Dagmar Kutsar and Kairi Kasearu
University of Tartu, Estonia
ISCI 3rd International Conference, York 27-29 July, 2011

Entrance to risk societies in early 1990s:
◦
◦
◦
◦

Diversification of family structures
◦
◦
◦
◦

Precarious labour market, commuting by work, children left behind, poverty
Diffusion of norms and values, more distrust, intolerance, insecurity
Increasing emphasis on personal career and success (Me-culture)
Close relationships as a resource and a high social value
Instability of family relationships, high number of break-ups (increase from the 1960s)
Diffusion of cohabitation unions (from pre-marriage towards the alterative to marriage)
High number of lone parent families
Increasing number of reconstituted families
Emerging child as a ‘human being’ in political rhetoric  “The best interest of the
Child”
◦ EE ratified UN CRC in 1991
◦ Child has a right to both parents (Marriage Law Act; Child Protection Act)
Belgium
70
Switzerland
Germany
60
Extramarital births, in %
Denmark
50
Estonia
Spain
40
Finland
France
30
United Kingdom
Norway
20
Poland
Portugal
10
Sweden
Slovenia
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2007
Source: Eurostat
Slovakia

75% of all children live together with both parents
◦ of whom, 20% whose parents are cohabiting without being married

Another 20% of children live in lone-mother households
◦ of whom 20% are in an extended family arrangement

Cohabiting couples account for 22% of all couples and 19% of
couples with children
◦ more than 60% of cohabiting couples in 26-35 years age
group have children
Total
Man + non-biological children
1 child
2 children
3+ children
49,9
95,0
33,0
13,9
Woman + non-biological children
2,3
5,0
1,1
0,6
Couple with no common children
2,3
3,1
4,4
Couple with common and noncommon children
45,5
62,8
81,2
Total: 21068 families (over 10%
of all families)
100
100
100
100

“The best interest of the child”: new discourse of equal / shared
parenting
◦ High value of children in a society preconditions good parenting skills
 Two focuses: Child’s future career AND child’s wellbeing ‘here and now’
 Coping with shared parenting after the break-up
 In case of separation legal links may be privileged over informal ones
 Mothers are gate-keepers vs fathers stress their parental rights (discourse of dangerous vs
active father)
 Coping with own and ‘obtained’ children

Probability of moving from a two-parent biological family type to a single-parent
family type before a child reaches the adulthood is rather obvious
◦ number of children growing up in single-parent families increases as the age of the child
rises
◦ number of children growing up in reconstituted families is increasing
◦ number of children whose biological parents form separate households after divorce or
beak-up is increasing


Legal bond matters: likelihood of communicating with a parent who lives separately from the family and
receiving support from grandparents on that parent’s side is greater if the parents have been married
If the parents have been living in cohabitation union the support networks tend to be less developed and
remain ineffective in the case of a break-up - the ties between the parent living elsewhere and the child
tend to be weaker (Hansson 2004, a study in EE)
WHO collaborative study “Health Behaviour in School-aged
Children 2005/2006” (HBSC)
◦ 4477 respondents (11; 13; 15 years old – about 1500 respondents
from each age group)
◦ Estonian data

100
87
90
79 78
80
70
60
83
94 95
89 88
83 84
61

girls13
54
51 51
50
39
40
44
girls15
40
34 35
37
boys13
30
boys15
20
10
0
father
mother
s-father s-mother
friend

Teenagers feel most comfortable
discussing their problems with
their mothers
Their least frequently preferred
confidants include step-parents
Almost all respondents have
friend(s) to confide
◦ appr one per cent of teenagers have
no friends

FI
◦ Subjective wellbeing is estimated lower
among the older teenager group
◦ Girls are more critical
DK
UK
boys15
girls15
FR
boys11
PL
girls11
Children are generally satisfied with
their lives

W-Eur and children from Nordic
countries report higher wellbeing
compared to chidren from CEE
countries
◦ Self-reported wellbeing of children in
Estonia is one of the highest among CEE
countries
LV
EE
0
50
100



The notion of ‘two homes’ is broader than the ‘shared residence’ referring to the
potential that the child could have as his or her additional social resource
According to law (Marriage Law Act and Child Protection Law Act of the Rep of
Estonia) and the UN CRC a child has the right to both parents
◦ Is this right fulfilled if the parents form separate households?
◦ Can the family group with two separate households function as an expanded
network in ‘the best interests of the child’, i.e. guarantee wellbeing of the child?
HBSC data: Variables in the focus:




Time spent in the second home
Presence of someone to talk about personal concerns
Estimate of family relationships in the main residence
Self-reported subjective wellbeing (estimate of having good/bad life)
70
First home
66
◦ 66% live with two biological parents
◦ 19% live in a single parent hh
◦ 15% live in a reconstituted family type
59
60
50
41
40
one home
30
two homes
19
20
15
10
0
biol parents
biol- and
step-parent
single parent
Second home
◦ 16% report the presence of ‘second
home’
 Incl 59% with a single parent and 41%
as a reconstituted family
 Almost 1/3 have sister/brother in the
second home
60
50 50
50

About ¼ do not visit the second
home and a half do it only
sometimes  at least ¾ cannot
use the potential resource of the
second home

Time spent in the second home is
not dependent on the child’s age,
gender either family structure of
the 2nd home
40
30
18
20
10
8
21
24 24
Girls
5
0
half of time regularly, sometimes
almost
less than
never
half of time
Boys
60
53
50
47 46
43
42
38
40

52
49
38
38
31
family members
30
20
20
10
2324
20
19
9
7
0
11yrs 13yrs 15yrs
one home
11yrs 13yrs 15yrs
two homes
friends
both equally
Presence of the ‘second
home’ increases the
probability that the
person to confide is
someone out of the
expanded family group
80
70
68
70

60
54
53
50
42
39
40
rather bad 0<4
medium 5<7
30
good 8<10
10
20
19
20
3
3
7
6
0
boys
girls
one home
boys
girls
two homes
Children with one home report
better family relationships
◦ Presence of second home
increases 3,3 times the probability
that family relationships are
estimated as bad compared to
estimated as good; and two times
higher to estimate life as medium
than as good
◦ Gap between the estimates of
respondents with one and two
homes is widening with age
◦
70
64
60
60
52
48
50
40
40
38
33
31
rather bad life 0<4
30
medium 5<7
good life 8<10
20
10
14
5
7
8
girls
boys
0
boys
one home
girls
two homes
Children with one home (living with 2
biol parents) report better life than
children with two (potential) homes.
The gap is widening with age
◦ Presence of second home increases
1,7 times the probability that the
subjective wellbeing is estimated as
medium compared to estimated as
good and two times higher the
probability to estimate life rather bad
than medium
◦ The estimate is not dependent on
time spent in the second home

Children with two homes are not ‘richer’ than children with ‘one home’
◦ The family network created around a child through variegated family structures does not
provide them with more support or a higher wellbeing
◦ Other family structures are disadvantaged if compared to living with two biological
parents in one home
◦ Wellbeing of children with one and two homes is mediated by a number of contextual and
individual factors and are not highlighted here