1.1. A greater poverty risk for children after separation

Around 4% of children living with both parents enter poverty each year. The percentage is 5 times higher (21.5%) among children whose parents separate in the year. Almost three-­quarters of children who were already poor remain so in the year of separation. This chronic poverty is observable with or without parental breakup.

Poverty rates (which include those entering and remaining in poverty) are much higher for children whose parents have just separated (29%)² than for children living with both parents (13%) and remain higher 5 years later (23%). This increased rate is due in most cases to entry into poverty after separation and, to a lesser extent, to higher parental separation rates among families that were already poor (structural effects).

The poverty rate varies by the child’s age at separation (Figure 1): the younger the child at the time of separation, the higher the poverty risk. At age 2, more than 35% of children whose parents have just separated are poor versus 22% at age 13.³ Children who are young when their parents separate are more likely to have been poor before the separation. Moreover, the economic gradient of separation risk is steeper when separation⁴ occurs during early childhood.

The additional child poverty at the time of parental separation (around 17 points for all minors) exists for all minors from broken families whatever the marital status of their parents (Figure 2). This additional poverty is slightly greater for children whose parents were in a consensual union rather than married, mainly because these children were already poorer before separation. The poverty rate is much lower for children whose parents were in a civil partnership (pacte civil de solidarité, or PACS), who are better off on average.

1.2. A drop in living standards after separation that varies by living arrangement

Compared with the year preceding parental separation, the children’s living standard is around 15% lower in the year of separation and 10% lower the following year. While it then starts rising again, the effects of family breakdown persist over the long term: 5 years after separation, their mean standard of living is still 5% below the pre-separation level. This differential would be slightly larger if the situation after separation was compared not with that preceding separation, but with that of children whose parents stay together and whose average disposable income continues to increase over time.

The decrease varies according to the child’s living arrangements after family breakdown. The drop is considerable in the year of separation (24%) if the child is recorded on the tax return as living mainly with the mother, but smaller when recorded as living mainly with the father (Figure 3). The child’s standard of living improves gradually in the years following the separation. The drop is much smaller if the custodial parent repartners [2] and the child lives with either the mother and stepfather or the father and stepmother. That said, fiscal residence with a step-parent is rare just after separation; it concerns just 5% of children with recently separated parents. This proportion tends to increase over time, rising to more than a quarter 5 years later.

The living standard of children in alternating residence (mean of the living standards observed in the two households; Box 2) is also around 10% lower on average than when their parents were still together. However, as the parents who opt for this arrangement are better off on average before separation, their children are less exposed to the risk of poverty than those living mainly with their mother.

1.3. Poor with one parent but not the other?

Measuring the living standard and poverty rate of children with more than one residence is a methodological challenge. While it is straightforward to calculate an average living standard based on the amount of time spent in each parent’s household (here 50–50), it is more difficult to say that children are ‘half poor’ when they are poor in one household but not the other. Given that the parents are separated, they have few pooled resources except for post-separation transfers such as child-support payments (infrequent in the case of alternating residence). These are taken into account in our calculations. Children who are poor in one household may thus suffer the penalties of poverty half of the time, even if the other parent may make up for what they are missing.

Among children in alternating residence who can be observed in their two homes in the year of separation, 6% are poor in both households, while 24% are poor in just one, much more often that of the mother (15%) than of the father (9%), and 70% of children are not poor in either household. Adopting a broad definition of poverty in cases of alternating residence (being poor in at least one household), the general poverty rate of children in the year of separation increases by slightly under 2 percentage points, to 31% rather than 29%.

Poor or not, children living in more than one home may experience substantial differentials in living standards between the first and second parent’s homes. While almost 1 in 5 (16%) of these children have parents with similar living standards (less than 10% difference), 4 in 10 live half of the time with a parent whose living standard is more than 50% higher than that of the other parent.

The tax and benefits system is being progressively adapted in response to the rapid growth of alternating residence to take better account of children living in more than one home. These children can now be recorded in the parents’ tax returns (since 2003), and certain welfare benefits—such as child ­allowances (since 2007) and housing benefits (since 2019)—can be shared between the parents. The income conditions for receiving welfare benefits in cases of alternating residence also need to be revised. From a methodological viewpoint, the standard poverty indicators should be adapted to take account of these situations.

1.4. Beyond monetary poverty, material and social deprivation

Children’s access to certain resources becomes more limited after parental separation [6]. For example, data from the income and living conditions survey (Box 1) show that the share of children in households that can afford to go away on holiday for at least 1 week per year decreases by 10 percentage points between the year of separation and the following year (Figure 4). Fewer friends are invited to the child’s home in the 4 years following separation, doubtless because the dwelling is smaller and the family have lost contact with some of their friends. For several years following a separation, it is also more difficult for the household to cover unexpected expenses, to give gifts, to replace old furniture, or own a car. Many aspects of children’s living conditions are adversely affected by parental separation. The situation improves markedly, however, if the custodial parent finds a new partner.