Magic Moment? Maternal Marriage for Children Born Out of Wedlock

Abstract

To test the existence of the “magic moment” for parental marriage immediately post-birth and to inform policies that preferentially encourage biological over stepparent marriage, this study estimates the incidence and stability of maternal marriage for children born out of wedlock. Data came from the National Survey of Family Growth on 5,255 children born nonmaritally. By age 15, 29 % of children born nonmaritally experienced a biological-father marriage, and 36 % experienced a stepfather marriage. Stepfather marriages occurred much later in a child’s life—one-half occurred after the child turned age 7—and had one-third higher odds of dissolution. Children born to black mothers had qualitatively different maternal marriage experiences than children born to white or Hispanic mothers, with less biological-parent marriage and higher incidences of divorce. Findings support the existence of the magic moment and demonstrate that biological marriages were more enduring than stepfather marriages. Yet relatively few children born out of wedlock experienced stable, biological-parent marriages as envisioned by marriage promotion programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Although beyond the scope of this study, it is worth noting that mixed findings exist as to whether a cohabiting biological relationship offers more advantages to child well-being than a stepfather married relationship (Berger et al. 2008; Hofferth and Anderson 2003).

  2. 2.

    The NSFG is the best source for this study because in contrast to the NLSY-79, it permits analysis of Hispanics and pertains to contemporary patterns of marriage.

  3. 3.

    These children were excluded because they could experience only a maternal-stepfather marriage (they had already experienced a maternal-biological marriage), and so they only had one failure state.

  4. 4.

    The NSFG did not collect racial and ethnic data on children.

  5. 5.

    In a supplementary analysis, I analyzed the incidence of divorce of biological marriages formed pre-birth. Relative to marriages formed post-birth, biological marriages formed pre-birth lasted significantly longer. After 10 years, the cumulative incidence of failure was 38 % for post-birth biological marriages, 54 % for post-birth stepfather marriages, and 19 % for pre-birth biological marriages. Cox regression models indicated that the odds of divorce were 80 % and 220 % higher for post-birth biological and stepfather marriages, respectively, compared with pre-birth biological marriages. Divorce estimates for pre-birth marriages should be interpreted cautiously, however, because such marriages are at risk for a divorce at a relatively later time point than post-birth marriages (e.g., pre-birth marriages are not at risk for divorce until the child’s birth, at which point the marriages are already X months old, whereas post-birth marriages are at risk for divorce from the first month they are formed).

References

  1. Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, K. G. (2011). Stepparenting, divorce, and investment in children. In C. Salmon & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolutionary family psychology (pp. 97–112). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Berger, L. M., Carlson, M. J., Bzostek, S. H., & Osborne, C. (2008). Parenting practices of resident fathers: The role of marital and biological ties. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 625–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blau, D. M., & Van der Klaauw, W. (2008). A demographic analysis of the family structure experiences of children in the United States. Review of Economics of the Household, 6, 193–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States (Vital Health Statistics 23(22)). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

  6. Brown, S. L. (2010). Marriage and child well–being: Research and policy perspectives. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1059–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bzostek, S., Carlson, M. J., & McLanahan, S. (2012). Mothers’ repartnering after a nonmarital birth. Social Forces, 90, 817–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carlson, M. J., McLanahan, S., & England, P. (2004). Union formation in fragile families. Demography, 41, 237–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dion, M. R. (2005). Healthy marriage programs: Learning what works. The Future of Children, 15(2), 139–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gibson-Davis, C. M. (2011). Mothers but not wives: The increasing lag between nonmarital births and marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Graefe, D. R., & Lichter, D. T. (2002). Marriage among unwed mothers: Whites, blacks and Hispanics compared. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34, 286–294.

  12. Hill, M. S., Yeung, W.-J. J., & Duncan, G. J. (2001). Childhood family structure and young adult behaviors. Journal of Population Economics, 14, 271–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hofferth, S. L. (2006). Residential father family type and child well-being: Investment versus selection. Demography, 43, 53–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hofferth, S. L., & Anderson, K. G. (2003). Are all dads equal? Biology versus marriage as a basis for paternal investment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lichter, D. T., & Graefe, D. R. (2007). Men and marriage promotion: Who marries unwed mothers? Social Service Review, 81, 397–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McLanahan, S., Garfinkel, I., & Mincy, R. B. (2001). Welfare reform and beyond: Fragile families, welfare reform, and marriage (CCF Policy Brief No. 10). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

  17. Mincy, R. B., & Dupree, A. T. (2001). Welfare, child support and family formation. Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 577–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Smock, P. J., & Greenland, F. R. (2010). Diversity in pathways to parenthood: Patterns, implications, and emerging research directions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 576–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Stewart, S. D. (2007). Brave new stepfamilies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Teachman, J. D. (2002). Stability across cohorts in divorce risk factors. Demography, 39, 331–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wood, R. G., McConnell, S., Moore, Q., Clarkwest, A., & Hsueh, J. (2012). The effects of building strong families: A healthy marriage and relationship skills education program for unmarried parents. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31, 228–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The author thanks Elizabeth Ananat, Paula England, and Anna Gassman-Pines for valuable feedback.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina Gibson-Davis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gibson-Davis, C. Magic Moment? Maternal Marriage for Children Born Out of Wedlock. Demography 51, 1345–1356 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-014-0308-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Marriage
  • Divorce
  • Nonmarital childbearing
  • Race and ethnicity