who ventured their lives in the tobacco colony were young and single, and they married late. Nearly three-quarters of them arrived as indentured servants, and neither men nor women servants were free to marry until their terms were completed. Additional years were often required to accumulate the capital necessary to establish a household. Immigrant women in Maryland usually married in their mid-twenties, and men seldom wed before their late twenties. . . . the lack of women. Because male immigrants outnumbered female by as much as three to one, many men remained single; over one-quarter of the men who left estates in southern Maryland in the second half of the 17th century died unmarried."

 
 
“Not only did immigrants marry late, they also died very young. A man who came to Maryland in this early twenties could expect to live only about twenty more years. By age forty-five this man and many of his companions would be dead. Native-born sons fared only slightly better than their fathers. A boy reaching majority in southern Maryland before 1720 had only about twenty-five more years to live. In contract, men reaching age twenty in the Plymouth Colony in the same period could expect to live an additional forty-eight years.”

 
 
“One-half of the unions contracted in one Maryland county in the second half of the century were broken within seven years by the death of at least one of the partners. As a result, families were small; most couples had only two or three children.”

 
 
“. . . im-migrants constituted a majority of the population until the end of the century. . . . Since women who raised large families usually had two or more husbands, the number of children per couple remained small. Wives were twice as likely to survive their husbands in Charles County, Maryland, between 1658 and 1705 than were husbands to survive their wives. In addition, three widows married again for every widower who remarried.”

 
 
“Unlike the New England Puritans, whose religious philosophy called for retention of a traditional patriarchal family structure but with a reinterpretation of the character of marriage and divorce, settlers in Maryland demonstrated no desire to reform either the laws or the attitudes about marriage then prevalent in England. . . . they followed the five steps indicated by Edmund Morgan as necessary . . . espousals, publication of banns, execution of the espousal contract at church, celebration, and sexual consummation.”

 
 
Most Colonial couples married themselves during the the 17th century, without any sort of religious or civic recognition; there wasn't a wedding or a record of the marriage. Instead, cohabitation and community acceptance were the evidence of a legitimate marriages (if it ever became an issue, usually in the case of something like pensions or allegations of illegitimate birth).

 
 
“Maryland colonists of marriageable age were peculiarly lacking family ties. Most had come as indentured servants, and even among the free immigrants there were few family groups. When the immi-grants left Europe, their break with their families was usually com-plete. Few of them expected ever to return to the Old World, and probably there was little communication with relatives left behind.”

 
 
“Because most parents died before their children reached marriageable age, native-born men and women in Maryland also frequently married without parental consent."

 
 
“. . . one-quarter of men leaving inventories in southern Mary-land between 1658 and 1705 died without ever marrying and that, of those who married, at least two-thirds left families in which all the children were under 18.”

 
 
“. . . seventeenth-century marriages were unusually in other ways. Frequent disparity in the age and status of the partners characterized many unions. Often, a man marrying for the first time was ten years older than his bride. When widowed, a woman might choose a second husband no older and perhaps younger than herself. Since many unions were broken by the early death of one of the partners, second marriages were frequent. Single men often married widows with a charge of children, and some single girls chose husbands with families by earlier wives. If both husband and wife had previously married, there were each likely to have custody of underaged off-spring by their first spouses."

 
 
In a study of records in seventeenth-century Somerset County, “more than a third of the immigrant women whose marriages were recorded were pregnant by the time of the ceremony. Such a high rate of bridal pregnancy – two to three times that of many contemporary English parishes – is testimony to the extend of social disruption. There is little evidence that the community objected to this kind of sexual freedom; no presentments for bridal pregnancy appear in any of the Maryland courts."

 
 
“. . . one out of five Maryland-born brides was pregnant when she married. Lack of parental control was a contributing element. Orphaned girls were apparently particularly vulnerable to premarital conceptions; initial study indicates an even greater frequency of bridal pregnancy among women whose fathers had died during their minority."

 
 
“Both the lax marriage laws and the freedom of movement to another colony or back to England provided the unscrupulous with the opportunity for bigamy.”

 
 
“Because the woman was usually younger and her parents thus more likely to be alive when she married, the wife’s parents more often gave advice or intervened in a marriage than the husband’s.”

 
 
In colonial Maryland, divorce via legal proceedings wasn’t available; instead, unhappy marriages were endured or couples ran away, returning to family and neighbors.


 
“The most frightening aspect of childhood in the seventeenth century must have been the genuine uncertainty of the future. Most children could expect that at least one, or perhaps both, of their parents would die before they were old enough to care for themselves. In southern Maryland between 1658 and 1705, 67 percent of married or widowed male decedents left all minor children, while only 6 percent left all adult children. Hence . . . minor orphans would have to adjust to a new stepparent and subsequently live with stepbrothers and sisters. The potential for conflict was great where children of more than one marriage lived together in a family. Each parent naturally tended to favor his own children and to discriminate against those from a partner’s previous marriage parental favoritism only heightened conflicts between stepchildren. . . .”

 
 
“. . . seventeenth-century marriages were unusually in other ways. Frequent disparity in the age and status of the partners characterized many unions. Often, a man marrying for the first time was ten years older than his bride. When widowed, a woman might choose a second husband no older and perhaps younger than herself. Since many unions were broken by the early death of one of the partners, second marriages were frequent. Single men often married widows with a charge of children, and some single girls chose husbands with families by earlier wives. If both husband and wife had previously married, there were each likely to have custody of underaged off-spring by their first spouses."
 
 
 
“Complaints of ill treatment by stepparents were legion.”

 
 
“Although the county court acted to remove children from the custody of patently abusive stepparents, it firmly maintained the stepparent’s right to compensation for raising another’s offspring. Almost every orphan was expected to work to some degree for his maintenance, since by law only the income from his inheritance – not the principal – could be used for the child’s upbringing. In this period few estates were large enough to so support an orphan.”
 
 
 
“Mothers who were unable to remarry quickly or otherwise support their orphans had no choice by to put the children out. For example, Mary Empson, age four, was given to another family to raise, in return for four cows, because her mother was too poor to keep her after her father died. Often, a remarried woman sought to buy back the children she had been forced to bind out after the death of her first husband. . . . Their only advantages over other servants were that the could not be sold to other masters and that the mother was sometimes able to mitigate treatment and conditions of labor and to stipulate that they receive some education.”

 
 
“The fate of children who lost both parents might be even worse. Seldom were there surviving relatives to take them in. Unless they had a large estate, the county court bound them out to labor for someone else until they reached majority.”

 
 
“Apprenticeship was a common method of educating children in many places, but as practiced in southern Maryland in the seventeenth century, it was mainly a means for teaching trades, including planting, to orphans. Until the late 1690s very few fathers bound out their children; when families were not broke up by the early death of the father, both sons and daughters were kept at home. Rather, it was the widows who insured that their orphaned sons were cared for and taught how to earn a living through apprenticeship and that their orphaned daughters were provided for by binding them out to learn house-keeping.”

 
 
For those born after 1700, life expectancy increased, “As a consequence . . . many more parents lived to raise their children to maturity and to see them married. In addition, when one or both parents did die before their children were of age, in a society in which the majority were native born, kin were much more present. Eighteenth-century orphaned minor children usually had uncles, step-uncles, aunts, cousins, older siblings or step-siblings, or other relations under whose oversight they might fall.”

 
 
“in late seventeenth-century Virginia. Indeed, few of the children of this time and place reached their majority without losing at lest one parent, while over a third lost both. Parental death was a part of the fabric of life.”

 
 
Four sisters in 17th Cent. Virginia: “Agatha, who married first Ralph Wormeley, then Sir Henry Chicheley; Alice, who married, in order, Rowland Burnham, Henry Corbin, and Henry Creek; Eleanor, wife of Middlesex’s William Brocase, then Lancaster's Jon Carter . . and Martha, who married Edwin Conaway . . . Marriage and remarriage was a way of life, and in its complexities one first senses the magnitude of parental loss.”

 
 
A 17th Century Virginia family: “Mary, the wife of George Keeble, for example: . . . from her gravestone we know that she was born about 1637 and presumably had seven children by Keeble prior to finding herself widowed at about twenty-nine years of age. At least for of these children , , were alive when she married Robert Beverley in 1666, shortly after Keeble’s death. By Beverley she had five more children . . . . She died in 1678 at the age of forty-one, and Robert Beverley almost immediately remarried. His new wife, Katherine, was herself recently widowed by the death of Major Theophilus Hone. So quick was the remarriage that Major Hone’s personal property was already in the Beverley house by the time the inventory of it was taken . Dropping into the Beverley household in 1680, just after this most recent marriage, we conceivably would have found Keeble children (those of Mary and George), at least one Hone child (Theophilus, Jr.), Beverley children by Robert and Mary, and the first of four Beverley children by Robert and Katherine – William Beverley born in 1680. . . . Thomas, Katherine, and Christopher Beverley would follow prior to Robert Beverley’s death in 1687. His widow, Katherine, immediately married christopher Robinson.; in the vernacular of genealogist she was now Katherine (Armistead) Hone-Beverley-Robinson. Robinson himself was a widower, having lost his wife Agatha Hobert in 686 (for of their children survived . . . ); Katherine would bear four more children before her death in 1692 . . . The chain of marriage and remarriages finally broke the next year with the death of Christopher Robinson. In sum, the progeny of six marriages among seven people amounted to twenty-five known children. Not one these children could have grown to maturity without losing at last one parent and passing through a period under a stepparent.”

 
 
In Peter Laslett’s study, he reported that in May 1688, 35.5% of call the children alive in Clayworth Eng. were orphans.

 
 
17th century Middlesex Virginia’s hypothetical median couple: “Presuming that, for both husband and wife, the marriage was a first marriage, he would be just turned 24, she just 20. In the course of their marriage they would have between four and six children, perhaps one of which would die in infancy . . . Four or five would survive, however . . . The wife of this median marriage could be expected to die at 39, leaving in her husband’s care children who were 18, 15, 9, 5, and 1. The husband, 43 at the death of his first wife, would probably remarry almost immediately and have still other children. but he could be expected to die at in turn at 48. the children of his first marriage, now orphaned, would be 23, 20. 14, 10 and 6 respectively; any children of his second marriage, losing their father, would be even younger.”

 
 
A sample of records indicates that “. . . almost a quarter of [17th Cent.] Middlesex’s children suffered the loss of one or both parents by the time of their fifth birthday, and over half by the tie of their thirteenth birthday. And 73.2 percent had lost one or both parents by the time they reached twenty-one or married, whichever came first. To put the results another way: The 239 children of the sample were the products of sixty-eight mar-riages; at the end of sixty-two (91 percent) of these marriages, minor children were left in the care of the surviving spouse; the sub-sequent death of the survivor left orphaned minors in forth-one (60 percent) of the cases.”

 
 
“. . . apprenticeship absorbed only a few of the children. The children of the affluent, of the ‘middling sort,’ even of most of the poor, were expected to stay with these surviving parent, who more often than not remarried, endowing the children with a stepparent. In the case of the remarriage of the surviving wife, the stepfather normally became the guardian but for good and sufficient reasons . . . the county court could intervene . . . .”

 
 
“Orphanhood, an event for almost 20 percent of the children before their thirteenth birthday and for over 30 percent before their eighteenth, required still other arrangements. The county court had general oversight. . . . Frequently wills designated that orphaned children be put in to the charge of an elder brother or step brother, sometimes even an elder sister or stepsister.”

 
 
“Parental loss was a constant over time. . . This prevalence of loss, and its pervasiveness, had great implication in the society, and for our study of it. Households tended to be mixed and complex affairs . . . Had we dropped into just about any other household in Middlesex, we would have found much the same thing – orphans, half-brothers, stepbrothers and stepsisters, and wards running a gamut of ages. The father figure in the house might well be an uncle or a brother, the mother figured an aunt, elder sister, or simply the father’s ‘now-wife’– to use the wording frequently found in conveyances and wills. Neither the romantic depictions . . nor the connotations of social science terminology – the image of the nuclear family with its slowly greying [sic] parents and maturing children – applies.”

 
 
“the case of Agatha Vause: By the time she was ten she had lost a father, two stepfathers, a mother, and her guardian uncle.”

 
 
Our fatherless Father of our Country -
“In this context, George Washington’s eighteenth-century career does not seem particularly unusual: Born in 1732, losing his father at eleven, raised by various relatives (including his halfbrother Lawerence), inheriting Mount Vernon at age twenty, Washington was a militia lieutenant colonel commanding at Fort Necessity at age twenty-two and a burgess at twenty-six; at twenty-seven he married a widow with two small children, and at forth-three commanded the Revolutionary army.”

 
 
"During the seventeenth century, the proportion of women who were pregnant at the time of their wedding was below 10 percent. By the middle of the eighteenth century, it had shot up to over 40 percent. Another indicator of a decline in paternal authority was an increase in children's discretion in deciding whom and when to marry. children began to marry earlier than in the seventeenth century, and an increasing number of daughters married out of birth order."

 
 
"Although slave marriages and family ties lacked legal sanction, and owners were free to sell husbands away from wives and parents away from children, most African Americans married and lived in two-parent households both before and after emancipation. Fathers played a larger familial role than previously thought. The nuclear family received support from an involved network of kin. Indeed, the kinship system forged under slavery would continue to function in twentieth-century rural and urban communities as a source of mutual assistance and cultural continuity."

 
 
". . . and has rebutted the notion that the high incidence of single-parent, female-headed households among African Americans today is a legacy of slavery."

 
 
"During the seventeenth century, slaves had little opportunity to establish family units. Newly imported African slaves were often kept in sex-segregated quarters. In the Chesapeake colonies and the Carolinas, most slaves lived on plantations with fewer than ten slaves. These units were so small and so widely dispersed, and the sex ratio was so skewed (two women for three men) that it was difficult for slave men and women to find a spouse of roughly the same age. A high death rate compounded the difficulties slaves faced in forming families, since many slaves did not live long enough to marry or, if they did, their not live long enough to marry or, if they did, their marriages were brief."

 
 
"At the end of the seventeenth century, the number of imported Africans and the slave fertility rate increased sharply. These demographic developments gradually eased the imbalance of the sex ratio and permitted a growing proportion of slaves to marry. During the 1720s, the African American population became the first slave population in the New World to reproduce itself by natural increase."

 
 
"By the 1770s, slaves had succeeded in creating a distinctive African American system of family and kinship. To sustain a sense of family identity, slave children were often named for a parent or other blood kin or given a traditional African name. The strength of the slave family is nowhere more evident than in the advertisements eighteenth-century slave owners posted for runaway slaves. The advertisements reveal that one of the major reasons why slaves fled their masters' plantations was to visit spouses, children, siblings, aunts, uncles, and grandparents. In Virginia, advertisements indicate that over one-third of all fugitives were attempting to visit relatives; in Maryland, the advertisements show that nearly half were seeking to visit family members."
 
 
 
"Until 1800, marriage was followed by a repeated cycle of pregnancy and childbirth. A woman might bear her first child at the age of twenty-three and continue to bear children at two-year intervals until she was in her early forties. This twenty-year span of childbearing typically consumed more than half of a woman's married life, since her husband usually died when the wife was in her mid-forties."

 
 
"Between 1800 and 1860, a dramatically different pattern of family life emerged as women lengthened the interval between births. Instead of bearing seven or eight children, most women had five or six. By the end of the nineteenth century, women had further reduced the number of children to three or four, spaced them closer together, and ceased childbearing at an earlier age."

 
In 1850, due in part to a willingness to care for others' children, 13 percent of Mexican-American households in the urban Southwest were extended-family households – more than twice the rate for White households (5.7 percent).
 
"By the middle of the nineteenth century, the realities of middle-class childhood differed drastically from those prevalent a century before. Instead of shifting back and forth between their parents' home and work experiences as members of other households, a growing proportion of older children continued to live with their parents into their late teens or twenties. One justification for this new practice of keeping children at home longer was the growing belief that adolescence was a particularly unsettled phase of life during which children were greatly in need of parental protection and supervision."

 
 
In 1886, a minister wrote that “ . . . in many households children, instead of a blessing, are a nuisance. It is card case versus child’s primer, carriage versus cradle, social popularity versus domestic felicity. Hence infanticide and ante-natal murder so common that all the physicians, allopathic, hydropathic, homeopathic and eclectic are crying out in horror. . . .”

 
 
"During the nineteenth century, most Americans lived in families or family-like settings. Only about 3 percent of the population lived alone. The proportion of women forgoing marriage increased markedly during the nineteenth century and was particularly large among college educated women. These unmarried women sometimes lived in a partnership called 'Boston marriage.'"
 
 
"During the nineteenth century, in contrast, 20 to 30 percent of urban households took in lodgers or boarders, usually unmarried men or women between the ages of twenty and thirty-five who were of the same ethnic background as the household's head. Working-class households were particularly likely to take in boarders or lodgers after their children had left home." Compare that to the 1990s when "fewer than one family in twenty shared its home with a boarder."

 
 
"Young unmarried men and women often resided as boarders or lodgers. Most lodgers took a room in a private house; usually this was a room that had been vacated after an older couple's children had left home. Other lodgers resided in boardinghouses; but even these institutions resembled family households, both in architectural design and in the fact that lodgers dined together."

 
 
"During the nineteenth century, household structure and size varied sharply according to ethnicity and social class. Most families, regardless of class or ethnic background, were nuclear in structure; between 1 and 3 percent of households contained a solitary resident, and between 9 and 12 percent of households contained extended families. But these aggregate statistics should not obscure important socioeconomic differences. Families from higher occupational strata were more likely to take in extended relatives (today, in contrast, the poor are more likely to reside in extended families); immigrant and working-class families were more likely to take in non-kin as boarders and lodgers."

 
 
Note that some have countered the idea that the extended family was a less significant form in earlier pre-industrial history, not because they didn't want to live in extended households, but simply because people didn't live long enough to have three + generations in a house, which is why this would have then subsequently increased around the Industrial Revolution as life expectancy increased. And then it became a class issue: the poor had them because the couldn't afford anything else, the rich had them because they could afford to take care of others. And I guess that would mean it was less the case of it occurring in the Middle Class – but then upon further thought, I doubt there really was much of a Middle Class.
 
 

"Each ethnic group adapted to the circumstances of American life in its own distinct way. Jewish families tended to rent larger apartments and share their residence with lodgers. Italian families, in contrast, resided in smaller and cheaper single-family apartments, while urban blacks often rented space in another family's household. Ethnic families also varied greatly in their attitudes toward female and child labor. Some immigrant groups, such as the Irish and Slavs, were willing to forgo their children's education rather than send married women into the work force. Other groups, particularly Jews and blacks, tended to keep their children in school despite the lost earnings. Italian families, more than almost any other ethnic group, discouraged women from earnings. Italian families, more than almost any other ethnic group, discouraged women from working outside the home. Italian girls were rarely permitted to work unsupervised by relatives or friends, and Italian mothers tended to work outside the home only intermittently, when required by family illness or emergency. When Italian mothers did work for wages, they preferred homework to factory work."
 
 
 
"The kinship system that slaves developed was not an imitation of patterns typical of southern white families. The distinctiveness of slave family practices is apparent in the slaves' perpetuation of West African taboos against marrying cousins or other near relatives. The taboo against first-cousin marriages was one indication of the importance that slaves, even in the eighteenth century, attached to the extended kinship group. The extended kinship network played a particularly important role in helping slaves adapt to family breakup. Whenever children were sold to neighboring plantations, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins often took on the functions of parents. When blood relatives were not present, strangers cared for and protected children. Slave parents taught their children to call all adult slaves "aunt" or "uncle," and to refer to younger slaves as "sister" or "brother." In this way slave culture taught young people that they were members of a broader community in which all slaves, whether related or not, had mutual obligations."

 
 
“Some of the cultural distinctiveness of black families may extend back to slavery and across the Atlantic to Africa. The extent to which elements of African culture survive . . . has been hotly debated, but the similarities are striking. African society traditionally has been organized into lineages, larger kinship groups that trace their descent through either male or female line. . . . what mattered most was not the happiness of the married couple but rather then birth of children who could be retained by the lineage.”

 
 
“When these cultural patterns were brought to the United States by African slaves, the lineages . . . were reduced to extended families. The distinction is that in African lineage elders had substantial authority over individuals because lineages controlled the allocation of crucial resources, most notably land. . . . The extended kin groups in the United States retained the important supportive role of lineages– kin helped each other and shared whatever resources they had. But the authority of the wide kinship group withered. . . . thus, the extended kinship groups among many African Americans were limited to being social support networks; ex-tended families were important to the lives of individuals but had less control over their actions.”

 
 
"During the decades before the Civil War, most slaves lived in nuclear households consisting of two parents and their children. In 1850, approximately 64 percent of all slaves lived in two parent families and 25 percent in single-parent families. Another 10 percent lived outside of a family unit, either alone or with others of the same sex. Family breakup, however, was apparently very common. Although many lasted twenty years or more, slave marriages were very vulnerable to breakup by sale. Interviews with former slaves indicate that one-third of all single-parent households were the result of the sale of a husband or wife. Even when marriages were not broken by sale, slave husbands and wives often resided on separate farms or plantations and were owned by different individuals. On large plantations one man in three had a different owner than his wife and could visit his family only at his master's discretion. On smaller holdings, divided ownership was even more common."

 
 
"Other obstacles stood in the way of an independent family life. Many slaves had to share their single-room cabins with relatives and others who were not related to them. On larger plantations food was cooked in a common kitchen, and young children were cared for in a communal nursery while their parents worked in the fields. On larger plantations, children were taken from their parents between the ages of seven and ten and sent to live in sex-segregated barracks."

 
 
"In a variety of urban settings (including Atlanta, Mobile, Natchez, Philadelphia, Richmond, and several cities along the Ohio River), between 1850 and 1880, between 26 and 31 percent of African American families were headed by women--generally two to three times the rate among immigrant or native-born whites. This differential appears to be due not to higher rates of divorce, desertion, or illegitimacy, but rather to sharply skewed black sex ratios in urban areas and to very high levels of adult black male mortality."
 
 
 

FAMILY STRUCTURE - 1900 TO PRE-WWII

 
 
 
 
In 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). In Meyer, the court held that the Constitution provided that an individual had the right to “contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life,to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Meyer at 399. Because of that right, families should be able to educate children as they see fit, and the Court overturned a state law that required children to be taught solely in English. Then, in Pierce, the Court expanded on this, overturning a state law which required children go to public school (they should be able to go to private school, too), finding that “The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Pierce at 534 (emphasis mine). (Interestingly/ironically, revisionist historians say that while these appear to be liberal, lovey-dovey, that in fact, they were meant to re-establish parental supremacy/authority: the kid’s mine mine mine all mine and I can do what I want with it.
 
 
 
In 1944, the Supremes came down with Prince v. Massachusetts. In this case, a Jehovah’s Witness guardian illegally had her wards handing out fliers. (The JWs drive the Courts crazy, by the way.) The Court said a law that a (religion neutral) child labor law prohibiting such work (handing stuff out) was enforceable and upheld her conviction. But that’s not the part people focus on. Instead, they quoted the following:
 
 
 
“It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra. And it is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” (Prince, at 157.)
 
 
 
These three cases are considered the primary recognition that the family is a nurturing entity that the state should leave alone, unless there’s a really, really good reason (e.g. danger) to interfere with it. Everyone cites to these three, and forgets about the centuries of law before it, except to say that even in English common law recognized the overall importance of the family. That holds true today.
 
 
 
The increase in women’s rights, and the continuing ideal that women are the nurturers in child-rearing meant a gradual flip so that the hundreds’ year old parental preference became a maternal preference.
 
 
 
In 1926, a (female) writer in The Survey wrote: “Men and women whose grandparents measured their income in barrels of apples and potatoes stored in the cellar for winter use; in rows of hams hanging from the rafters; in the bags of wool from sheep-shearing; in piled wood in the dooryard and the corn in the silo; and the hay stacked high to the peak of the barn; in butter and wool and preserves, now see that income in terms of the pay envelope at the end of the week, and what that will buy at the chain grocery, the five-and-ten, the department store.”
 
 
 
In 1905, Charities reported that families (mostly immigrants) carried out small manufacturing of clothing, hats, etc in their tenements – even toddlers, children, and those so sick with tuberculosis that they can't walk.
 
 

In 1905, Charities reported on Philadelphia's tenement district: "Because of its low buildings the density of population per acre in Philadelphia is small, but the crowding within the rooms in some sections is very great. One tenement house, the largest inspected, contained thirty families, one hundred and twenty-three persons, in thirty-for living rooms. In the Italian district more than one family in every four, almost one in three, had but one room for all the purposes of kitchen, dining-room, and bedroom. One hundred and four single-room 'housekeeping apartments' were found in this one block. Five instances were met with in which as many as seven persons of all ages and both sexes slept in one room, which served as kitchen, as well. One family was found sharing three rooms with eighteen lodgers."
 
 

In 1905, Charities reported, "The fact that despite the work of the entire family the income is still too small for living purposes, gives rise to greater evil of overcrowding. The average number of persons in the apartments, due largely to this cause, was 6.4 persons. The average number of rooms occupied by such groups was 2.6. In order to make the income reach the out-go, boarders, lodgers, two and three families huddle together, until not even the ghost of decency remains."
 


According to an analysis of a 1910 census, “black mothers with children were more than three times as likely to be living without a male partner in the household as were white mothers with children. Higher mortality among blacks undoubtedly accounted for some of the difference; but the researchers found that the racial difference was greatest among younger mothers . . . black children more often were raised by kin other than their parents, even when the parents were still alive; about 7 percent of black children, compared to 2 percent of white children, had mothers who were alive but were not living with them. Even among two-parent households, blacks were four more times likely to have children living elsewhere.”
 
 
 
In 1916, an essayist in Harper's Monthly Magazine wrote on the "Break-up of the Family": “I do not think that the family will completely disappear nay more than scarlet-fever or the tax-collector. But certainly it will change in character, and its evolution already points towards its new form. The old-fashioned family sickened because it was a compulsory grouping. The wife cleaved unto her husband because he paid the bills; the children cleaved unto their parents be-cause they must cleave unto something. There was no chance of getting out, for there was nothing to get out to.”
 
 

In 1916, an essayist in Harper's Monthly Magazine wrote on the "Break-up of the Family": “That is the tragedy of the family; it lives on top of itself. The daughters go too much with their mothers to shop; there are too many joining holidays, too many compulsory rejoicings at Christmas or . . . birthdays. There are not enough private places in the house. I have heard one young suffragist, sentenced to fourteen days for breaking windows, say that, quite apart from having struck a blow for the Cause, it was the first peaceful fortnight she had ever known.”
 
 

In 1916, an essayist in Harper's Monthly Magazine wrote on the "Break-up of the Family": ”In a family, friendships are difficult . .. That sort of thing is called tolerance and self-sacrifice; in reality it is mutual tyranny, and amounts to the passing on of pinches, as it were. . . As for the old, they cannot indefinitely remain with the young, for, after all, there are only two things to talk of with any in--tensity – the future and the past; they are the topics of different generations. ¶ Still, for various reasons, this condition is endured. it is cheaper to live to-gether; it is more convenient socially; it is customary, which, especially in England, is most important. But it demands an impossible and unwilling tolerance, sometimes fraudulent exhibitions of love, sometimes sham charity.”
 
 

In 1916, an essayist in Harper's Monthly Magazine wrote on the "Break-up of the Family": “An immediate consequence of the growth of education has been a change in the status of the child . . . I do not think that the modern parent desires to coerce as much as did his fore-bear. Rather the desire to develop the child’s personality, and in its early years this leads to horrid results, to children being ‘taught to see the beautiful’ or ‘being made to realize the duties of a citizen.’ We are in for a generation made up half of bulbous-headed, be-spectacled precocities, and half of barbarians who are ‘realizing their personality’ by the continual use of ‘shall’ and sh‘an’t.’ this will pass as all things pass, the old child ad the rude child, just like the weak parent after the brute parent, and it is enough that the new generation points to another generation, for there seldom was a time that was not better than its father and the herald of a finer son. ¶ Generally the parent will help, for his new attitude can be expressed in a phrase. He does not say, ‘I am master,’ but, ‘I am responsible.’ He has begun to realize that the child is not a regret-table accident or a little present from Providence; he is beginning to look upon the care of the child as a duty. He has extended the ideal of citizenship, born in the middle of the nineteenth century, which was ‘to leave the world at little better than he found it’; he has passed to wanting his son to be a little richer than he was, and a little more learned; he is coming to want his son to be a finer and bolder man; he will come in time to want his daughter to be a finer and bolder woman, which just now he bears pretty well. His wife is helping him a great deal . . . . her head a waste-paper basket of intellect, but still create in that head a disturbance far better than the ancient and cow-like placidity. The modern mother is often too much inclined to weigh the baby four ties a day, to feed it ozoneid, or something equally funny, to expose as much of its person as possible to make it gaze at Botticelli prints when in its bath. She will no doubt want it to mate eugenically, in which she will probably be disappointed . . . The modern mother has begun to consider herself as a human being as well as a mother . . . . “
 
 

In 1925, a Harper's Magazine essayist wrote, “Among the many subjects agitating the minds of the people of the United States to-day none com-pares in its insistence and acuteness with the question of the future of the institution of marriage in America. A com-plete change in attitude, often in the form of a violent revolt against the for-mer ideals and customs affecting the marriage relation, is in full swing and the general uncertainty and instability in the relation is probably more marked than in any other country. People all over the land are aroused by the disturbed conditions and they are arguing, writing, and preaching about it from all angles, in an effort to stem the tide of disaffection and disruption which is making such inroads upon this ancient institution. ¶ It is too late. . . . only a seer would at-tempt to predict what the outcome will be or when the final stage of disintegration will be reached.”
 
 

In 1925 , a Harper's Magazine essayist wrote, “As individual wealth increased, this condition spread and its influence per-meated all classes. Practically all American husbands will say, when asked why they work so hard and intensively, that they do it for their families. This is the fiction which they repeat with monotonous uniformity, regardless of the fact that these same wives and families frequently implore their men to give them less of material things and more of themselves, that they may share interests. together. The fact is the men are caught in a mechanism of their own creating, which now has become inde-pendent of the individual will and which drives them on regardless of necessity or wish.”
 
 

In 1925 , a Harper's Magazine essayist wrote, “The husband, even in wealthy circles, is so intensely occupied with his business interests that he has no energy left for more cultural fields or for the family, while the wife, because she has so much idle time on her hands, and no necessity to force her to independent constructive activity, becomes unhappy and neurotic – a waste product without meaning or purpose.”
 
 

In 1925 , a Harper's Magazine essayist wrote,“. . . it is not possible to separate the changed attitude to-wards marriage from the changed status of women. one is dependent upon the other. It is women who have revolted and for whom the conflict over marriage has arisen. ¶ The suppression of the woman’s individuality and her personal needs and wishes for t the sake of her husband, the submersion of herself in his life and interests, and in those of her children,has become no longer acceptable, since the whole social condition which demanded this has changed. And this applies not only to the present generation. Older women who have devotedly followed this ancient path have repeatedly told me that it had been a mistake, that it did not bring to either husband or wife the happiness and contentment which was expected from it, and that they would not submerge themselves in this way if they had the experience to live over again. ¶ An interesting commentary on the submerging effect of marriage on women is afforded by the numerous instances in which wives separated by death or otherwise from their husbands have blossomed suddenly into happy, capable, useful individuals. Even among what have appeared to be successful marriages, there has come about after the final adjustment had been made to the separation, the transformation of the wife from submergence, semi-invalidism, or a dependent inconsequential existence to a healthy, socially valuable personality. . . . “
 
 

In 1925 , a Harper's Magazine essayist wrote, “Nevertheless, the new ideal in relation to marriage is rising. The old ideal of duty and responsibility to society, to religion, and even to family, which kept marriage intact, is gone never to return; but a new duty and responsibility more solemn, more bind-ing, and more imperative than the old is here. Just as to all men of honor their unsupported work seriously given engages their feeling of integrity and responsibility, binding them far more securely than all the legal and business restrictions could do, so the new ideal of personal freedom in marriage places a responsibly upon the individual far heavier than that of the past. ¶ Marriage is a duty of the individual to himself, for only within such a close relation volitionally entered into can there be found those opportunities for the development of an individual integrity, . . . A failure in making the strongest efforts to wrk out a satisfactory relation is a failure of the individual within himself. Therefore, instead of acting from impulse and personal gratification in regard to marriage, the necessity exists for an honesty towards one-self, for serious reflection and thoughtful action – intellect cooperating with feel-ing – in order to insure the basis for the development of a true relationship. ¶ Furthermore, this ideal involves a far great and more impersonal aspect than that of the individual or of the family; it reaches out to embrace the whole problem of general human relations. For whether the individual considers it or not, the welfare of society depends upon marriage and the family more than on anything else. Therefore, a new ideal and a new reality attained by individuals in marriage is the first step towards the attainment of new world relations. To carry this ideal though and to create thereby a new life of relationship is the great social task of women."
 
 

In 1928, a Harper’s Monthly Magazine essayist wrote, “It is the inevitable outcome of the egocentric philosophy which the modern girl is learning in school and college. She can-not have her cake and eat it. She can-not be a man and hold a man. If she is seeking to abolish marriage, we must give her credit for knowing exactly how to go about it.”
 
 

In 1928, a Harper’s Monthly Magazine essayist wrote, “. . if we do look with uneasiness on the growing divorce rate and all that it may lead to, then, though, there is no panacea to cure it, two steps it will help us to regain the lost ground. First, married women should decide voluntarily to give up the independent bread-winning function wherever economically possible. With this goes the correspond-ing determination of men to assure wherever feasible a decent family income, the economic subordination of their wives, and the male authority which goes with it. Second, married women, should realize that their desire for unrestrained freedom is a direct cause of divorce in American, and a treason to their primary function as women, which is to keep the family intact and to carry on the race to higher and higher levels.”
 
 

In 1928, a Harper’s Monthly Magazine essayist wrote, “Feminists, note this well! It is the double-headedness of the modern American family which is causing it so fre-quently to split down the middle, leaving the children more or less exposed. The heads are at war with each other. The house divided against itself does not, we observe, stand. Marriage dissolves in feminism as sugar melts in acid. No one expects married women with the price-less gift of leisure to spend their time entirely within the home. but let them avoid the mistake of assuming the man’s part. Let them fill a terrible gap in American life by devoting themselves to the many good causes which do not, as a matte of fact, pay cash dividends. Let them dedicate themselves to the task of showing their men that there are finer interests in life than dollar and cents. ¶ I want to leave this thought in the modern married woman’s mind. Co-commandership in a family, and un-bridled self-assertion in a woman are the quickest ways to break up a home. There is a deal of truth in the saying that a woman who wins an argument with her husband is likely to lose her man. . . . Assuming that women still desire the welfare of their children, and that children are to receive the care to which they seem to be en-titled, divorce must be knocked on the head. And the quickest way to kill divorce is to restore all loyal husbands, in these times of prosperity, that natural authority which is theirs anyway the moment anything goes wrong.”
 
 

In 1934, a sociologist analyzed a 1933 census of relief recipients, writing that “By early summer it was definitely determined that more than one seventh of the families in this country were receiving relief from public funds.”
 
 

In 1934, a sociologist determined that “The first and most significant fact . . . was that more than twelve and a half mil-lion persons were dependent on unemployment relief in October 1933 – a population equal to that of the whole United States one hundred years ear-lier, and constituting one tenth of the present population. the four states of Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, and Illinois included, as their size would suggest, a third of these persons.”
 
 

In 1934, a sociologist reported that 32 percent of Jacksonville FL’s population was on relief.
 
 

In 1934, a sociologist determined that “One seventh of all the children from 6 to 13 years of age in the United States were found sharing in unemployment relief, an experience which is probably comparable to their school life in affecting their outlook on the world in which they live. Almost a quarter of a million infants were start-ing life on relief. Children under 16 comprised 42 per cent of the relief population, although they represent only 31 per cent of the general population. This unusually high proportion of children was more marked in urban than in rural area, but otherwise, it was shown quite consistently throughout the United States.”
 
 

In 1934, a sociologist determined that “Negroes comprised one sixth of the persons on relief in October 1933, although they represent less than one tenth of the general population. This contrast was almost entirely confined to urban areas . .. In rural areas the estimated percentages of the population on relief were 9.3 for whites and 10.9 for Negroes. In urban areas they were 9.6 and 26.7 respectively, the Negro percentage being nearly three times that of the white population.”



In 1939, Science News-Letter reported that a survey of professional men and their wives revealed: "One-child families are not considered ideal by this group. Like most other people they would like to have three or more children." However, it's financial considerations that are preventing them from doing this, particularly the high cost of higher education."
 

In 1939, Science News-Letter reported, "The present decline in population growth in the United States is due, not to any biological decline in fertility among moderns, nor to economic factors, as such, but to the powerful influence of our social atmosphere, declares Dr. Warren S. Thompson, population expert of the Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Problems. . . . 'You hear people say ' we cannot afford more children.' But it is not the very poor who feel that way. It is the relatively well-to-do." Because they aren't willing to give up a standard of living that includes life's amenities like travel and entertainment."
 
 

In 1939, Science News-Letter reported, "Almost 30 per cent estimates, Dr. Thompson, have no children, 18 per cent. have only one child and another 18 per cent. have only two children."

 
 
In 1939, Science News-Letter reported, "Before men and women will want large families, it will be necessary for the social environment to change so that 'there is no handicapping economic or social discrimination between those who want to contribute to community life by raising families of the proper size [3-4] as well as through their own work and those who are interested in making their contribution only through their own work."

 
 
“. . . compared with 1950, 1960, and 1970, more older children in their late 20s and early 30s still lived with their parents in the years before World War II.”

 
 
In 1940, the Census determined that 11.1% of those living in private households were not members of the nuclear family. Instead they were the household head's grandchild (2.6%), household head's parent (1.6%), household head's other relative (4.1%), lodgers (1.6%) and servants/hired hands (1.2%). 1.6 million family households included "subfamily" – a married couple with or without children – in addition to the household's family. 2.858 million families had one or more lodgers in their households.
 
 
 

FAMILY STRUCTURE - US MODERN ERA

 
 
In 1942, Parents Magazine wrote, “The overconscientious mother with her rigorous scheduling and strict adherence to rules is driven by her love for her child, but such tenseness, such trying-too-hard, takes all the easy feeling of love out of the air. The atmosphere of love is missing. Her children know she loves, yet he is so driven by her perfectionism that he misses most of the benefits of love.”

 
 
In 1942 , Parents Magazine wrote, “Pediatricians are beginning to realize that something of a mother-panic has been created, that many a parent has an exaggerated, overzealous attitude toward bringing up children.”
 
 

In 1943, Parents' Magazine reported, “. . . in every soon-to-be-fatherless family. After all, every family knows whether or not they're going to take in roomers to help out with rent, whether the wife is going to get a war job welding at Lockheed and leave Junior at the day nursery, or whether, after storing the furniture, she will descend on Mother’s front porch subsequently to occupy the spare bedroom for the duration.”
 
 

Magazines and newspapers implore men to get involved in other families' children's lives, such as the 1944 New York Times article, "Absent Fathers," in which an expert is quoted as having said, "In homes where the father is away . . some father substitute must be found if it is at all possible. Men who are relatives or close friends should spend as much time as possible with these temporarily father-less children and make every effort to get close to them."
 
 

"World War II subjected the nation's families to severe strain. During the war, one-sixth of the nation's families suffered prolonged separation from sons or fathers. Five million "war widows" had to cook, clean, launder, and care for children alone. Wartime migration added to familial strain, as more than fifteen million civilians moved in search of new jobs. Wartime families faced a severe shortage of adequate housing and a lack of child-care facilities. These stresses contributed to a dramatic upsurge in the postwar divorce rate and to severe problems of child welfare, including tens of thousands of unsupervised "latchkey" children and high rates of juvenile delinquency, venereal disease, and truancy."
 
 

In 1946, the New York Times reported that there was a study of children attending Sarah Lawrence's nursery school in New York, and "While one-third-to one half of the children in better-off families grow up in stable homes and home towns, Dr. Murphy declares that another half grow up in families constantly on the move, or in homes broken by illness, death, or divorce, or in which parents lack ordinary sense about children's needs. ¶ Wise and skillful handling of children sometimes offsets the effect of broken homes, she believes, but their increasing proportion is noted as part of a family picture she finds 'normal' now. ¶ 'Of approximately 130 children who attended . . . the nursery school between 1937 and 1942, 20 per cent had experienced a broken home before the age of 5,' she writes. 'This includes families broken by divorce, by death of one parent, by prolonged illness such as a nervous break-down or tuberculosis involving long absence of a parent from home. ¶ 'Estimates based on case studies of Sarah Lawrence College students suggest that a minority of children today arrive at the age of 18 without some such major break in the family. ¶ In view of the country's high rate of both divorced and of mental illness, Dr. Murphy comments, 'we can see how unreal our usually concept of normal family experience actual is.'"
 
 

In 1948, a sociologist from the Census reported in 1955 that, about 13 per cent of the married women living with their husbands had remarried after the dissolution of an earlier marriage; in 1910, the corresponding proportion was probably about seven or eight per cent. Among persons who married since the end of World War II, about one fifth were entering a second or subsequent marriage."
 
 

In 1948, Newsweek reported that the average American parents are under 30 and make less than $2,000 a year. Two-thirds of them have never gone beyond grade school: mothers average a slightly higher educational level than the fathers – men finished 8.3 years completed by men, while women had 8.5. "Households of college graduates have only 1.8 children." "Families of two or more with in-comes under $2,000 spend less than $7 a year for education; those in the $3,000-$5,000 group spend about $34; farm families, about $9; rural-town families, $11; urban families, $18; urban families with incomes of $10,000 and over, $164.06." Family and the Schools," Those with the least education have the biggest families (2.5 children for parents with five years of schooling).

 
 
In 1948, Newsweek reported, "Most of the 27,000,000 school children in the United States are badly in need of dental or medical care. More than 900,000 suffer from faulty nutrition; approximately 2,000,000 need eye correction. Some 300,000 have possible heart defects; 90,000 have hernia. About 200,000 have orthopedic defects, and more than 400,000 serious speech defects."

 
 
In 1948, Newsweek quoted Dr. Daniel Blain, medical director for the Amer. Psychiatric Assoc., at a 1948 National Conference on Family Life, as saying: "The wonder is not how badly off the family is, but how marvelously most of them get along, despite us all."
 
 

In 1948, Newsweek reported, "One family in 100 keeps servants in the home; one in twenty has roomers."
 
 

“. . . a greater proportion of the children living at home in 1940 were older than those at home in 1950 and 1960. In fact, children over the age of 15 made up almost 17 percent of the household population in 1940, compared with only about 10 percent in 1960. Two developments . . . account for this pattern. The first was simply that it left home at an earlier age. The second was its increased fertility. . . .”
 
 

“. . . those born before 1920 maintained closer ties with their parents’ households. Even young marrieds lived at home with parents, in-dicating the relatively greater role that parents in the past played in the lives of their adult children. Parental influence undoubtedly extended into the spheres of work (arranging the first job), marriage (greater control over selection of spouse), childrearing and leisure (extended family vacations and outings). The middle generation cut down certain lines of parental influence by moving away, quickly marrying and having children. The younger generation, born since 1940, has continued to move away from home, but has done so increasingly as individuals. Its independence is premised less on establishing the separate responsibilities of marriage, parenthood, and a suburban home than on new life-style ideas about marriage, chil-dren, living arrangements, and work.”
 
 

Older generation of widows due to a “relatively high male mortality rates in the years from World War I through the Great Depression and World War II. In 1940 many of these middle-aged and elderly widow headed families made up of siblings of one or more adult children who helped to maintain the household. Second, many widows of the older generation who were over the age of 55 in 1950, 1960, and 1970 were forced to head their own households becaue they had fewer surviving children who could take them in. They were part of the low-fertility generation, and the number of their offspring was reduced further by the high mortality rates during the years of the Depression and the two world wars. A third reason why more elderly women head their own households today is their ability to support themselves through survivors’ benefits from pensions, social security and their own employment.”
 
 

“In 1940 a higher percentage of all families were headed by women (15.1 percent) than has been true at least through 1978 . . . . The female-headed family of 1940 was very different from today’s stereotype of the separated, divorced, or un-married mother . . . . In 1940 and earlier, the female head of a family was much more likely to be a middle-aged widow who had one or more children living with her, or an older widow living with adult children or a sibling.”
 
 

“In the 1950s and 1960s, even those divorced and separated without children were less prone to head their own households and instead lived with relatives. Quick remarriage in this group, especially for men, narrowed the opportunity to live alone, and the women who lived with relatives expected the arrangement to be temporary until they remarried.”
 
 

“Our three generations grew up in very different households. When the older generation was young, a variety of people were entering and leaving, including boarders, lodgers, other families, servants, friends, grandparents, and other relatives. . . . The comings and goings of relatives and strangers, as well as siblings who were much older and younger (because of larger family sizes and wider birth spacing) . . . .”
 
 

In 1948, Parents' Magazine reported, “One of the consequences of our early mar-riages is the early start we get in bringing children into the world. Cur-rently, about half of our women bear their first child before they are 23, and half of all our children are born to mothers under 28 years of age.”

 
 
In 1948, Parents' Magazine reported, “. . . the average couple starting out today may expect to spend close to 40 years together.”

 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The new upper-class family is char-acterized most decisively by phenom-enal economic success during a short-interval of time. It’s meteoric rise in the economic system is normally the per-sonal triumph of the money-maker. While its head is busy making a ‘million bucks,’ the family acquires the purchasable symbols associated with the wealthy American family: a large house, fine furniture, big automobiles, and ex-pensive clothes. The new tycoon knows the power of money in the market place, and he often attempts [unsuccessfully] to buy a high position in the status system."
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “Geographic movement is typical of an upward mobile family, even when it lives out the family cycle in its home community. In a large number of cases, wherein a mobile couple is newly married, both partners work. the couple often lives in an apartment or flat in a resi-dential area that is not desirable as a permanent residence. As the husband achieves a higher economic status, the new family generally moves to a small single-family house, or a two-family one, farther from the center of they city. . . Often about this time the wife quits work and the first of two or three children is born. A third of fourth move, some years later, into a six- to eight-room single-family house . . normally completes the family’s odyssey. While it is mov-ing from house to house, many of it social contacts change sas the husband passes through the successive stages of his business or professional career. ¶ Even though there is a high preva-lence of social and geographic mobility, and no extended kin group to bring pressure on the family, there is a negli-gible amount of instability. Self-discipline, the demands of the job, and the moral pressures exerted by friends and associates keep the nuclear family to-gether. the principal family goals are success in business or a profession, a good college or university education for the children, and economic security for the parents in their old age. these goals are realized in the vast majority of case, and the family is generally a happy, well-knit group.”
 
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Abrams wrote,“For the middle-class family [of 1950] there are countless ideals largely of a stereotyped nature: It should be religious, keep out of mischief, pay its debts, remain re-spectable . . . . The ideal family, judging from the advertise-ments, blurbs, and social pressures of our time, is also one that it is constantly endeavoring to raise its standard of living by security better houses, auto-mobiles, education, radio and television sets, and in a not too aggressive fashion by attempting to climb the social ladder with all of its neat class stratifications. To marry off one’s sons and daughters into ‘nice’ and ‘successful’ families is an achievement highly to be desired.”
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist August B. Hollingshead wrote: “The established upper-class family is basically an extended kin group, solidi-fied by lineage and a heritage of com-mon experience in a communal setting. A complicated network of consanguineal and affinial ties unites nuclear families of orientation and procreation into an in-group that rallies when its position is threatened by the behavior of one of its members, particularly where out-mar-riage is involved . . .. Each nuclear family usually maintains a separate household, but it does not conceive of itself as a unit apart from the larger kin group. The nuclear family is viewed as only a part of a broader kin group that in-cludes the consanguineal descendants of a known ancestral pair, plus kin that have been brought into the group by marriage. ¶ An important factor in the extended established family’s ability to maintain its position through several generations is it economic security. usually a number of different nuclear families within a kin group are supported, in part at least, by income from a family estate held in trust. Also, because of the practice of intramarriage it is not unusual for a family to be the bene-ficiary of two or more estates held in trust. For example, in an eastern com-munity of some 80,000 population, one of these extended family groups is the beneficiary of a trust established a cen-tury ago that yields something over $300,0000 annually, after taxes. This income is divided among 37 different nuclear families descended from the founder, 28 of whom live in the community; 23 of these families are bene-ficiaries of one other trust fund, and 14 receive income from two or more other trust funds. These different nu-clear families regarding themselves as parts of the Scott family; moreover, they are so regarded by other upperclass families, as well as by persons low in the status system who know something of the details of the family history. ¶ The Scott family has maintained its upper-class position locally for more than two centuries by a combination of property ownership, educational, legal and political l;leadership, and control of marriages generation after generation. It members bar proud that it has never had a non-Protestant marriage in seven generations; only five divorces have been traced, but these are not men-tioned; one desertion has been hinted, but not confirmed."
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “. . . the established upper-class family . . . is stable, ex-tended, tends to pull together when its position is threatened – in this instance by an out-marriage [that was prevented by the family elders]– exerts powerful controls on its members to ensure that their behavior conforms to family and class codes, and provides for its mem-bers economically by trust funds and appropriate positions.”
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The new upper-class family is char-acterized most decisively by phenom-enal economic success during a short-interval of time. It’s meteoric rise in the economic system is normally the per-sonal triumph of the money-maker. While its head is busy making a ‘million bucks,’ the family acquires the purchasable symbols associated with the wealthy American family: a large house, fine furniture, big automobiles, and ex-pensive clothes. The new tycoon knows the power of money in the market place, and he often attempts [unsuccessfully] to buy a high position in the status system."
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The new [upper-class] family is very unstable in comparison with the established [upper-class] family. It lacks the security of accepted posi-tion at the top of the local status sys-tem – a position that will come only through time; it cannot be purchase. The stabilizing influence exerted on the deviant individual by an extended family group, as well as friends, is ab-sent.)(Many upwardly mobile families break with their kin group as part of the priced they pay for their mobility) Then, too, the new family is composed of adults who are self-directing, full of initiative, believe in the freedom of the individual, and rely upon themselves rather than upon a kin group.”
 
 

In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The nuclear upper-middle-class family, composed of husband, wife and two or three dependent children during the ma-jor years of the family cycle, is a very stable unit in comparison with the new upper-class family and the working-class family. Divorce is rare, desertion by the husband or wife is most infrequent, and premature death rates are low.”
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “Geographic movement is typical of an upward mobile family, even when it lives out the family cycle in its home community. In a large number of cases, wherein a mobile couple is newly married, both partners work. the couple often lives in an apartment or flat in a resi-dential area that is not desirable as a permanent residence. As the husband achieves a higher economic status, the new family generally moves to a small single-family house, or a two-family one, farther from the center of they city. . . Often about this time the wife quits work and the first of two or three children is born. A third of fourth move, some years later, into a six- to eight-room single-family house . . normally completes the family’s odyssey. While it is mov-ing from house to house, many of it social contacts change sas the husband passes through the successive stages of his business or professional career. ¶ Even though there is a high preva-lence of social and geographic mobility, and no extended kin group to bring pressure on the family, there is a negli-gible amount of instability. Self-discipline, the demands of the job, and the moral pressures exerted by friends and associates keep the nuclear family to-gether. the principal family goals are success in business or a profession, a good college or university education for the children, and economic security for the parents in their old age. these goals are realized in the vast majority of case, and the family is generally a happy, well-knit group.”
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The lower-middle class family, like the upper middle, is a stable unit for the most part. In fact, there is no-essential difference between . . .in so far as family stability is concerned.”
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The major problems of the lower-middle-class family are connected with the security of its economic position and the education of its children. Par-ents generally have high educational aspirations for their children, but in-come limitations often compel them to compromise with less education than they desire, an possibly different kind from what they would choose. Parents acutely see the need for a good formal education, and they make heavy sacrifices to give their children the edu-cational training that will enable them to take over positions held by persons in the upper-middle class. By stressing education for the child, parents many times unwittingly create conflicts for themselves and their children, because the educational goals they set for the child train him in values that lead him away from this family. This process, while it does not have a direct bearing on the stability of the nuclear family, acts as a divisive factor that splits par-ents and children apart, as well as broth-ers and sisters who have received differ-ent amounts of education and follow different job channels.”
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The family cycle is broken prema-turely in the working class about twice as frequently as it is in the middle classes. Community studies indicate that from one-fourth to one-third of working-class families are broken by divorce, desertion, and death of a mari-tal partner, after a family of procrea-tion has been started but before it is reared. This generalization does not include families broken before the birth of children or after they leave the par-ental home.”
 
 
 
In the 1950s At that time, married African American couples had a poverty rate of nearly 50 percent."
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The home is the center of family life, and the hope [ironic sic] of most working-class families is a single-family dwelling with a yard; but a fifth to one-half are forced to live in multiple dwelling units with inadequate space for family living. Added to this is the working-class mos that one is obligated to give shelter and care in a crisis to a husband’s or wife’s relatives or to a married child. Thus, in a considerable percentage [sic] of these families the home is shared with some relative. Then, too, resources are strin-gently limited, so when a family is faced with unemployment, illness, and death it must turn to someone for help. In such crises, a relative is called upon in most instances before some public agency. The relative normally has little to offer, but in most cases that little is shared with the family in need, even though grudgingly. ¶ While crises draw family members to-gether, they also act as divisive agents; for when a family has to share its lim-ited living space and meager income with relative, kin ties are soon strained, often to the breaking point. One family is not able to give aid to another on an extensive scale without impairing its won standard of living; possibly its own se-curity may be jeopardized. In view of this risk, some persons do everything short of absolute refusal to aid a rela-tive in distress . . . This ordinarily results in the permanent destruction of kin ties, but it is justified by the belief that ones won family’s needs come first.”
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “Lower-class families exhibit the high-est prevalence of instability of any class . . . A companionate family is often a complicated one. It may include the natural chil-dren of the couple, plus the woman’s children from a previous legal or com-panionate relationship ; also there may be dependent children of the man living with the woman. Normally, when the lower-class family is broken, as in the higher classes, the mother keeps the children. However, the mother may de-sert her’man’ for another man, and leave her children with him, her mother or sister, or social agency. In the Deep South and Elmtown, from 50 to 60 percent of lower-class family groups are broken once, and often more, by de-sertion, divorce, death, or separation, often due to imprisonment of the man, between marriage, legal or companion-ate, and its normal dissolution through the marriage of adult children and the death of aged parents. ¶ Economic insecurity is but one of a number of factors that give rise to this amount of instability. lower-class peo-ple are employed in the most menial, the poorest paid, . . . seasonal and cyclical, and of short duration. More-over, from one-half to two-third of the wives are gainfully employed outside the family; in may cases they are the sole support of the family. However, the problem of economic insecurity does not account for amoral behavior that ranges from the flagrant violation of conventional sex mores to open rebellion against formal agencies of social control.”
 
 
 
"These three trends [In the U.S.,] represent what might be thought of as a collective deconstruction of marriage by the generations that came of age in the last quarter of the 20th century. Historically, cohabitation, marriage, and childbearing were all part of one inseparable package. Marriage and cohabitation were usually co-occurring, and both were typically followed by the birth of children. These three trends reflect an unprecedented separation of cohabitation, marriage, and childbearing."

 
 
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 . . . ?”
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Abrams wrote, “The concepts of family solidarity, of unity, and of stability are certainly confused.”
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Abrams wrote, “. . . the index most frequently used to measure the relative amount of family stability is actually a criterion of instability. . . . That index is the divorce rate. the presumption is that relatively high divorce rate is evidence of a great amount of family instability.” However, divorce is just a legal recognition of family instability.
 
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Abrams wrote, “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. . . .”
 
 
 
In 1958, U.S. News & World Report reported, "For American Families: A Pattern that Is Changing," article with "What's Happening To Home Life" in U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 24, 1958 (p. 88) The chief causes: people are getting married younger, mothers are working, life expectancy is growing, older couples are keeping their own houses after kids grow up and move out.
 
 
 
“Most of the postwar trends examined . . . appear to have moved in the same direction for both blacks and whites. Black fertility . . . peaked in the late 1950s just as white fertility did, and both black and white fertility subsequently declined. There was a short surge in divorce among blacks immediately after World War II, just as for whites. And rates of separation and divorce increased at about the same speed for both groups between 1960 and 1980. But in other important ways – such as the proportion of men and women ever marrying and the ages at which women bear children – the family lives of blacks and whites have diverged since World War II.”
 
 

“. . . black marriages break up more often than white mar-riages; blacks who are separated are less likely to obtain a legal divorce than are whites; and blacks who are divorced are increasingly less likely to remarry than are whites.”

 
 
“Black women, in sum, are less likely to marry, stay married, and remarry. Those who marry do so at an older age than do whites. The differences between blacks and whites . . . are greater than they were a generation ago. As a result, black women spend far less of their life in a marriage than do white women. . . . white women now can expect to spend less than half of their lives married. But among black women, the corresponding figure has plunged from 40 percent to 22 percent – about the same proportion of life that the average college-educated person spends attending school. Marriage has become just a temporary stage of life for blacks, preceded by a lengthening period of singlehood and followed by a long period of living without a spouse. . . . For blacks, even more so than for whites, a long, stable marriage is the exception rather than the rule.”


 
“It is commonly thought that this dramatic rise in the proportion of black children born out of wedlock is the result of a sharp increase in childbearing among unmarried black women . . . . Unmarried black teenagers and unmarried black women age 20 to 24 were no more likely to give birth in the late 1980s than they were in the late 1960s. . . . what caused the increased proportion of out-of-wedlock births? . . . births among black married women fell sharply during the 1960s and early 1970s and then leveled off. Second, during the entire period, fewer and fewer young black women married.”

 
 
“. . . black children are about half as likely as white children to be living with both parents or with one parent show the following: black children are about half as likely as white children to be living with both parents or with one parent and a stepparent (41 percent versus 81 percent) they are about eight times more likely to be living with a never-married parent (31 percent versus 4 percent); and they are more than half again as likely to be living with a separated or divorced parent (25 percent versus 14 percent).”


 
“There are longstanding cultural differences in the ways blacks and whites conceive of and carry out their family lives. In particular, African American culture places greater emphasis on ties to a network of kin that can extend over more than one household. Extended kin such as the grandparents, parents, and children Furstenberg and I studied ex-pect to provide and to receive more help from each other than do extended kin in white families. They also live together more often – about half of all middle-aged black women, according to another na-tional study, live in a three-generation household at some point, com-pared to about one-fifth of white women. But the flip side of this greater emphasis on extended kin is less emphasis on the husband-wife bond.”
 
 
 
In 1950, The Survey reported: "'We couldn't act natural,' complained a young woman in Harrisburg, who had lived with her parents for three years after marriage. Her husband was more aggressively resentful about the 'constant interference' when he tried to discipline the baby. 'It does something to your rela-tionship to your in-laws that shouldn't happen,' he said. 'I hope my daughter will never have to live with us when she gets married." ¶ The freedom they demanded from parents and in-laws was more than jut physical separation. Gone is the day when Grandma's advice was welcome because she had raised six children of her own. The young parents I interviewed defer to Gessell or Spock when baby acts queer and lean on Grandma only for an occasional holiday dinner or a spell of baby sitting. One educated young man who came from a closely knit family with 'gobs of traditions' said his liberation from rela-tives had been 'eased' by an enforced wartime separation. But another couple, settled 1,000 miles away from their old home town, thought perhaps their children missed out in not having aunts, uncles, or grandparents around 'to make a fuss over them.'"

 
 
In 1950, The Survey reported in an article about young families, that every one had at least one child development book on its shelves; they took classes, read magazines, discussed theories of development, some (literally) feared messing up their kids, and didn't want to make the same mistakes their parents had.

 
 
In 1950, The Survey reported that the coming family was an extended one that would care for the aged, but that that would dramatically effect every generation.

 
 
In 1950, 48.3% of U.S. families had no children under 18 in their household.
 
 

In 1952, the New York Times reported: "In 1949, for instance, only 15 per cent of the nation's 39,000,000 families had three or more youngsters. However, in considering this point one impor-tant fact is often overlooked: These 15 percent of families had 50 per cent of all the country's youngsters. Similarly, analysis of the 1940 census figures . . . shows that of all households only 4.2 per cent had five or more children but these youngsters comprised 22.1 per cent of the nation's total."
 
 

In 1957, the New York Times reported: "In almost every child study group today – and for that matter in many a purely social gathering where parents are represented – there is likely to be at least one parent all but obsessed by his 'responsibility to the children.' Because parents and the general climate of a family's life are considered by most specialists the most important influences on children, some parents have concluded – indeed have been encouraged to conclude – that their influence is absolute. Everything good or bad that happens is directly traceable to them!" While this movement is reportedly on the wane, it has left some parents in a panic and in a desperate search for professional advice.
 
 

In 1958, the New York Times reported that accurate statistics are almost impossible, but "several years ago it was esti-mated that in this country some seven million youngsters under the age of 18 lived with only one parent– or neither. About 4.1 million, it was esti-mated, lived with their mother; 600,000 with their father and the remaining 2.4 million under a variety of other ar-rangements – with relatives, in institutions."
 
 

In 1958, U.S. News & World Report stated: ". . . there has been a sharp drop in the percentage of older couples who live with married children. Their rate of doubling up with children has been cut by half in recent years."
 
 

In 1960, a report published for the Golden Anniversary of the White House Conference on Children and Youth stated: “Nearly all children in the United States live with one or both parents or other relatives. Of over 60 million children in 1958 about 97 percent were living with one or both parents or other relatives, and about a quarter of a million were living away from relatives, as residents of institutions, as foster children, or as wards.”
 
 

In 1960, the New York Times reported: "Every fourteenth child in the United States to-day lives in a fatherless home. This statistic, based on the latest census figures available, includes homes of women who are separated, divorced, widowed or who have borne children out of wedlock. More than 40 per cent of the women have more than one child."
 
 

In 1960, the New York Times reported: "While each situation is unique, the most common characteristic of the single-parent home is that the moth-er tends to live alone with the children. In the past, parents, and children, grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins fre-quently lived under the same roof, or at least within shout-ing distance of one another. This kind of family life, al-though still prevalent in some cultures, is rapidly disappear-ing in our country. Neverthe-less, the single parent should make every effort to involve herself with family and friends, rather than always with her children. One of the most serious consequences the only mother risks is that she begins rap-idly to convince herself of the impossibility of remarriage. She will use the children to justify her loneliness, her iso-lation, her inability to get an-other man. Yet, at the same time, she may inwardly resent the fact that the children limit her freedom or capacity to establish a new life."
 
 

In 1960, a report published for the Golden Anniversary of the White House Conference on Children and Youth stated: “Most children were living with one or both parents in their own households, though about 2.5 million were with one or both parents who were sharing the living quarters of someone else. Over 90 percent of these children whose parents were sharing living quarters were living in the home of grandparents or some other relative.”
 
 

In 1960, a report published for the Golden Anniversary of the White House Conference on Children and Youth stated: “Although the average size of families has not changed significantly since 1950 (3.5 in 1950 and 3.6 in 1958), in the past several years the number of families with two or more children living at home increased more than the number of families with no children or with just one child. In 1958 there were 16.4 million families with two or more of their own children at home–an increase of 5.2 million families or 46 percent over a ten-year period. During this same period the number of families with no children or with only one child showed much less change, 27.3 million in 1958, as compared with 26.1.million in 1948.”
 
 

In 1960, a report published for the Golden Anniversary of the White House Conference on Children and Youth stated: "In 1950 there were 4.1 million and in 1958 about 5. 6 million children under eighteen years of age, who were not living with both their mother and father; most of these children were living with one parent. These one-parent families, numbering about 3 million in 1958, represent ‘broken’ families and are the result of marital discord and widowhood, as well as service in the armed forces, civilian employment elsewhere, and extended hospitalization. The largest number of children not living with both parents, about 4.7 million, were in families headed by a woman, generally the mother.”
 
 

In 1960, a report published for the Golden Anniversary of the White House Conference on Children and Youth stated: In 1953 and 1955, there were 5.8 million children living with one parent.
 
 

In 1961, Science News Letter reported, “Of 2,359,000 persons now receiving OAA (old age assistance) payments, 74% have living children, but only one in every five is receiving support from the children.”
 
 

“The middle generation had fewer siblings on the average, but aunt, uncles, and cousins– particularly those who were unmarried or childless – joined their households from time to time. . . by that time the majority of the ‘extended’ house-hold members were relatives.”
 
 
 
 
". . . A [US] 1962 study found that 85 percent of mothers believed that married couples should have children. Nearly 20 years later, just 40 percent of those women still agreed, and in 1993 only 1 in 5 of their daughters agreed."
 

 
"In 1969, 23.8 percent of brides and 23.0 percent of grooms whose previous marital status was known had been married." (thus meaning it was a remarriage for at least one of them).
 
 

“By 1970 very few people who did not live alone lived with someone other than their spouse or their chldren. The households in which the younger generation grew up had become standardized to include one to three siblings (two to four years different in age), two parents (approximately 25 years older), and no one else.”
 
 

“. . .there are simultaneously counterbalancing trends. People of the younger generation who may live alone at one time live at other times with a greater variety of temporary roommates and live-in boyfriends and girlfriends. They also have more diverse tem-porary living arrangements because of moving, changing jobs, or attending school. Single parents, too, are more inclined than in the past to share their households, at least temporarily, with friends and partners.”
 
 

“The net effect of these countervailing changes – the paring down of basic household size and structure while increasing the opportunities for more interactions with others outside the household– places the generation in stark contrast to their parents’ generation.”
 
 
 
In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court Court upheld a “one family” zoning law that stopped a group of college students from living in a house. According to the local zoning rules, a "family" was "[o]ne or more persons related by blood, adoption, or marriage, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, exclusive of household servants. A number of persons but not exceeding two (2) living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit though not related by blood, adoption, or marriage shall be deemed to constitute a family." Justice Marshall objected that this was discriminating against unmarried couples, but the majority found it to be a valid exercise of the locality’s police power.
 
 
 
But the Supreme Court then in 1977 overturned a similar zoning law. In that case, a grandmother was raising two grandkids, but they were cousins, not brothers. Under the zoning ordinance, that was two families. The Court said that was improperly intruding on the right to have a family:

Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. It is through the family that we inculcate and pass down many of our most cherished values, moral and cultural.
 
Ours is by no means a tradition limited to respect for the bonds uniting the members of the nuclear family. The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children has roots equally venerable and equally deserving of constitutional recognition. Over the years millions of our citizens have grown up in just such an environment, and most, surely, have profited from it. Even if conditions of modern society have brought about a decline in extended family households, they have not erased the accumulated wisdom of civilization, gained over the centuries and honored throughout our history, that supports a larger conception of the family. Out of choice, necessity, or a sense of family responsibility, it has been common for close relatives to draw together and participate in the duties and the satisfactions of a common home. Decisions concerning child rearing . . . have recognized as entitled to constitutional protection, long have been shared with grandparents or other relatives who occupy the same household - indeed who may take on major responsibility for the rearing of the children. Especially in times of adversity, such as the death of a spouse or economic need, the broader family has tended to come together for mutual sustenance and to maintain or rebuild a secure home life. This is apparently what happened here. (Moore, at 503-505.)
 

 
57 percent
"The amount surveyed in U.S. in 1977 who thought a wife should help her husband's career rather than have one of her own (43% disagreed)."
 
 
 
 

DEFINITIONS OF FAMILY

 
 
 
Family, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau:

"A family includes a householder and one or more people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. All people in a household who are related to the householder are regarded as members of his or her family. A family household may contain people not related to the householder, but those people are not included as part of the householder’s family in census tabulations. Thus, the number of family households is equal to the number of families, but family households may include more members than do families. A household can contain only one family for purposes of census tabulations. Not all households contain families since a household may comprise a group of unrelated people or one person living alone." 1.

 
 
Family, as defined by a 1970s Long Island, New York housing code (upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1974):

"One or more persons related by blood, adoption, or marriage, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, exclusive of household servants. A number of persons but not exceeding two (2) living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit though not related by blood, adoption, or marriage shall be deemed to constitute a family." 2.

 
 
Three Views of "Family," by the U.S. Supreme Court:

1. a traditional “nuclear family” of two parents and their children, and where the parents are presumed to be acting in the best interests of their children. In such a family, there is no need to give the children their own voice – even when parents do such things as institutionalize their children;
 
2. an extended-kind model of family made up of a community of parents, siblings, grandparents and other relatives which should be recognized as a primary family, even if the blood-ties are not as strong as a nuclear family; and
 
3. an individualist model where family members are fairly autonomous and that individuality should be respected. 3.

 
 
Family, as defined by Statistics Canada:

"[A] now-married couple, a common-law couple or a lone-parent with a child or youth who is under the age of 25 and who does not have his or her own spouse or child living in the household. Now-married couples and common-law couples may or may not have such children and youth living with them. Now-married couples and common-law couples are classified as husband-wife families and the partners in the couple are classified as spouses." 4.

 
 
House -
Similarly, the Zinacantecos of southern Mexico don't have a word that is equivalent to our concept of family as a parent-child relationship. Instead, their basic social unit is a "house" – and that can mean just one or as many as 20 people who live there. 7.
 
 
 
 
Family, as described by George Santayana:
"one of nature's masterpieces." 14.
 
 
 
Families, as quoted by Gloria Steinem:
"Families mean support and an audience to men. To women, they just mean more work." 15.
 
 
___________________________________________________
 
1. ______, "Table BEH3, Illicit drug use: Percentage of 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students who have used illicit drugs in the previous 30 days by grade, gender, race, and Hispanic origin, selected years 1980–2004," America's Children: Key Indicators of Well-Being, 2005 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2005), Appendix A, p. 148. Available at: http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/index.asp
2. ______, "Table BEH3, Illicit drug use: Percentage of 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students who have used illicit drugs in the previous 30 days by grade, gender, race, and Hispanic origin, selected years 1980–2004," America's Children: Key Indicators of Well-Being, 2005 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2005), Appendix A, p. 148. Available at: http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/index.asp
3. ______, "Table BEH3, Illicit drug use: Percentage of 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students who have used illicit drugs in the previous 30 days by grade, gender, race, and Hispanic origin, selected years 1980–2004," America's Children: Key Indicators of Well-Being, 2005 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2005), Appendix A, p. 148. Available at: http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/index.asp
4. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), pp. 1, 4. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
5. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 1. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
6. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 4 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
7. For the years 1980 to 1998. Melissa Sickmund, Juveniles in Corrections, Juvenile Offenders and Victims, Report Series, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (June 2004), p. 13. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/202885.pdf
8. For the years 1980 to 1998. Melissa Sickmund, Juveniles in Corrections, Juvenile Offenders and Victims, Report Series, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (June 2004), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/202885.pdf
9. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
10. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
11. Melissa Sickmund, Juveniles in Corrections, Juvenile Offenders and Victims, Report Series, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (June 2004), p. 11. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/202885.pdf
12. Melissa Sickmund, Juveniles in Corrections, Juvenile Offenders and Victims, Report Series, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (June 2004), p. 11. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/202885.pdf
13. Melissa Sickmund, Juveniles in Corrections, Juvenile Offenders and Victims, Report Series, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (June 2004), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/202885.pdf For example:
14. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
15. Melissa Sickmund, Juveniles in Corrections, Juvenile Offenders and Victims, Report Series, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (June 2004), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/202885.pdf
16. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 11 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
17. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 11 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
18. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 11 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
19. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 11 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
20. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 11 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
21. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 1. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
22. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 4. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
23. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 4. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
24. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 4. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
25. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 4 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
26. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 3. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
27. _________, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989). Archived at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/489/189.html
28. David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children, Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2002), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196467.pdf
29. Matthew R. Durose, Caroline Wolf Harlow, Patrick A. Langan, Mark Motivans, Ramona R. Rantala, and Erica L. Smith, Family Violence Statistics, NCJ 207846 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (6/2005), p. 1. Archived at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf
30. The average age among sons or daughters killed by a parent in the U.S. Four out of five children killed by a parent were under age 13. Among incidents of parents killing their children, 19 percent of them involved one parent killing multiple victims. Matthew R. Durose, Caroline Wolf Harlow, Patrick A. Langan, Mark Motivans, Ramona R. Rantala, and Erica L. Smith, Family Violence Statistics, NCJ 207846 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (6/2005), p. 1. Archived at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf
31. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 3. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
32. As of 2003. Howard Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 2003, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC (August 2005), p. 3. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/209735.pdf
33. David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children, Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2002), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196467.pdf
34. This uses a definition of rape that includes forced vaginal, oral, or anal intercourse. Garrine P. Laney, Violence Against Women Act: History and Federal Funding, CRS Report for Congress, Report No. RL30871, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC (3/18/2005), p. 2 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30871_20050318.pdf
35. Garrine P. Laney, Violence Against Women Act: History and Federal Funding, CRS Report for Congress, Report No. RL30871, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC (3/18/2005), p. 2 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30871_20050318.pdf
36. Dave Lesher, "State Faces Tough Battle Against Teen Pregnancy," Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, CA, p. A-1 (1/30/1996). See also Mike Males,, "School-age Pregnancy: Why Hasn't Prevention Worked?" Journal of School Health, citing Boyer D, Fine D. "Sexual abuse as a factor in adolescent pregnancy and child maltreatment," Fam Plann Perspect. 1992;24(4): 4-11,19 (12/1/1993). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:14983077
42. Last year for available data. Heather Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and Characteristics, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2002), p. 5 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196469.pdf
43. Heather Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and Characteristics, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2002), pp. 5-6. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196469.pdf and Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer and Dana J. Schultz, "National Estimates of Children Missing: An Overview" National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2002), pp. 9-10. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/nismart/01/index.html
44. Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, and Heather Hammer, National Estimates of Children Missing Involuntarily or for Benign Reasons, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (July 2005), pp. 5-7. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/206180.pdf
45. An estimated amount. Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, and Heather Hammer, National Estimates of Children Missing Involuntarily or for Benign Reasons, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (July 2005), pp. 5-7. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/206180.pdf
46. An estimated amount. Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, and Heather Hammer, National Estimates of Children Missing Involuntarily or for Benign Reasons, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (July 2005), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/206180.pdf
47. Based on 1999 data. Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, and Heather Hammer, "Table 3: Characteristics of Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured and Missing Benign Explanation Episodes in the United States, 1999," National Estimates of Children Missing Involuntarily or for Benign Reasons, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (July 2005), p. 7. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/206180.pdf
48. Based on 1999 data. Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, and Heather Hammer, "Table 3: Characteristics of Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured and Missing Benign Explanation Episodes in the United States, 1999," National Estimates of Children Missing Involuntarily or for Benign Reasons, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (July 2005), p. 7. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/206180.pdf
49. Based on 1999 data. Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, and Heather Hammer, "Table 3: Characteristics of Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured and Missing Benign Explanation Episodes in the United States, 1999," National Estimates of Children Missing Involuntarily or for Benign Reasons, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (July 2005), p. 7. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/206180.pdf
50. Based on 1999 data. Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, and Heather Hammer, "Table 3: Characteristics of Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured and Missing Benign Explanation Episodes in the United States, 1999," National Estimates of Children Missing Involuntarily or for Benign Reasons, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (July 2005), p. 7. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/206180.pdf
51. Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, and Heather Hammer, "Table 3: Characteristics of Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured and Missing Benign Explanation Episodes in the United States, 1999," National Estimates of Children Missing Involuntarily or for Benign Reasons, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (July 2005), p. 7. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/206180.pdf
52. Based on 1999 amounts. Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer and Dana J. Schultz, "National Estimates of Children Missing: An Overview" National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2002), p. 6. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/nismart/01/index.html
53. Based on 1999 amounts. Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer and Dana J. Schultz, "National Estimates of Children Missing: An Overview" National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2002), p. 6. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/nismart/01/index.html See also Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, and Heather Hammer, "Table 3: Characteristics of Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured and Missing Benign Explanation Episodes in the United States, 1999," National Estimates of Children Missing Involuntarily or for Benign Reasons, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (July 2005), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/206180.pdf and
54. Based on 1999 amounts. Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer and Dana J. Schultz, "National Estimates of Children Missing: An Overview" National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2002), p. 6. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/nismart/01/index.html
55. Based on 1999 amounts. Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer and Dana J. Schultz, "National Estimates of Children Missing: An Overview" National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2002), pp. 4, 6. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/nismart/01/index.html and David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children, Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2002), p. 4. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196467.pdf
56. Based on 1999 amounts. Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer and Dana J. Schultz, "National Estimates of Children Missing: An Overview" National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2002), p. 6. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/nismart/01/index.html
57. Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer and Dana J. Schultz, "National Estimates of Children Missing: An Overview" National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2002), pp. 4, 6. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/nismart/01/index.html See also David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children, Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2002). Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196467.pdf
58. Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer and Dana J. Schultz, "National Estimates of Children Missing: An Overview" National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2002), pp. 4, 6. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/nismart/01/index.html See also David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children, Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2002), p. . Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196467.pdf
59. David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Andrea J. Sedlak, Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children, Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (October 2002), p. 10. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196467.pdf
60. Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, and Heather Hammer, "Table 3: Characteristics of Missing Involuntary, Lost, or Injured and Missing Benign Explanation Episodes in the United States, 1999," National Estimates of Children Missing Involuntarily or for Benign Reasons, National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (July 2005), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/206180.pdf
65. Mary Ross, "Why Social Security?" Publication No. 15, Bureau of Research and Statistics, Social Security Board, Washington, DC (1937). Archived at http://www.ssa.gov/history/whybook.html
66. Harold Underwood Faulkner, "The Quest for Social Justice," A History of American Life. Mark C. Carnes (gen. ed.), Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (consulting ed.), Scribner, New York, NY, p. 981 et seq. (1996), p. 1020 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684807238/qid=1124130752/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
67. Harold Underwood Faulkner, "The Quest for Social Justice," A History of American Life. Mark C. Carnes (gen. ed.), Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (consulting ed.), Scribner, New York, NY, p. 981 et seq. (1996), p. 1020-1021 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684807238/qid=1124130752/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
68. Mary Ross, "Why Social Security?" Publication No. 15, Bureau of Research and Statistics, Social Security Board, Washington, DC (1937). Archived at http://www.ssa.gov/history/whybook.html
77. ________, "Facts for Features: Back to School," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 15, 2005) citing the upcoming Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006. as . Archived at: http://www.census.gov./Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005225.html
78. 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
79. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
80. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 11. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
81. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, P60-229. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 11. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
82. Terry Lugaila and Julia Overturf, Children and the Households They Live In: 2000, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-14. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 16. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-14.pdf
83. Terry Lugaila and Julia Overturf, Children and the Households They Live In: 2000, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-14. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), pp. 14-16. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-14.pdf
85. Terry Lugaila and Julia Overturf, Children and the Households They Live In: 2000, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-14. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-14.pdf
86. Terry Lugaila and Julia Overturf, Children and the Households They Live In: 2000, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-14. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 14. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-14.pdf
12. Karin Calvert, “Patterns of Childrearing in America,” Beyond the Century of the Child: Cultural History and Developmental Psychology, p. 63 et seq. (2003), p. 64. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812237048/qid=11237763November sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
13. Karin Calvert, “Patterns of Childrearing in America,” Beyond the Century of the Child: Cultural History and Developmental Psychology, p. 63 et seq. (2003), pp. 64-65. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812237048/qid=11237763November sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
14. Karin Calvert, “Patterns of Childrearing in America,” Beyond the Century of the Child: Cultural History and Developmental Psychology, p. 63 et seq. (2003), p. 65 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812237048/qid=11237763November sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
15. Karin Calvert, “Patterns of Childrearing in America,” Beyond the Century of the Child: Cultural History and Developmental Psychology, p. 63 et seq. (2003), p. 67. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812237048/qid=11237763November sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
23. A.R. Colón with P.A. Colón, A History of Children: A Socio-cultural Survey Across Millennia, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT (2001), p. 363 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0313315744/qid=1123775672/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
30. Karin Calvert, “Patterns of Childrearing in America,” Beyond the Century of the Child: Cultural History and Developmental Psychology, p. 63 et seq. (2003), pp. 67-76. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812237048/qid=11237763November sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
31. Karin Calvert, “Patterns of Childrearing in America,” Beyond the Century of the Child: Cultural History and Developmental Psychology, p. 63 et seq. (2003), pp. 67-76. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812237048/qid=11237763November sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
32. ________, "The Little Laborers of New York City," Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Vol. xlvii, no. cclxxix, pp. 325-332 (August 1873), p. 322-327.
33. ________, "The Little Laborers of New York City," Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Vol. xlvii, no. cclxxix, pp. 325-332 (August 1873), p. 325, 327, 330.
34. ________, "The Little Laborers of New York City," Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Vol. xlvii, no. cclxxix, pp. 325-332 (August 1873), p. 330.
35. Karin Calvert, “Patterns of Childrearing in America,” Beyond the Century of the Child: Cultural History and Developmental Psychology, p. 63 et seq. (2003), pp. 77-78 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812237048/qid=11237763November sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
36. Ida Husted Harper, "Right of the Child," The North American Review, Vol. 176 p. 106, et seq. (January 1903), p. 109.
37. Karin Calvert, “Patterns of Childrearing in America,” Beyond the Century of the Child: Cultural History and Developmental Psychology, p. 63 et seq. (2003), p. 78. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812237048/qid=11237763November sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
38. Karin Calvert, “Patterns of Childrearing in America,” Beyond the Century of the Child: Cultural History and Developmental Psychology, p. 63 et seq. (2003), pp. 79-80 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812237048/qid=11237763November sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
1. _______, "School Enrollment Surpasses 1970 Baby-Boom Crest, Census Bureau Reports," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (June 1, 2005).
2. ________, "Facts for Features: Back to School," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 15, 2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov./Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005225.html
3. Hyon B. Shin, School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 2003, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (May 2005), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf
4. _______, "School Enrollment Surpasses 1970 Baby-Boom Crest, Census Bureau Reports," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (June 1, 2005).
5. As of 2003. Hyon B. Shin, School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 2003, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (May 2005), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf
6. ________, "Facts for Features: Back to School," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 15, 2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov./Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005225.html
7. ________, "Facts for Features: Back to School," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 15, 2005)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov./Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005225.html
8. ________, "Facts for Features: Back to School," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 15, 2005)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov./Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005225.html and Hyon B. Shin, School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 2003, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (May 2005), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf
9. ________, "Table 8. Percent of persons age 25 and over and 25 to 29, by years of school completed, race/ethnicity, and sex: Selected years, 1910 to 2002" Digest of Education Statistics, 2003, National Center for Education Statistics, Wash. DC. (2003) citing U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population, 1960, Volume 1, part 1; Current Population Reports, Series P-20 and previously unpublished tabulations; and 1960 Census Monograph, "Education of the American Population," by John K. Folger and Charles B. Nam. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt008.asp
10. ________, "Family and the Schools," Newsweek, Vol. 31, p. 92 (May 17, 1948).
11. ________, "Table 8. Percent of persons age 25 and over and 25 to 29, by years of school completed, race/ethnicity, and sex: Selected years, 1910 to 2002" Digest of Education Statistics, 2003, National Center for Education Statistics, Wash. DC. (2003) citing U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population, 1960, Volume 1, part 1; Current Population Reports, Series P-20 and previously unpublished tabulations; and 1960 Census Monograph, "Education of the American Population," by John K. Folger and Charles B. Nam. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt008.asp
12. Hyon B. Shin, School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 2003, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (May 2005), p. 11. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf
13. Xianglei Chen, First-Generation Students in Postsecondary Education, A Look at Their College Transcripts, Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Report, NCES 2005–171, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (July 2005) p. 5. Archived at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005171.pdf
14. Xianglei Chen, First-Generation Students in Postsecondary Education, A Look at Their College Transcripts, Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Report, NCES 2005–171, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (July 2005) p. 1, 5. Archived at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005171.pdf
15. Xianglei Chen, First-Generation Students in Postsecondary Education, A Look at Their College Transcripts, Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Report, NCES 2005–171, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (July 2005) p. 1, 5. Archived at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005171.pdf
16. As of 1999-2000. _______, "Percentage distribution of graduate and first-professional students according to parents’ highest education level, by selected enrollment and institution characteristics: 1999–2000," U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000). Archived at: http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/tables_listings/show_nedrc.asp?rt=p&tableID=238&popup=true
17. As of 1999-2000. _______, "Percentage distribution of graduate and first-professional students according to parents’ highest education level, by selected enrollment and institution characteristics: 1999–2000," U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000). Archived at: http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/tables_listings/show_nedrc.asp?rt=p&tableID=238&popup=true
18. Based on 2005 projections. ________, "Facts for Features: Back to School," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 15, 2005) (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov./Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005225.html
19. ________, "Facts for Features: Back to School," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 15, 2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov./Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005225.html
20. ________, "Facts for Features: Back to School," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 15, 2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov./Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005225.html
21. ________, "Facts for Features: Back to School," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 15, 2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov./Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005225.html
22. As of 2003. Hyon B. Shin, School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 2003, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (May 2005), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf
23. As of 2003. Hyon B. Shin, School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 2003, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (May 2005), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf
24. As of 2003. Hyon B. Shin, School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 2003, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (May 2005), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf
25. As of 2003. Hyon B. Shin, School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 2003, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (May 2005), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf
26. As of 2003. Hyon B. Shin, School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 2003, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (May 2005), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf
27. 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. 10. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-25.pdf
28. 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. 10. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-25.pdf
29. Terrance J. Reeves and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Asians in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-17. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.pdf
30. Hyon B. Shin, School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 2003, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (May 2005), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf
31. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 39.
32. ________, "Family and the Schools," Newsweek, Vol. 31, p. 92 (May 17, 1948).
33. ________, "Institutions of Higher Education – Charges: 1985 to 2003," Table by U.S. Census Bureau, citing U.S. National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, annual, U.S. Census Bureau,Washington DC (Undated). Archived at: http://www.census.gov./Press-Release/www/releases/archives/educ_table276.pdf
34. ________, "Institutions of Higher Education – Charges: 1985 to 2003," Table by U.S. Census Bureau, citing U.S. National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, annual, U.S. Census Bureau,Washington DC (Undated). Archived at: http://www.census.gov./Press-Release/www/releases/archives/educ_table276.pdf
35. Hyon B. Shin, School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 2003, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (May 2005), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf
36. Hyon B. Shin, School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 2003, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (May 2005), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf
37. Hyon B. Shin, School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 2003, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (May 2005), p. 3. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf
38. Hyon B. Shin, School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 2003, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (May 2005), p. 3. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf
39. Hyon B. Shin, School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 2003, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (May 2005), p. 3. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf
40. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 38.
41. Yvonne J. Gist and Lisa I. Hetzel, We the People: Aging in the United States, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports CENSR-19. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p.7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-19.pdf
42. ________, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). Archived at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/321/158.html
52. 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.
53. ________, "Facts for Features: Back to School," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 15, 2005)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov./Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005225.html
54. ________, "Family and the Schools," Newsweek, Vol. 31, p. 92 (May 17, 1948).
55. ________, "Facts for Features: Back to School," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 15, 2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov./Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005225.html
56. ________, "Facts for Features: Back to School," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 15, 2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov./Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005225.html
57. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 39.
63. ________, "Family and the Schools," Newsweek, Vol. 31, p. 92 (May 17, 1948).
1. ________, "Arranged Marriages and the Place They Have in Today's Culture," NPR Talk of the Nation trans. (July 20, 1999).
2. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 35.
3. Thomas W. Pullum, "Three Eras of Young Adult Home Leaving in Twentieth-Century America," Journal of Social History (March 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:84678611
4. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 38.
5. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 38.
6. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 37.
7. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 35.
8. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 37.
9. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 35.
10. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), pp. 36-38.
11. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), pp. 36-38.
12. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 40.
13. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 39.
14. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 39.
23. David Sven Reher, "Family Ties in Western Europe: Persistent Contrasts," Population and Development Review (June 1, 1998)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:21059915
24. _______, Del Webb 2004 Baby Boomer Survey, "Empty Nester Syndrome: When the Kids Go Away Will Boomers Play?' (2004). Accessed at http://www.pulte.com/pressroom/2004BabyBoomer/BabyBoomerDetailReport.pdf on August 15, 2005 and _______, Del Webb 2004 Baby Boomer Survey Press Release, "Baby Boomers Reclaim Independence in the Empty Nest But Del Webb Survey Shows ‘Boomerang’ Kids May Re-feather Their Future," Del Webb Website (June 29, 2004). Accessed at http://www.pulte.com/pressroom/2004BabyBoomer/BabyBoomerNesters.pdf on August 15, 2005.
25. 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. 2 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf
26. 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. 2 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf
27. ________, Table AD, "Young Adults Living At Home, 1960 to Present," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (Internet Release date: September 15, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabAD-1.pdf
28. ________, Table AD, "Young Adults Living At Home, 1960 to Present," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (Internet Release date: September 15, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabAD-1.pdf
60. David Sven Reher, "Family Ties in Western Europe: Persistent Contrasts," Population and Development Review (June 1, 1998)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:21059915
61. David Sven Reher, "Family Ties in Western Europe: Persistent Contrasts," Population and Development Review (June 1, 1998). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:21059915
62. Thomas W. Pullum, "Three Eras of Young Adult Home Leaving in Twentieth-Century America," Journal of Social History (March 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:84678611
63. Thomas W. Pullum, "Three Eras of Young Adult Home Leaving in Twentieth-Century America," Journal of Social History (March 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:84678611
64. Thomas W. Pullum, "Three Eras of Young Adult Home Leaving in Twentieth-Century America," Journal of Social History (March 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:84678611
65. Thomas W. Pullum, "Three Eras of Young Adult Home Leaving in Twentieth-Century America," Journal of Social History (March 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:84678611
66. David Sven Reher, "Family Ties in Western Europe: Persistent Contrasts," Population and Development Review (June 1, 1998)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:21059915
67. David Sven Reher, "Family Ties in Western Europe: Persistent Contrasts," Population and Development Review (June 1, 1998)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:21059915
68. David Sven Reher, "Family Ties in Western Europe: Persistent Contrasts," Population and Development Review (June 1, 1998). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:21059915
* Walter Lionel George, “The Break-up of the Family,” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, pp. 249-59 (July 1916), p. 256.
1. ________, Table MS-2, "Estimated Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to Present," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (Internet release: September 15, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabMS-2.pdf
2. ________, Table MS-2, "Estimated Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to Present," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (Internet release: September 15, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabMS-2.pdf
3. ______, "New Analysis Offers First-Ever State-by-State Look at Links Between Marriage, Fertility and Other Socioeconomic Characteristics," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC (October 13, 2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/005807.html
4. ______, "New Analysis Offers First-Ever State-by-State Look at Links Between Marriage, Fertility and Other Socioeconomic Characteristics," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC (October 13, 2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/005807.html
5. ______, "New Analysis Offers First-Ever State-by-State Look at Links Between Marriage, Fertility and Other Socioeconomic Characteristics," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC (October 13, 2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/005807.html
6. Tallese Johnson and Jane Dye, Tables from Indicators of Marriage and Fertility in the United States from the American Community Survey: 2000 to 2003, Population Bureau, Division U.S. Census Bureau, citing American Community Survey 2002-2003, Census Supplementary Survey 2000-2001 (May 2005) Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/fertility/mar-fert-slides.html
7. Source of data: ________, Table MS-2, "Estimated Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to Present," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (Internet release: September 15, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabMS-2.pdf See also Rose M. Kreider, Marital Status: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-30. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 10 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf and Paul C. Glick, "The Life Cycle of the Family," Marriage and Family Living, National Council on Family Relations, Vol. 17., No. 1, pp. 3-9 (February 1955), p. 4. Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0885-7059%28195502%2917%3A1%3c3%3atlcotp%3e2.0.co%3b2-q
8. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 34. 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
9. TK Science News-Letter, p. 121 (Aug. 19, 1950)
10. 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. 22.
11. ________, Table MS-2, "Estimated Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to Present," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (Internet release: September 15, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabMS-2.pdf See also Rose M. Kreider, Marital Status: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-30. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 10 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf
12. ________, Table MS-2, "Estimated Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to Present," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (Internet release: September 15, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabMS-2.pdf
13. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 34. 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
14. Rose M. Kreider, Marital Status: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-30. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 10 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf
15. ________, "Earlier U.S. Marriages," Science News-Letter, p. 383 (June 17, 1961).
16. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 10. 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
17. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 8. 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. Claudia Goldin, The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family, Mommies and Daddies on the Fast Track: Success of Parents in Demanding Professions, Special Issue of The Annals of the Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Science (Vol. 596) p. 23 (November 2004).
19. Claudia Goldin, "The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 596, No. 1, pp. 20-35 (November 2004), p. 23. Archived at: http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4D578A32F89DF9F38829
20. Claudia Goldin, "The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 596, No. 1, pp. 20-35 (November 2004), p. 23. Archived at: http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4D578A32F89DF9F38829
21. Claudia Goldin, "The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 596, No. 1, pp. 20-35 (November 2004), p. 23. Archived at: http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4D578A32F89DF9F38829
22. Claudia Goldin, "The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 596, No. 1, pp. 20-35 (November 2004), p. 23. Archived at: http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4D578A32F89DF9F38829
23. Reneé Spraggins, We the People: Women and Men in the United States, Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-20. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2005), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-20.pdf
24. Reneé Spraggins, We the People: Women and Men in the United States, Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-20. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2005), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-20.pdf
25. Reneé Spraggins, We the People: Women and Men in the United States, Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-20. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2005), p. 5. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-20.pdf
26. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 94. 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
27. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 95 (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
28. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), p. 63. Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
29. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), p. 67. Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
30. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
31. Emilio A. Parrado, "International Migration and Men's Marriage in Western Mexico," Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1, p. 51 (Winter 2004), p. 62 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:113302753
32. Ashley Merryman, Personal interviews for Why Do I Love These People? (2005).
1. Now, these numbers, and the ones that follow, are those living at home – which would include not those just returning at home, but those who never left. But this is the same category of Census information being used by the "Boomerang" articles. And since we're using percentages, not absolute numbers, significant changes from year to year are probably indicative of the movement of that population in or out of the parents' home. ________, Table AD, "Young Adults Living At Home, 1960 to Present," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (Internet Release date: September 15, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabAD-1.pdf
2. ________, Table AD, "Young Adults Living At Home, 1960 to Present," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (Internet Release date: September 15, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabAD-1.pdf
3. ________, Table AD, "Young Adults Living At Home, 1960 to Present," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (Internet Release date: September 15, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabAD-1.pdf
4. ________, Table AD, "Young Adults Living At Home, 1960 to Present," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (Internet Release date: September 15, 2004). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabAD-1.pdf
5. Jean Davies Okimoto and Phyllis Jackson Stegall, Boomerang Kids: How to Live With Adult Children Who Return Home, Little Brown and Company (October, 1987). Link to Amazon information: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316638102/qid=1117590599/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-6072404-0886547?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
9. _______, Del Webb 2004 Baby Boomer Survey, "Empty Nester Syndrome: When the Kids Go Away Will Boomers Play?' (2004). Accessed at http://www.pulte.com/pressroom/2004BabyBoomer/BabyBoomerDetailReport.pdf on August 15, 2005, and _______, Del Webb 2004 Baby Boomer Survey Press Release, "Baby Boomers Reclaim Independence in the Empty Nest But Del Webb Survey Shows ‘Boomerang’ Kids May Re-feather Their Future," Del Webb Website (June 29, 2004), p. 3. Accessed at http://www.pulte.com/pressroom/2004BabyBoomer/BabyBoomerNesters.pdf on August 15, 2005.
10. _______, Del Webb 2004 Baby Boomer Survey, "Empty Nester Syndrome: When the Kids Go Away Will Boomers Play?' (2004). Accessed at http://www.pulte.com/pressroom/2004BabyBoomer/BabyBoomerDetailReport.pdf on August 15, 2005, and _______, Del Webb 2004 Baby Boomer Survey Press Release, "Baby Boomers Reclaim Independence in the Empty Nest But Del Webb Survey Shows ‘Boomerang’ Kids May Re-feather Their Future," Del Webb Website (June 29, 2004), p. 3. Accessed at http://www.pulte.com/pressroom/2004BabyBoomer/BabyBoomerNesters.pdf on August 15, 2005. See also _______, Del Webb 2004 Baby Boomer Survey, "Fast Facts: Baby Boomers Statistics on Empty Nesting and Retiring," Del Webb Website (2004). Accessed at http://www.pulte.com/pressroom/2004BabyBoomer/BabyBoomerFastFacts.pdf on August 15, 2005.
11. _______, Del Webb 2004 Baby Boomer Survey, "Empty Nester Syndrome: When the Kids Go Away Will Boomers Play?' (2004), p. 13. Accessed at http://www.pulte.com/pressroom/2004BabyBoomer/BabyBoomerDetailReport.pdf on August 15, 2005.
12. _______, Del Webb 2004 Baby Boomer Survey, "Empty Nester Syndrome: When the Kids Go Away Will Boomers Play?' (2004), p. 13. Accessed at http://www.pulte.com/pressroom/2004BabyBoomer/BabyBoomerDetailReport.pdf on August 15, 2005.
13. _______, Del Webb 2004 Baby Boomer Survey, "Empty Nester Syndrome: When the Kids Go Away Will Boomers Play?' (2004). Accessed at http://www.pulte.com/pressroom/2004BabyBoomer/BabyBoomerDetailReport.pdf on August 15, 2005, and _______, Del Webb 2004 Baby Boomer Survey Press Release, "Baby Boomers Reclaim Independence in the Empty Nest But Del Webb Survey Shows ‘Boomerang’ Kids May Re-feather Their Future," Del Webb Website (June 29, 2004), p. 3. Accessed at http://www.pulte.com/pressroom/2004BabyBoomer/BabyBoomerNesters.pdf on August 15, 2005. See also _______, Del Webb 2004 Baby Boomer Survey, "Fast Facts: Baby Boomers Statistics on Empty Nesting and Retiring," Del Webb Website (2004). Accessed at http://www.pulte.com/pressroom/2004BabyBoomer/BabyBoomerFastFacts.pdf on August 15, 2005.
14. _______, Del Webb 2004 Baby Boomer Survey, "Empty Nester Syndrome: When the Kids Go Away Will Boomers Play?' (2004), p. 13. Accessed at http://www.pulte.com/pressroom/2004BabyBoomer/BabyBoomerDetailReport.pdf on August 15, 2005.
23. James J. Ponzetti, (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family, Second Ed. Macmillian Reference USA (2002). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0028656725/qid=1123776640/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 or http://www.galegroup.com/servlet/ItemDetailServlet?region=9&imprint=000&titleCode=M106&type=4&id=174024
24. Ronald Gottesman, et al., The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Shorter Edition, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, New York (1979), pp. 583-588.
25. See Karen Lystra, Searching the Heart: Women, Men and Romantic Love in 19th Century America, Oxford Univ. Press (1989). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195074769/qid=1123777285/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
26. See Karen Lystra, Searching the Heart: Women, Men and Romantic Love in 19th Century America, Oxford Univ. Press (1989). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195074769/qid=1123777285/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
27. Michael D. Pierson, Free Hearts & Free Homes: Gender and American Antislavery Politics, Univ. of North Carolina Press (2003). Available through: http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/pierson_free.html
28. James J. Ponzetti, (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family, Second Ed. Macmillian Reference USA (2002). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0028656725/qid=1123776640/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 or http://www.galegroup.com/servlet/ItemDetailServlet?region=9&imprint=000&titleCode=M106&type=4&id=174024
29. Ronald Gottesman, et al., The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Shorter Edition, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, New York (1979), pp. 583-588.
30. Nathaniel Hawthorne, Scarlet Letter
31. Ronald Gottesman, et al., The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Shorter Edition, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, New York (1979), pp. 583-588.
32. James J. Ponzetti, (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family, Second Ed. Macmillian Reference USA (2002). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0028656725/qid=1123776640/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 or http://www.galegroup.com/servlet/ItemDetailServlet?region=9&imprint=000&titleCode=M106&type=4&id=174024
33. Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation, Harvard Univ. Press, USA (2002). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674008758/qid=1123827518/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-0116027-5404024?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
34. James J. Ponzetti, (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family, Second Ed. Macmillian Reference USA (2002). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0028656725/qid=1123776640/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 or http://www.galegroup.com/servlet/ItemDetailServlet?region=9&imprint=000&titleCode=M106&type=4&id=174024
35. See Daniel Cere, "Courtship Today: A View from Academia," The Public Interest (Spring 2001). Archived at: http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2001spring/article2.html and article on how marriages should be handled like mergers.
36. Eve Downing, "Living Love: Professor Talks of the Ties That Bind Us," Spectrum, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA, Vol. X, No. 1 (Winter 1998). Archived at: http://web.mit.edu/giving/spectrum/winter98/love.html
38. Ashley Merryman's observations regarding conversations between Rev. Kenneth Deasy and Rev. Deasy's sermons at St. Agatha's Catholic Church, Los Angeles, California.
4. See Margaret Talbot, Love, American Style,” New Republic (April 14, 1997) and ________, "Arranged Marriages and the Place They Have in Today's Culture," NPR Talk of the Nation trans. (July 20, 1999). Archived at: http://www.newsbank.com and Margot Patterson, "Theology of Marriage Evolving: Since Vatican II, Church Challenged by Richer Understanding of Sacrament," National Catholic Reporter (December 28, 2001). Archived at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_8_38/ai_82066336/print
5. Margaret Talbot, Love, American Style,” New Republic (April 14, 1997).
6. Margaret Talbot, Love, American Style,” New Republic (April 14, 1997).
7. Nazek Nosseir, "Family in the New Millennium: Major Trends Affecting Families in North Africa," 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. 8. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtnosseir.pdf
8. 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)(citations omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:113302752
9. Phyllis A. Gordon, "The Decision to Remain Single: Implications for Women Across Cultures." Journal of Mental Health Counseling (January 1, 2003)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:96619856
10. Phyllis A. Gordon, "The Decision to Remain Single: Implications for Women Across Cultures." Journal of Mental Health Counseling (January 1, 2003)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:96619856
11. Phyllis A. Gordon, "The Decision to Remain Single: Implications for Women Across Cultures." Journal of Mental Health Counseling (January 1, 2003)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:96619856
12. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 95 (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
14. Phyllis A. Gordon, "The Decision to Remain Single: Implications for Women Across Cultures." Journal of Mental Health Counseling (January 1, 2003). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:96619856
15. Rev. T. DeWitt Talmage, The Marriage Ring: A Series of Sermons in the Duties of the Husband and Wife, and On the Domestic Circle, p. 25 (1886).
16. Rev. T. DeWitt Talmage, The Marriage Ring: A Series of Sermons in the Duties of the Husband and Wife, and On the Domestic Circle p. 10 (1886)
17. 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).
24. Phyllis A. Gordon, "The Decision to Remain Single: Implications for Women Across Cultures." Journal of Mental Health Counseling (January 1, 2003). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:96619856
29. Nazek Nosseir, "Family in the New Millennium: Major Trends Affecting Families in North Africa," 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. 10. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtnosseir.pdf and Nasra M. Shah, "Women's Socioeconomic Characteristics and Marital Patterns in a Rapidly Developing Muslim Society, Kuwait," Journal of Comparative Family Studies (March 22, 2004). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:115499525
35. Rose M. Kreider, Marital Status: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-30. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 4 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf
36. See Phyllis A. Gordon, "The Decision to Remain Single: Implications for Women Across Cultures." Journal of Mental Health Counseling (January 1, 2003). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:96619856 and 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
37. 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
38. 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
39. 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
40. 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
41. 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
42. Yu-Hua Chen and Chin-Chin Yi, "Taiwan's Families," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 177-198 (2005), pp. 193-194 (citations omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
43. Phyllis A. Gordon, "The Decision to Remain Single: Implications for Women Across Cultures." Journal of Mental Health Counseling (January 1, 2003). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:96619856
44. Elizabeth Fussell and Alberto Palloni, "Persistent Marriage Regimes in Changing Times," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1201-1213 (December 2004), p. 1206.
47. Mahmoud M. Awad, "First Cousins Denied Marriage," Arab American News (April 8, 2005). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1P1:109159436
59. Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Simon and Schuster, New York (1935 et seq.).
60. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 126. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
62. Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 126 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
73. For a history of U.S. premarital agreements – including the public policy concerns, and their enforcement in the United States – see the majority opinion and dissent discussions of the history of premarital agreements in ________, In re the Marriage of Susann Margreth and Barry Lamar Bonds, Slip Op., Court of Appeal for State of California, First App. Dist., Div. Two, A075328/A076586. Archived at: http://fl.bna.com/fl/19990427/75328.htm
1. Over the age of 15 years old. As of 2000. Rose M. Kreider, Marital Status: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-30. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf
2. ________, "Marriage and Divorce," National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. Accessed at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/marriage.htm on 8/26/2005. See also, Rose M. Kreider, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2001, Current Population Reports, P70-97. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (2005), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf
3. As of 2001. Rose M. Kreider, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2001, Current Population Reports, P70-97. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (2005), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf
4. Tom W. Smith, "The Emerging 21st Century American Family," National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago (October 2001). A 1999 edition of the report is archived at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/emerge.pdf
5. ________, "Facts for Features: Valentine's Day," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (February 10, 2005). Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/003950.html
6. ________, "Facts for Features: Valentine's Day," U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (February 10, 2005). Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/003950.html
7. ________, "Facts for Features: Unmarried and Single Americans Week," Special Edition Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (September 20, 2004). Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005384.html
8. ________, "Facts for Features: Unmarried and Single Americans Week," Special Edition Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (September 20, 2004). Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005384.html
9. ________, "Facts for Features: Unmarried and Single Americans Week," Special Edition Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (September 20, 2004). Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005384.html
10. ________, "Facts for Features: Unmarried and Single Americans Week," Special Edition Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (September 20, 2004). Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005384.html
11. ________, "Facts for Features: Unmarried and Single Americans Week," Special Edition Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (September 20, 2004). Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005384.html
12. ________, "Facts for Features: Unmarried and Single Americans Week," Special Edition Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (September 20, 2004). Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005384.html
13. ________, "Facts for Features: Unmarried and Single Americans Week," Special Edition Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (September 20, 2004). Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/005384.html
14. As of 2001. Rose M. Kreider, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2001, Current Population Reports, P70-97. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (2005), p. 6. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf
15. As of 2001. Rose M. Kreider, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2001, Current Population Reports, P70-97. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (2005), p. 6. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf
16. Rose M. Kreider, Marital Status: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-30. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 4 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf
17. 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 See also Rose M. Kreider, Marital Status: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-30. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 4. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf
18. 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 See also Rose M. Kreider, Marital Status: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-30. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 4. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf
19. Terrance J. Reeves and Claudette E. Bennett, We the People: Asians in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-17. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 7 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.pdf See also Rose M. Kreider, Marital Status: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR-30. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2003), p. 4 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf
20. 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
21. Philip M. Harris and Nicholas A. Jones, "We the People: Pacific Islanders in the United States," Census 2000 Special Report, CENSR-26. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (August 2005), p. 7. Archived at: http://www.census.gov./prod/2005pubs/censr-26.pdf
22. 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. 22.
23. Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996, Current Population Reports, P70-80. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (February 2002), pp. 1, 16. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf
24. Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996, Current Population Reports, P70-80. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (February 2002). p. 16. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf
25. Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996, Current Population Reports, P70-80. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (February 2002). p. 16. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf
26. Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996, Current Population Reports, P70-80. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (February 2002). pp. 16-17. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf
27. Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996, Current Population Reports, P70-80. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (February 2002). p. 16. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf
28. Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996, Current Population Reports, P70-80. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (February 2002). p. 16. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf
29. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), pp. 94-94 (citations 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
40. As of 2001. Rose M. Kreider, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2001, Current Population Reports, P70-97. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (2005), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf
41. As of 2001. Rose M. Kreider, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2001, Current Population Reports, P70-97. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (2005), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf
42. As of 2001. Rose M. Kreider, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2001, Current Population Reports, P70-97. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (2005), p. 12. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf
43. 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. Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-3370%28197902%2916%3A1%3C1%3ATIODWC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T
44. 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. 6. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf
45. 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. 6. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf
* Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 11. 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
1. MD Bramlett and WD Mosher, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States, National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002) p. 12. Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf; Rose M. Kreider, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996, Current Population Reports, P70-97. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (2002)), pp. 15-17. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf; and Rose M. Kreider, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2001, Current Population Reports, P70-97, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf
2. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1223.
3. MD Bramlett and WD Mosher, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States, National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002) pp. 12-13. Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
4. MD Bramlett and WD Mosher, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States, National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002) pp. 12-13. Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
5. Sandra S. Smith, "NCHS Dataline," Public Health Reports (March 1, 2002)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:94042640 and MD Bramlett and WD Mosher, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States, National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002) pp. 12-13. Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
6. David De Vaus, "Australian Families," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 67-98 (2005), p. 89. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 See also MD Bramlett and WD Mosher, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States, National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002). Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf;
7. MD Bramlett and Mosher WD. Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002), p. 20 (citations omitted). Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
8. MD Bramlett and Mosher WD. Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002), p. 20 (citations omitted). Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
9. Ruth Katz and Yoav Lavee, "Families in Israel," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 486-506 (2005), p. 488 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
10. David De Vaus, "Australian Families," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 67-98 (2005), p. 67. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 and ________, "3310.0 Marriages and Divorces, Australia," Australian Bureau of Statistics (November 26, 2003). Accessed at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/b06660592430724fca2568b5007b8619/893c1288678fd232ca2568a90013939c! OpenDocument on August 13, 2005.
11. Ivo Mozny and Tomas Katrnak, "The Czech Family," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 235-261 (2005), pp. 240. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
12. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1223.
13. Ceridwen Roberts, The Situation of Families in the UK, 1997-2002, European Observatory on Family Matters (2002), p. 2 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_02_uk_roberts_en.pdf
14. 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
15. Ruth Katz and Yoav Lavee, "Families in Israel," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 486-506 (2005), p. 488 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
16. Ivo Mozny and Tomas Katrnak, "The Czech Family," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 235-261 (2005), p. 240. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
17. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," 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. 6. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
18. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," 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. 6. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
19. Wilfried Dumon, The Situation of Families in Belgium, 1996-2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), p. 6. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_belgium_dumon.pdf
20. 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)(citations omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620
21. Nazek Nosseir, "Family in the New Millennium: Major Trends Affecting Families in North Africa," 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. 10. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtnosseir.pdf and Hoda Badran, "Major Trends Affecting Families El Mashrek El Araby," 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. 8. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtbadran.pdf
22. Wilfried Dumon, The Situation of Families in Belgium, 1996-2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), p. 2. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_belgium_dumon.pdf
23. 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. 2. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf
24. Christos Bagavos and Claude Martin, Low Fertility, Families, and Public Policies, Synthesis Report of Annual Seminar. Austrian Institute for Family Studies, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), p. 9. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/sevilla_2000_english_en.pdf
25. ________, "Fewer Marriages, More Divorces," The Clearinghouse on International Developments in Child, Youth, and Family Policies at Columbia University, New York, NY (January 2004). Archived at: http://www.childpolicyintl.org/contexttabledemography/table216.pdf
26. Lynne Chisholm, Antonio de Lillo, Carmen Leccardi and Rudolf Richter (eds), Family Forms and the Young Generation in Europe, Report on the Annual Seminar 2001, Milan, Italy, 20–22 September 2001, Austrian Institute for Family Studies, European Observatory on the Social Situation, Demography and Family (2001), p. 63. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/milan_report_2001_en.pdf
27. Ceridwen Roberts, The Situation of Families in the UK, 1997-2002, European Observatory on Family Matters (2002), p. 2 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_02_uk_roberts_en.pdf
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)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620
29. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1222.
30. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1222.
31. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1222, 1225.
32. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1222.
33. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1222.
34. David De Vaus, "Australian Families," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 67-98 (2005), p. 71 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
35. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," 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. 7. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
36. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," 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. 7. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
37. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," 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. 7. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
38. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," 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. 7. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
39. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," 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. 7. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
40. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," 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. 7. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
41. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," 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. 7. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
42. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," 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. 7. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
43. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 11. 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
44. Tavia Simmons and Martin O’Connell, Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-5 U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (February 2003), p. 1. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf
45. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 17. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
46. As of 2002. Sandra S. Smith, "NCHS Dataline," Public Health Reports (March 1, 2002)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:94042640
47. Tom W. Smith, "The Emerging 21st Century American Family," National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago (October 2001). A 1999 edition of the report is archived at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/emerge.pdf
48. 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)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620
49. 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)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620
50. Tom W. Smith, "The Emerging 21st Century American Family," National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago (October 2001). A 1999 edition of the report is archived at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/emerge.pdf
51. According to a survey. 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
52. Tavia Simmons and Martin O’Connell, Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-5 U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (February 2003), p. 1. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf
53. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 17. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
54. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 17. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
55. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), pp. 17-18. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
56. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), pp. 17-18. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
57. Tavia Simmons and Martin O’Connell, Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-5 U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (February 2003), p. 1. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf
58. Tavia Simmons and Martin O’Connell, Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-5 U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (February 2003), p. 1. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf
59. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1215 (citation omitted).
60. According to a survey. Christos Bagavos and Claude Martin, Low Fertility, Families, and Public Policies, Synthesis Report of Annual Seminar. Austrian Institute for Family Studies, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), p. 9. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/sevilla_2000_english_en.pdf
61. Gregory Acs and Sandi Nelson, The More Things Change? Children's Living Arrangements since Welfare Reform, "Snapshots of America's Families III" No. 10, The Urban Institute (October 06, 2003). Archived at: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=310859
62. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1226.
63. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1223.
64. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1223.
65. ________, "Percentage of Childless Women 40 to 44 Years Old Increases Since 1976, Census Bureau Reports," Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (October 23, 2003). Accessed at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/fertility/001491.html on August 15, 2005.
66. Terry Lugaila and Julia Overturf, Children and the Households They Live In: 2000, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-14. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-14.pdf
tk
See Mary Ann Mason, excerpt from From Father's Property to Children's Rights: A History of Child Custody, Columbia University Press, New York, New York (1994). Available through: http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/deans/mason/booksfathersfirsten.shtml and Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, "Who Owns The Child? Meyer and Pierce and the Child as Property," 33 William & Mary Law Review 995 (Summer 1992).
See Mary Ann Mason, excerpt from From Father's Property to Children's Rights: A History of Child Custody, Columbia University Press, New York, New York (1994). Available through: http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/deans/mason/booksfathersfirsten.shtml; Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, "Who Owns The Child? Meyer and Pierce and the Child as Property," 33 William & Mary Law Review 995 (Summer 1992); and Margaret Martin Barry, "The District of Columbia's Joint Custody Presumption: Misplaced Blame and Simplistic Solutions," 46 Cath. U. L. Rev. 767 (Spring 1997).
See Mary Ann Mason, excerpt from From Father's Property to Children's Rights: A History of Child Custody, Columbia University Press, New York, New York (1994). Available through: http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/deans/mason/booksfathersfirsten.shtml and PDF files Who Owns The Child? and Margaret Martin Barry, "The District of Columbia's Joint Custody Presumption: Misplaced Blame and Simplistic Solutions," 46 Cath. U. L. Rev. 767 (Spring 1997).
tk
tk
See Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, "Who Owns The Child? Meyer and Pierce and the Child as Property," 33 William & Mary Law Review 995 (Summer 1992).
tk
See quote from Chapsky in In re C.D.W. (24 Kan.App.2d 456) (1997).
See Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, "Who Owns The Child? Meyer and Pierce and the Child as Property," 33 William & Mary Law Review 995 (Summer 1992).
See Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, "Who Owns The Child? Meyer and Pierce and the Child as Property," 33 William & Mary Law Review 995 (Summer 1992).
tk
________, "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).
________, "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).
________, "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).
John Demos, A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony, Oxford Univ. Press p. 69 (1970) Note that Demos' arguments for Puritan longevity are cited by others, but questioned by Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman in "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 155-156 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
________, "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).
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 127 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 127. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 127 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 128 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 128. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 128 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 129 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 130. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 131. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 131. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 131, note 12. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 132 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 132 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 132-33 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 133 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 134. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 137-139. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 143-144 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 132 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 144 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 144 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 144 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 145 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 148 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Lorena S. Walsh, "'Till Death Us Do Part': Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 150-151. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 153. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 155 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 155-156 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 155-156, note 6 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 158. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 158-159 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 161-162 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 162. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 167. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), p. 168. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "'Now-Wives and Sons-In-Law': Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Univ. of North Carolina Press (1979), pp. 170-171. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807813605/qid=1123776483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books
________, "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).
________, "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).
________, "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).
________, "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).
________, "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).
________, "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).
________, "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).
________, "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).
________, "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).
. Rev. T. DeWitt Talmage, The Marriage Ring: A Series of Sermons in the Duties of the Husband and Wife, and On the Domestic Circle p. 113 (1886)
________, "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).
________, "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).
________, "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).
See 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).
________, "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).
________, "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).
Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 110. 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
Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 111. 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
________, "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).
________, "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).
________, "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).
________, "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).
________, "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).
Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 111. 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
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). See Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, "Who Owns The Child? Meyer and Pierce and the Child as Property," 33 William & Mary Law Review 995 (Summer 1992).
________, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). Archived at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/321/158.html
“It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra. And it is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” ________, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 157 (1944). Archived at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/321/158.html
See Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, "Who Owns The Child? Meyer and Pierce and the Child as Property," 33 William & Mary Law Review 995 (Summer 1992), and Janet L. Dolgin, "The Constitution As Family Arbiter: A Moral in the Mess?" Columbia Law Review, vol. 102, pp. 337-407 (March 4, 2002).
Mary Ross, “Shall We Join the Gentlemen?,” The Survey, p. 264, et seq. (December 1, 1926), p. 264.
Annie S. Daniel, "The Wreck of the Home," Charities, pp. 624-628 (April 1, 1905).
Emily Wayland Dinwiddie, "Housing Conditions in Philadelphia," Charities, p. 631 et seq. (April 1, 1905), p. 634.
Annie S. Daniel, "The Wreck of the Home," Charities, pp. 624-628 (April 1, 1905), p. 627 et seq.
Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 109-110. 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
Walter Lionel George, “The Break-up of the Family,” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, pp. 249-59 (July 1916), p. 247.
Walter Lionel George, “The Break-up of the Family,” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, pp. 249-59 (July 1916), p. 251.
Walter Lionel George, “The Break-up of the Family,” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, pp. 249-59 (July 1916), p. 251.
Walter Lionel George, “The Break-up of the Family,” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, pp. 249-59 (July 1916), pp. 253-254.
Beatrice Hinkle, "The Chaos of Modern Marriage," Harper's Magazine, pp. 1-13 (December 1925), p. 3.
Beatrice Hinkle, "The Chaos of Modern Marriage," Harper's Magazine, pp. 1-13 (December 1925), pp. 3-4.
Beatrice Hinkle, "The Chaos of Modern Marriage," Harper's Magazine, pp. 1-13 (December 1925), p. 4.
Beatrice Hinkle, "The Chaos of Modern Marriage," Harper's Magazine, pp. 1-13 (December 1925), p. 5.
Beatrice Hinkle, "The Chaos of Modern Marriage," Harper's Magazine, pp. 1-13 (December 1925), p. 11.
Henry R. Carey, “This Two-Headed Monster–The Family,” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, Vol. 156, pp. 162-171. (January 1928), p. 170.
Henry R. Carey, “This Two-Headed Monster–The Family,” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, Vol. 156, pp. 162-171. (January 1928), p. 170.
Henry R. Carey, “This Two-Headed Monster–The Family,” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, Vol. 156, pp. 162-171. (January 1928), pp. 170-171.
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. 25. Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162%28193411%29176%3C25%3AASOTTM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y
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. 26. Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162%28193411%29176%3C25%3AASOTTM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y
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. 29. Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162%28193411%29176%3C25%3AASOTTM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y
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. 30. Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162%28193411%29176%3C25%3AASOTTM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y
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. 31. Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162%28193411%29176%3C25%3AASOTTM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y
Science News-Letter, p. 76 (Feb 4, 1939)
26. Science News-Letter, p. 25, (July 8, 1939)
Science News-Letter, p. 25, (July 8, 1939)
Science News-Letter, p. 25, (July 8, 1939)
George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 13. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
________, Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974). Archived at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/416/1.html
________, Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977). Archived at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/431/494.html
________, Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503-505 (1977). Archived at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/431/494.html
Furstenberg, Frank F. Jr., "Are Parents Investing Less Time in Children? Trends in Selected Industrialized Countries," Population and Development Review (December 1, 2004). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:127196291
Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Sheela Kennedy, Vonnie C. Mcloyd, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Richard A. Settersten, Jr., "Growing Up is Harder to Do," Contexts, Amer. Sociological Assoc., Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 33-41 (Summer 2004), p. 35.
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. 42.
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. 43.
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.
"For American Families: A Pattern that Is Changing," and "What's Happening To Home Life," U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 24, 1958 (p. 88)
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. 41.
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. 42.
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. 42.
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. 42.
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. 42.
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. 43.
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. 43-44.
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.
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.
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.
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. 45-46.
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
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.
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.
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 (quotation omitted).
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.
Carolyn Holmes Moses, “What Children Need Most: Emotional Security,” Parents’ Magazine, p. 17 (October 1942).
Carolyn Holmes Moses, “What Children Need Most: Emotional Security,” Parents’ Magazine, p. 17 (October 1942).
D.D. Nibbelink, “Father Puts Things In Order,” Parents’ Magazine, p. 27 (September 1943).
Catherine Mackenzie, "Absent Fathers," New York Times, New York, NY p. SM29 (April 9, 1944). Archived at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=96577291&Fmt=1&clientId=63432&RQT=309&VName=HNP
________, "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).
Catherine Mackenzie, "Unstable Homes Found 'Normal' For Fully Half of Today's children," New York Times. New York, NY, p. 24 (October 18, 1946). Archived at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=94066275&sid=10&Fmt=2&clientId=63432&RQT=309&VName=HNP
Paul C. Glick, "The Life Cycle of the Family," Marriage and Family Living, National Council on Family Relations, Vol. 17., No. 1, pp. 3-9 (February 1955), p. 5 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0885-7059%28195502%2917%3A1%3c3%3atlcotp%3e2.0.co%3b2-q
________, "Family and the Schools," Newsweek, Vol. 31, p. 92 (May 17, 1948).
________, "Family and the Schools," Newsweek, Vol. 31, p. 92 (May 17, 1948).
________, "Family and the Schools," Newsweek, Vol. 31, p. 92 (May 17, 1948).
George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), pp. 12-13. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 16. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 16. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 17 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 20. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 24. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
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.
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.
21.  Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 95 (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.  Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 95 (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.  Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 95 (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
23. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 98 (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
24. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 99 (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
26. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 109 (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
Kathryn Close, "Young Families in 1950," The Survey p. 17, et seq. (January 1950), p. 20.
Kathryn Close, "Young Families in 1950," The Survey p. 17, et seq. (January 1950), p. 20.
Ollie Annette Randall, "The Family in an Aging Population," The Survey, Vol. 86, pp. 67-72 (February 1950).
See (Census) Tables.
Dorothy Barclay, "Good Life In a Large Family," New York Times, New York, NY, p. SM32, (April 13, 1952). Archived at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=93365383&sid=3&Fmt=2&clientId=63432&RQT=309&VName=HNP
Dorothy Barclay, "The Case of the Overanxious Parent," New York Times . New York, NY, p. 257 (May 5, 1957). Archived at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=90801768&sid=9&Fmt=2&clientId=63432&RQT=309&VName=HNP
Dorothy Barclay, "One-Parent Family: Further Notes," New York Times. New York, NY, p. SM46 (January 26, 1958). Archived at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=83392413&sid=8&Fmt=2&clientId=63432&RQT=309&VName=HNP
________, "What's Happening To Home Life," U.S. News & World Report, pp. 88-89 (January 24, 1958), p. 89.
Eleanor H. Bernert, “Demographic Trends and Implications,” The Nation’s Children, vol. 1, The Family and Social Change, ed. Eli Ginzberg, Published 1960 for the Golden Anniversary White House Conference on Children and Youth, Columbia University Press, NY p. 35. (1960)
Emanuel K. Schwartz, "Life Without Father," New York Times, New York, NY, p. 164 (September 4, 1960). Archived at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=99793220&sid=7&Fmt=2&clientId=63432&RQT=309&VName=HNP
Emanuel K. Schwartz, "Life Without Father," New York Times, New York, NY, p. 164 (September 4, 1960). Archived at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=99793220&sid=7&Fmt=2&clientId=63432&RQT=309&VName=HNP
Eleanor H. Bernert, “Demographic Trends and Implications,” The Nation’s Children, vol. 1, The Family and Social Change, ed. Eli Ginzberg, Published 1960 for the Golden Anniversary White House Conference on Children and Youth, Columbia University Press, NY p. 36 (1960)
Eleanor H. Bernert, “Demographic Trends and Implications,” The Nation’s Children, vol. 1, The Family and Social Change, ed. Eli Ginzberg, Published 1960 for the Golden Anniversary White House Conference on Children and Youth, Columbia University Press, NY p. 36 (1960)
Eleanor H. Bernert, “Demographic Trends and Implications,” The Nation’s Children, vol. 1, The Family and Social Change, ed. Eli Ginzberg, Published 1960 for the Golden Anniversary White House Conference on Children and Youth, Columbia University Press, NY p. 37 (1960)
Eleanor H. Bernert, “Demographic Trends and Implications,” The Nation’s Children, vol. 1, The Family and Social Change, ed. Eli Ginzberg, Published 1960 for the Golden Anniversary White House Conference on Children and Youth, Columbia University Press, NY p. 38 note 8 (citation omitted). (1960)
________, "Kin of Aged Should Help,” Science News Letter, p. 35 (January 21, 1961).
George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 25. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
"Incidence of U.S. Divorce Since the Civil War," Demography, p. 5 (citation omitted) (Feb. 1979)
George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 25. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 25. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation’s Families: 1960-1990. Auburn House Publishing Co., Boston, Mass. (1980), p. 25. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865690502/qid=1124129123/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.
77. 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
1. ________, Census 2000 Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics, United States, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2001). p. A-1. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/ProfilesTD.pdf
2. As quoted in ________, Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 3 (1974). Archived at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/416/1.html
3 According to constitutional law scholar, Janet L. Dolgin. Janet L. Dolgin, "The Constitution As Family Arbiter: A Moral in the Mess?" Columbia Law Review, vol. 102 pp. 337-407 (March 4, 2002), pp. 379- 383.
4. _______, Census Family Definition, Statistics Canada, Accessed at http://www.statcan.ca/english/concepts/definitions/cen-family.htm on August 27, 2005. Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics Canada. Users are forbidden to copy the data and redisseminate them, in an original or modified form, for commercial purposes, without the expressed permission of Statistics Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can be obtained from Statistics Canada's Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at http://www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
7. Arlene Skolnick, "Nuclear Families," International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family, Second Ed. James J. Ponzetti, (ed.), Macmillian Reference USA (2002), p. 1181. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0028656725/qid=1123776640/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 or http://www.galegroup.com/servlet/ItemDetailServlet?region=9&imprint=000&titleCode=M106&type=4&id=174024
14. From Santayana's The Life of Reason, 1905-1906, as quoted by George Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich (eds), American Quotations, Wings Books, Avenel, New Jersey (1992) p. 227.
14. The quote's original author unknown; it was quoted by Steinem in the September 1981 Ms. Magazine. As quoted by George Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich (eds), American Quotations, Wings Books, Avenel, New Jersey (1992) p. 227.