Post first-union repartnering and parenthood patterns in late 20th century Europe

  1. Spijker , Jeroen
  2. Solsona , Montserrat
  3. Simó Noguera, Carles
Zeitschrift:
Papers de demografia

Datum der Publikation: 2012

Nummer: 399

Art: Arbeitsdokument

Zusammenfassung

In 1981 Spain was one of the last countries in Europe to legalize divorce. Accompanying the transition from dictatorship to democracy were shifts in family laws and demographic behaviours that included the legalisation of divorce. However, the initial Divorce Law was quite restrictive and legal separation and divorce were still relatively uncommon until the 1990s. Subsequent pressure to speed up the legal procedure led to the Spanish Divorce Reform of 2005 that facilitated the divorce process, stressed the co-responsibility of parents towards their children and legally regulating shared custody. Using the General Council of the Judiciary's data on Decrees of separations, divorces and annulments, this working paper provides a description of the characteristics of the spouses, marriage duration and separation process (1996-2010) and analyses the patterns and characteristics of legal custody arrangements (2007-2011). Results showed that in 2011 (2005) joint custody was awarded in 12% (3%) of cases, father 5% (3%) and mother sole custody 82% (94%). Logistic regression showed that age at marriage, spousal age difference, duration of divorce application, the husband being the divorce claimant and a marital separation with consent favoured either sole father and/or joint custody at the expense of sole custody for the mother. ; Espanya va ser un dels darrers països d'Europa a legalitzar el divorci (1981). La seva legalització s'ha d'emmarcar dins el procés de la transició democràtica, els canvis de comportaments demogràfics i les modificacions de les lleis referides a la família. Inicialment, era una llei força restrictiva i, fins a la dècada dels 90, la separació legal i el divorci no eren massa comuns. Posterior, la pressió per accelerar el procediment judicial va portar a la reforma del divorci a través de la Llei 15/2005, llei que va facilitar el procés de divorci, va regular la corresponsabilitat dels pares cap als fills i la custòdia compartida d'aquests. A través dels butlletins estadístics de sentències de separació, divorci i nul·litat del Consell General del Poder Judicial, aquest document ofereix una descripció de les característiques dels cònjuges, la durada del matrimoni i el procés de separació (1996-2010) i analitza els patrons i característiques dels Acords Legals de Custòdia (2007-2011). Els resultats mostren que al 2011, la custòdia compartida va ser atorgada en el 12% dels casos, la custòdia exclusiva al pare, en un 5%, i a la mare, en un 82% (al 2005, els percentatges eren 3%, 3% i 94% respectivament). A través d'una regressió logística s'observa que l'edat per a contraure matrimoni, les diferències d'edat entre els cònjuges, la durada de la demanda de divorci, si el sol·licitant del divorci és el marit o si el divorci/separació és consensuat, pot afavorir la custòdia exclusiva al pare i/o compartida, en detriment de la custòdia exclusiva per a la mare. ; España fue uno de los últimos países de Europa en legalizar el divorcio (1981). Su legalización debe enmarcarse dentro del proceso de la transición democrática, los cambios en los comportamientos demográficos y en las modificaciones de las leyes referidas a la familia. Inicialmente, era una ley bastante restrictiva y, hasta la década de los 90, la separación legal y el divorcio no eran demasiado comunes. Posterior, la presión para acelerar el procedimiento judicial, llevó a la reforma del divorcio a través de la Ley 15/2005, que facilitó el proceso de divorcio, reguló la corresponsabilidad de los padres hacia los hijos y la custodia compartida de éstos. A través de los boletines estadísticos de sentencias de separación, divorcio y nulidad del Consejo General del Poder Judicial, este documento ofrece una descripción de las características de los cónyuges, la duración del matrimonio y el proceso de separación (1996-2010) y analiza los patrones y características de los Acuerdos Legales de Custodia (2007-2011). Los resultados muestran que en 2011, la custodia compartida fue otorgada en el 12% de los casos, la custodia exclusiva al padre, en un 5% y a la madre, en un 82% (en 2005, los porcentajes eran 3%, 3 % y 94% respectivamente). A través de una regresión logística se observa que la edad para contraer matrimonio, las diferencias de edad entre los cónyuges, la duración de la demanda de divorcio, si el solicitante del divorcio es el marido o si el divorcio/separación es consensuado, puede favorecer la custodia exclusiva al padre y/o compartida, en detrimento de la custodia exclusiva para la madre.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • ALESINA, A.; GIULIANO P. (2007). Divorce, Fertility and the Value of Marriage. Unpublished Manuscript, Harvard University.
  • ANDERSSON, G.; PHILIPOV D. (2002). “Life-table representations of family dynamics in Sweden, Hungary, and 14 other FFS countries: A project of descriptions of demographic behaviour”. Demographic Research, 7 (4), pp. 67-144.
  • BAUMEISTER, R.; SOMMER, K; CICORA, K. (1996). “Inequity and iniquity in marriage”. Social Justice Research, 9 (2), pp. 199-212.
  • BURCH, T.K. (1983). “The impact of forms of families and sexual unions and dissolution of unions on fertility”.
  • BULATAO, R.A.; LEE, R.S. (Eds.). Determinants of Fertility in Developing Countries, 2. New York: Academic Press, pp. 532-561.
  • BUBER, I.; A. PRSKAWETZ (2000). “Fertility in Second Unions in Austria: Findings from the Austrian FFS”. Demographic Research, 3 (2).
  • CLARKE-STEWART, A; BRENTANO, C. (2006). Divorce: causes and consequences. Yale University Press.
  • COHEN, S.B.; WEET, J.A. (1974). “The Impact of Marital Disruption and Remarriage on Fertility”. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36, pp. 87-96.
  • COLEMAN, D. (2004). “Why we don’t have to believe without doubting in the “Second Demographic Transition” some agnostic comments”. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2004. Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, pp. 11-24.
  • COLEMAN, D. (2005). “Facing the 21st century: New developments, continuing problems”. MACURA, M., MACDONALD A.L., HAUG W. (Eds.). The New Demographic Regime: Population Challenges and Policy Responses. New York: United Nations, pp. 11–43.
  • DOWNING, D.C.; YAUKEY, D. (1979). “The Effects of Marital Dissolution and ReMarriage on Fertility in Urban Latin America”. Population Studies, 33, pp. 537-47.
  • GIDDENS, A. (1992). Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, love & eroticism in modern societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • GONZÁLEZ L.; VIITANEN, T.K. (2009). “The effect of divorce laws on divorce rates in Europe”. European Economic Review, 53, pp. 127-138.
  • LAMPARD R.; PEGGS K. (1999). “Repartnering: the relevance of parenthood and gender to cohabitation and remarriage among the formerly married”. British Journal of Sociology, 50 (3), pp. 443-465.
  • LAURIAT, P. (1969). “The Effect of Marital Dissolution on Fertility”. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31 (3), pp. 484-493.
  • LESTHAEGHE, R.; J. SURKYN (2004). “Value Orientations and the Second Demographic Transition (SDT) in Northern, Western and Southern Europe: An Update”. Demographic Research, Special Collection 3 (3), pp. 45-86.
  • LESTHAEGHE, R.; SURKYN J. (2006). “When history moves on: The foundations and diffusion of a second demographic transition”. Paper presented at the seminar on “Ideational perspectives on international family change”, Population Studies Center, Institute for Social Research (ISR). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. http://sdt.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/online/WhenHistoryMovesOn_final.pdf.
  • LI (2006). “The institutionalization and pace of fertility in American stepfamilies”. Demographic Research, 14 (12), pp. 237-266.
  • PRSKAWETZ A.; VIKAT A.; PHILIPOV D.; ENGELHARDT H. (2003). “Pathways to stepfamily formation in Europe. Results from the FFS”. Demographic Research, 8 (5), pp. 107-150.
  • RASUL, I. (2006). “Marriage Markets and Divorce Laws”. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 22 (1), pp. 30-69.
  • SOBOTKA, T.; TOULEMON L. (2008). “Overview Chapter 4: Changing family and partnership behaviour: Common trends and persistent diversity across Europe”. Demographic Research, 19 (8), pp. 85-138.
  • SOBOTKA, T. (2008). “Overview Chapter 6: The diverse faces of the Second Demographic Transition in Europe”. Demographic Research, 19 (8), pp. 171-224.
  • SWEENEY, M. M. (1997). “Remarriage of women and men after divorce: The role of socioeconomic prospects”. Journal of Family Issues, 18, pp. 479-502.
  • THORNTON, A. (1978). “Marital dissolution, remarriage and childbearing”. Demography, 15 (3), pp. 361-380.
  • THOMSON, E.; HOEM, J.M.; VIKAT, A.; PRSKAWETZ, A.; BUBER, I.; TOULEMON, L.; HENZ, U.; GODECKER, A.L.; KANTOROVÁ, V. (2002). “Childbearing in stepfamilies: How parity matters”. KLIJZING, E.; CORIJN, M. (Eds). Fertility and Partnership in Europe: Findings and Lessons from Comparative Research. Volume II. United Nations: Geneva and New York.
  • UHLENBERG, P. (1989). “Remarriage: A life-cycle perspective”. GREBENIK, E.; HOHN C.; MACKENSEN R. (Eds.). Later Phases of the Family Cycle. Demographic Aspects. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 66-82.
  • VAN DE KAA, D. J. (1987). “Europe's Second Demographic Transition”. Population Bulletin, 42 (1).
  • VAN DE KAA, D.J. (2004). “Is the Second Demographic Transition a useful research concept? Questions and answers”. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2004. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, pp. 4-10.
  • VIKAT, A.; THOMSON, E.; HOEM, J. M. (1999). “Stepfamily fertility in contemporary Sweden: The impact of childbearing before the current union”. Population Studies, 53 (2), 211-225.
  • WOLFERS, J. (2006). “Did universal divorce laws raise divorce rates? A reconciliation and new results”. American Economic Review, 96 (5), pp. 1802-1820.
  • WU Z.; SCHIMMELE C.M. (2005). “Repartnering After First Union Disruption”. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, pp. 27-36.
  • ZAKHAROV, S. (2008). “Russian Federation: From the first to second demographic transition”. Demographic Research, 19 (24), pp. 907-972.