H LIFE T U O Y D F N O A

N The structure of the family and the character of relationships within S KEY INDICATORS: E S R D E

L • Family structures

I it make up the primary setting for development. R H G C • Parental employment S O ’ A R D • Family functioning A P 6 N E 0 A H 0 T 2 C T N E M P

O CANADIAN CHANGING L E

V The family provides the most significant influence on a child’s THE STRUCTURE OF CANADIAN FAMILIES, 1981 & 2001 E D

L development. Families provide physically for children – with food, A

I Married couples, no children Common-law couples, no children

C shelter and clothing. They teach children skills, values and atti- O S tudes to help them participate in society, and through nurturing Married couples, with children Common-law couples, with children N O and support, foster their self-esteem. They protect them from Lone- families L I

C harm. By providing these developmental foundations, families N

U 11% 16% O enable children and youth to be independent, healthy members C 2%

N of society. 28% A

I 29% D

A In a rapidly changing world, families are changing, too – in a 6% N A

C number of ways. Couples with children at home now represent a declining pro- portion of Canadian families. Married couples living with children 4% under 25 still constitute the largest group, but they declined 8% from 55% of families in 1981 to 41% by 2001. Over that same 55% period, the proportion of married or common-law couples without 41% children rose from 32% to 37% of all families. The proportion 1981 2001 of lone and common-law couples with children also rose. Various factors have contributed to these trends. Some couples Source: Calculations by the Canadian Council on Social Development using data from delay having children and others choose not to have any.As well, Statistics Canada’s Census, 1981 & 2001. population aging results in more children having moved out on their own.

9 89

CANADIAN COUNCIL ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT FAMILY LIFE 10 16.4 ng 66 usi ent ent 03 ng 0 usi opm 72

vel ent ent

, 16.3 opm th

al De

vel 2003. , You Soci ew nd al De 62 ata evi n a FAMILIES il on on il Soci Youngest child under age 6 rod l R dre 90 98 2 9 unc 00 mic ica il on on il 0 Chil ng tor of unc 14.6 an Co usi 67 AGE OF YOUNGEST CHILD ey His adi ent ent an Co ce Surv adi Can al al opm For ATE, BY ATE, vel din Can ur the 98 2 9 itu the al De 58 s by Labo 94 1 ong ’s s by 88 88 19 Soci ion l L 13.4 ion lat ada ona il on on il lat lcu Can lcu Nati unc 63 96 1 Youngest child under age 16 ics 9 the

LY FUNCTIONING LY ce: Ca 0 ist ce: Ca an Co rom HILDREN UNDER AGE 12 IN LONE-PARENT AGE 12 HILDREN UNDER AMI tat adi 18% 10% Sour KEY INDICATORS KEY F FUNCTION WELL THAT % OF CHILDREN UNDER AGE 12 IN FAMILIES 1996, WOMEN’S EMPLOYMENT R Sour C s f ile m S Can 0 1994, fro ta f , the th 2000. 80% 40% oda 94 1 s by & data

You 19 micr ion nd lat 1998,

n a lcu dre 1996,

ce: Ca Chil of 1994, Sour ey 00 0 Surv al al din itu ong l L 98 2 9 ona Nati the rom 96 1 s f 9 rds ofrds or one 12 had age under children file hi children remained about 1.7 in both 1981 and 2001. 1981 and 1.7 in both about remained children o-t f tw

r o e b 94 1

f of men. Canadian 19 e number ofe number declining. also is 2003, In about were there l h a um cross all provinces and territories, and reporting all provinces cross with Newfoundland elatively stable since 1994. since stable ofelatively proportion The under children n 2000, 71,000 divorces in Canada – down 10% from 1994.All 10% from – down in Canada provinces 71,000 divorces territories,and of with exception the Island, Edward reported Prince of number in the a drop peaked rate divorces.The Canadian around at stable relatively remained has 41% in 1986 and at 1996. 38% since T Fewer & divorces marriages & divorces Fewer 2003,In – down in 145,000 marriages Canada about were there 1994.9% from 1981, In of 65% about could men and women both age time the reached they by marrybe once expected to least at 50. 2001, By true of this was 51% of only than less and women h Smaller families rare. becoming are families Large days, These with families home, at 1.8 children 2.0 in 1981. from average down children parents, lone and married couples among declined size Family relationships, average the in common-law couples among but n Delayed motherhood motherhood Delayed ago, decades of one-quarter only Two giving birth were women 30; age over 2003, by half nearly older. 30 or aged (48%) were (54%) in Ontario majority in the were older 30 or aged (53%). Columbia British and 2002/03, 1994/95 and Between of number the births among 44, 40 to aged those among 19% and by rose 39 35 to aged women 53%. by the largest decline (28%), decline (0.7%). largest the smallest the Nunavut and Fewer babies Fewer 2003, and 1994 Between of number annual the births in Canada 331,522.This 385,114 to 14% – from by evident decreased was trend a I were the only child in their family. This proportion has been has family. in their child only the proportion This were r 11.1% in 1994 to from declined more or 12 with three 2000. 9.7% by

2000.

&

1998, 0 0% 50% 10 More common-law families Child custody arrangements In 2001, about 733,000 children under age 15 lived with common- Who receives custody of the kids following divorce? The answer law parents – more than four times the proportion of 20 years has changed quite dramatically. In 1995, more than two-thirds of earlier (3% in 1981; 13% by 2001).And younger children are custody orders ruled in favour of the , but by 2002, that was more likely to live with common-law parents. In 2001, 17% of true in less than half the cases. children under age 5 lived with common-law parents, compared Court rulings have increasingly favoured arrangements, to 9% of those aged 10 to 14. Children in Quebec were much but this varies considerably across Canada. In 2002, families in more likely to live with common-law parents – 29%, compared Prince Edward Island were the most likely to have joint custody with 8% of children elsewhere in Canada. awarded (77%), followed by families in Alberta and the Northwest While the number of children under 15 living with two married Territories (68%). Quebec had the lowest rate (25%). Mothers were parents rose from 3.9 million in 1981 to 4.6 million by 2001, most often awarded custody in Quebec (62%), Ontario (59%), their proportion fell substantially – from 84% to 68%. and British Columbia (51%). Many blended families In 2000, almost 279,000 children under age 12 – 6% of all children COURT-ORDERED CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS in this age group – lived in blended families.Younger children 1995 2002 (those under 6) were more likely to live in blended families; by 2002, almost 7% did so, up from 6% in 1994. 70% 68 Same-sex families

For the first time in 2001, the Census gathered data on same-sex 50 families. There were an estimated 34,000 same-sex couples that 40% 42 year – accounting for 0.5% of all couples – but many believe this number to be an underestimate. The proportion was highest in Quebec, British Columbia, and the Yukon (0.6%). 21 E F I According to the Census, at least 3,000 of these same-sex couples 11 L 9 0 Y were raising children. Most of the children were born to mother- L I unions which later ended in divorce, with the lesbian or Mother only Joint custody Father only M

A gay parent obtaining custody. Increasingly, however, lesbian

F Source: Calculations by the Canadian Council on Social Development using data from couples are giving birth or adopting children, and gay couples Statistics Canada’s Divorces, 2001 & 2002, Cat No. 84F01213XPB.

T are choosing to adopt. N E M P O L E V E D

L

A LONE-PARENT FAMILIES, 1994 TO 2004 I More lone parents raising children C O S

Lone-parent families accounted for 25% of all Canadian families Male Female N O

with children in 2004, up from 21% in 1994. Back in 1961, only L I

C 11% of families were headed by lone parents. N 1,000,000 U O

C There were about 1,366,400 lone-parent families in 2004 –

N

A an increase of 27% in only 10 years. Eighty-one per cent of these I D

A families were headed by women. N A

C 500,000 0 Although the number of female lone parents is much higher, male 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 , 0 0 0 0 0 lone-parent families have increased at a greater rate. Over this , 0 2 9 3 3 3 4 0 8 , , , , , , 8 1 4 1 5 10-year period, the number of female lone parents rose by 24%, 5 5 9 0 1 9 6 , , 5 8 9 4 8 9 1 1 2 while the number of male lone parents grew by 38%. 0 1 1 2 1994 1996 2001 2004

Source: Calculations by the Canadian Council on Social Development using data from Statistics Canada’s Annual Demographic Statistics, 2004, CD ROM 91-12

11 CANADIAN COUNCIL ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT FAMILY LIFE 12 m fro nal 0.6 ata ful ideal rigi ren ng d Abo usi hild c Non- ent ent 17 sus opm Cen

, and many others vel 2001 , al De file 83 Soci Pro turing of its members over a Living with lone parents il on on il hic hic ecent decades. The Aboriginal rap unc ural towns and villages engage in mog an Co e and nur Ottawa: Vanier Institute of the Family, 2002. Institute of the Family, Ottawa: Vanier adi 4 , A De nal Aboriginal Family Trends: Extended Families, Nuclear Aboriginal Family Trends: Can ada the Can Aborigi children ves and in r mous changes in r of s by 35 les eser ion lat eop fective, continues to be a power lcu l P Living with two parents Other living arrangements gone enor ina ce: Ca rig 0 61 esiding on r esponsibilities for the car LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF ABORIGINAL AND NON-ABORIGINAL LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF ABORIGINAL AND NON-ABORIGINAL CHILDREN UNDER 15, 2001 Sour Abo wage labour rather than traditional harvesting, the notion of the caring, ef etched deep in the psyche of Aboriginal people.” r Marlene Brant Castellano. “Aboriginal family life, like that of other families in Canada, has under large network of , , and . While many Aboriginal people have moved to the city family in traditional, land-based societies was, until recently, the family in traditional, land-based societies was, until recently, principal institution mediating the participation of individuals in social, economic and political life. The extended family distributed r Families, Families of the Heart. 80% 40%

’s ada Can ics ist Stat . ies Ser sis aly n A one-parent families. one-parent olds in 2001 was a multiple family . family a multiple in 2001 was olds In h n l r 15 years of years 15 r 24. 15 to aged 17% were and age other In se e d i times the Canadian rate. times Canadian the u d e g in cities 2 o inal youth population (15 to 24 years) more than doubled than more 24 years) (15 to population inal youth v ⁄ i 1 n ig ost of three Aboriginal every 10 in (28%) lived people i r ds, half of 25. age under were population Aboriginal the ong those living on reserves in 2001, reserves living on those ong with two 65% lived e un he west coast; west he inSaskatoon, five-fold. nearly increased it r o v r m i o e l b ility rate in the Aboriginal population has been declining over been has declining population Aboriginal in the ility rate o t n 10 h arge urban centres in 2001.Aboriginal urban centres 15 now under arge children between 1981 and 2001 in all major urban centres from Sudbury from centres urban in all2001 major 1981 and between t urban areas, . family multiple 2% were about In 2001, far fewer Aboriginal children under age 15 lived with 2001, 15 lived In age under children Aboriginal fewer far children. parents,two non-Aboriginal to compared Am parent. with a lone 32% lived and 3% remaining The parents in living arrangements.Among children other Aboriginal had urban centres,large parent; with a lone 46% lived in smaller centres, parent. with a lone 40% lived rural On non-reserves, 23% l Lone-parent families Lone-parent a variety of for that suggests evidence Anecdotal social and multiple are reasons, households Aboriginal economic many households.family reserves, On one about that estimated is it i A l 40% of 30% to up make large in most population Aboriginal the Canada.Western Furthermore, in urban centres of size the the A L By contrast,By (32%) of one-third about pop- non-Aboriginal the 25. under were ulation 2001, 1981 and Between however, the ofproportion population Aboriginal in the youth and children declined, of share the while increased. groups age older fer- The t time. 1960s, the In rate; times Canadian the four was it today, 1 is it Young population Young Overall, of one-third about in 2001 population Aboriginal the w w ABORIGINAL CHILDREN PARENTAL EMPLOYMENT WORK-LIFE IMPACTS, 2001 Time spent with children Relationships with children Dual-earners the norm 50% 47 51 In 2003, 15% of two-parent families with children had only one 40 42 income-earner, down from 21% in 1994 and 30% in 1980. Sixty- 25% five per cent of female lone-parent families had only one earner in 2003, up from 49% in 1994. 10 11 0 Increasing numbers of mothers now participate in the workforce. Positive impact No impact Negative impact In response to women’s rising aspirations and growing economic pressures, the proportion of employed women with children under Source: Linda Duxbury and Chris Higgins. Work-Life Conflict in Canada in the age 16 has climbed steadily – from 40% in 1976 to 72% by 2003. New Millennium: A Status Report. Ottawa: Health Canada, 2003. The increase in women’s employment is particularly notable among women with very young children. In 1984, less than half Employees with child or elder care responsibilities are less likely (46%) of mothers whose youngest child was under age 6 were to feel that their families are well adapted. Thirty-five per cent of employed; by 1994, 58% were employed, and by 2003, two-thirds male employees with dependent care responsibilities said they (66%) were in the workforce.Among women whose youngest were completely satisfied with their level of family adaptation; child was under age three, 63% were employed in 2003. this was true of 47% of male employees without such responsi- The unemployment rate among women with children under bilities. Similarly, 32% of female employees with dependent care 16 declined from 10.3% in 1994 to 6.3% in 2000. It rose to responsibilities said they were completely satisfied with their 7.2% by 2003. level of family adaptation,compared with 44% of female employees without such responsibilities.

TWO-PARENT ONE-EARNER FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN, 1980 TO 2003 Lost work days Work days lost due to personal reasons – such as one’s own ill- 30% 31 ness or disability or other personal and family demands – have 27 been increasing. In 2003, full-time employees missed an average 20 20 of nine days of work, compared to 7.3 days in 1997.Women were 15% 19

E 17 15 absent from work more days than their male counterparts: F I

L 10.2 days for women, versus 8.1 days for men in 2003.The presence

Y 0 of preschool-aged children influences work absences, especially L I 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2003 among women.In 2003, mothers employed full-time lost an average M

A Source: Calculations by the Canadian Council on Social Development using data from of 4.5 days due to family responsibilities, compared with four F Statistics Canada’s Income Trends in Canada, various years. days among . T N E M P O

L Parental Education E

V Mothers working full-time E

D More children are living with parents who have post-secondary

L Among employed women with children under age 16, almost

A education – and the trend continues to rise. Almost half of both mothers I

C three-quarters (74%) worked full-time in 2003. This was also true O and fathers of children under age 12 have a post-secondary diploma, S

for women with very young children. Seventy-three per cent of N certificate or degree. O employed women with children under age three worked full-time. L I C

N Since 2000, average hours of work have been declining for both U

O MOTHER’S EDUCATION C men and women. In 2003, the lowest average hours on record

N % OF CHILDREN UNDER AGE 12

A were reported – 36.5 hours per week for men and 28.8 hours per I D

A week for women. (This includes part-time workers.) Despite

N 1994 1996 1998 2000 A

C that, the proportion of women working 41 hours a week or more rose from 9% in 1976 to 13% by 2003, while those working 35 to 39 hours per week dropped from 21% to 17%. 43 44 40% 41 37 Juggling work & family 35 28 28 23 Difficulties balancing work and family responsibilities was an 20% 22 21 18 17 issue identified in previous Progress reports. It is still a problem 16 15 for many families, according to a 2001 national survey of more 12 12 than 31,000 employees of medium and large organizations. Over 0 half said that work had a negative impact on the time they spent Less than High school Some Diploma/ high school graduate post-secondary certificate/BA with their children; 42% said it had a negative impact on their or higher relationships with their children. Source: Calculations by the Canadian Council on Social Development using microdata from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, 1994, 1996, 1998, & 2000. 13 39 21

CANADIAN COUNCIL ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT FAMILY LIFE 14 40 m fro 24 ata ng d ATIONSHIPS usi 44 ent ent opm vel 27 al De Soci Y FROM HOME IN REL Y FROM HOME IN il on on il 49 AWA unc . ears an Co 26 s y LIVING adi iou Can var

Female , the cs 45 s by ami of for particularly important is relationships family ion Dyn lat LTS AGED 20-24 LTS 23 g people aged 20 to 24 lived with parents, their 24 lived 20 to aged g people from up ecline from 35% in 1994.Young women were more likely more were women 35% in 1994.Young from ecline our our lcu 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Male un g adults are increasingly favouring common-law relationships common-law favouring increasingly are g adults Lab quality a d ome, in 51% 1994. from up o , ce: Ca y un en to live with preschool- or school-aged children (22% and children school-aged or with preschool- live to en an men to be married/common law (40% and 21% respectively). (40% and law be married/common to men an w etween family dysfunction and problems among problems health mental and dysfunction family etween and and f ver . However, despite an increase in the proportion of marriage.ver proportion in the increase an despite However, t h o h a About 17% of the young adults who lived away from home in 2002 home 17% of from About away lived who adults young the children, school-aged or than less with preschool- slightly lived than likely more were women in case 1994 (18%).Young the was m 10% respectively). Y o unions, number in the decline overall an common-law was there of couples. living as adults young t 56% in 1992. with their home at live to women than likely more are men Young between increased genders both parents, for proportion the but 2002.and 1994 2002, In of 64% home, at 24 lived 20 to aged men 60% in 1994; from up group, age in this women lived 55% among a law marry common to live likely Less or Of away lived 24 who 20 to aged adults young 900,000 almost the in 2002, home from living common married or either 31% were l Family functioning Family The YOUTH IN FAMILIES living home at adults Young to adults Canada,In young for trend been has a growing there home. parental – their to return in – or 2002,remain In 60% o healthy child development.Research shows a significant connection a significant shows development.Research child healthy b children. at looking by functioning family measures NLSCY The example, – for together solve they works a family how well how problems, other, with each emo- other each treat communicate tionally, roles. various their assume and of majority Fortunately,the function which in families live children well.“Dysfunctional” of deal a great experience families stress few lives.in daily their have and in live often They social supports. $30,000 under in families with incomes Children circumstances family in dysfunctional live to likely as twice were $60,000. over with in families incomes children as Sour YOUNG ADU 50% 64 ome 10-11 yrs 0 Inc 80 of 25% once a day ata ey child at least Parent 95 rod Surv ’s mic Progress ng ada 7 usi 6-9 yrs Can ent ent ics 13 ist opm once a day vel Stat Parent does 59 with child at least something special al De GROUP 2000.

0 0-5 yrs Soci 86 &

Y AGE 0% 50% il on on il 10 1998,

84 $60,000+ unc 1996,

an Co 83 adi 1994,

, th Can rent who was depressed, 6% of to was who rent compared You 28 the a once a day nd child at least s by Parent praises COME, 2000 B n a 30 d a p ion a dre D IN lat sistency. This rate has been increasing over time. over sistency. been has increasing rate This Chil lcu 28 r) h n EHOL a of o ly from 1994 (11%). from ly in low-income children Unfortunately, ies are more likely to live with a parent who is depressed. is who with a parent live to likely more are ies portive parents portive e t l ey $30,000 to $59,999 ce: Ca h Under $30,000 p d c r y unger children are more likely than older children to have to children older than likely more are children unger mi ig u arents who consistently use positive parenting approaches. parenting positive use consistently who arents e n o l Surv Sour POSITIVE PARENTING, 2000 % OF CHILDREN UNDER AGE 12 BY HOUS In 2000,In 20% of $30,000 (under families in low-income children p children in families with incomes over $60,000. over with in families incomes children According to a scale which measures positive parenting behaviours parenting positive measures a scale which to According giving as ,such talking, together, laughing and playing in 2002, 92% of had who with parents lived two age under children in as 1994 (91%). style – virtually rate same the parenting a positive par- children, older in positive for And been increase has an there 1994. style since enting of Rates the styles were parenting positive same, of regardless of gender the income. family the or child the Y p fa S on a critical as influence been recognized style long has Parenting with development. live child children healthy Fortunately, most parenting. to approaches positive and supportive have who parents fact,In of majority vast the a scale that on well score parents discipline to approaches parenting,”including “effective at looks a Healthy parents Healthy of majority The are they that report who with parents live children health. been declining. has excellent in rate very good or that But 2000,In 71% of in very with parents 12 lived age under children health,excellent 75% in 1994.good or from down 2002, In of 72% excellent in very good or were who parents had six under children health, 77% in 1994. from down a small minority of only While who with parents live children be can signifi- well-being depressed,are child’s the on impact the withdrawn, often are depressed cant. and tired are who Parents future. the family about very a stressful despondent creates This environment. 2000, In 10% of than less 12 lived age under children of symptoms experiencing were who with parents , down s tracks a number of a number tracks of indicators dynamics, family including well-being, and health parental quality the of relationships, family styles. parenting and FAMILY DYNAMICS FAMILY parents well how and another one to relate members family How National the lives. from data Using children’s influences feeling are (NLSCY), of Survey Longitudinal Youth and Children al al once a day Parent does

din

itu with child at least something special

ong 0

l L

0%

50%

ona 10 Nati the from SOURCES: • Calculations by the Canadian Council on Social Development • Statistics Canada. Annual Demographic Statistics, 2004. using microdata from the National Longitudinal Survey of CD-ROM 91-213. Children and Youth, and data from Statistics Canada’s Annual • Statistics Canada. Births, 2002. Cat. 84F0210XIE. Demographic Statistics, Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics, and Census of the Population. • Statistics Canada. The Canadian Labour Market at a Glance. Cat. 71-222-XIE, 2003. • Ambert,AM. Contemporary Family Trends: Same-Sex Couples and Same-Sex-Parent Families: Relationships, Parenting, and • Statistics Canada. CANSIM, Table 051-0004 and Cat. 91-213-XIB. Issues of Marriage. Ottawa: Vanier Institute of the Family, 2003. • Statistics Canada. Census Table, Cat. No. 95F0312XCB01004 • Duxbury, L and Higgins, C. Work-Life Conflict in Canada in the • Statistics Canada. The Daily, November 18, 2003. New Millennium: A Status Report. Ottawa: Health Canada, 2003. • Statistics Canada. The Daily, May 4, 2004 and March 9, 2005. • Castellano, Marlene Brant. Aboriginal Family Trends: Extended • Statistics Canada. Divorces, 2001 & 2002, Cat. 84F01213XPB. Families, Nuclear Families, Families of the Heart. Ottawa: Vanier • Statistics Canada. Labour Force Historical Review, 2003. Institute of the Family, 2002. • Statistics Canada. Profile of Canadian Families and Households. • Siggner,AJ and Costa, R. Aboriginal Conditions in Census 2001 Analysis Series. Cat. 96F0030XIE2001003. Metropolitan Areas, 1981 to 2001. Statistics Canada Cat. 89-613-MIE, 2005. • Statistics Canada. Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada, 2000 & 2002. Cat. 91-209-XPE. • Statistics Canada. Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, A Demographic Profile. 2001 Census Analysis Series. • Vanier Institute of the Family. Profiling Canada’s Families III. Ottawa: Vanier Institute, 2004. • Statistics Canada Annual Demographic Statistics, 1994. Cat. 91-213. E F I L

Y L I M A F T N E M P O L E V E D

L A I C O S

N O

L I C N U O C

N A I D A N A C

15