From Living Apart to Living Together: Do Children Born before the Current Partnership Matter?
From Living Apart to Living Together: Do Children Born before
the Current Partnership Matter?
Roselinde van der Wiel, Clara. H. Mulder, Helga A.G. de Valk
Abstract: This study examines the association between having children born be-
fore the current partnership and women’s and men’s likelihood of transitioning from
living apart together (LAT) to co-residing. LAT partnerships are common among
individuals with pre-partnership children, but have so far been under-researched.
Our study not only focuses on those in LAT relations, but also takes the different
pathways to becoming a single parent into account. Event-history analysis was per-
formed using waves 1- 4 from the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study.
The results indicate that separated and widowed mothers were less likely to
transition to co-residence with their LAT partner than childless women who had
previously been in a co-residential union. Mothers who had previous out-of-union
children were found to be even less likely to enter co-residence. Results were most-
ly similar for men and women. The only exception was the effect of being widowed
with children; for men this resulted in higher chances of transitioning to co-resi-
dence with a new partner whereas for women the chances were lower.
The fi ndings suggest that individuals’ parenthood and union histories are associ-
ated with the development of their later partnerships, and that these patterns vary
by gender. Given contemporary and future patterns of partnership separation, our
study provides insights for better understanding how LAT relations develop for dif-
ferent sub-populations.
Keywords: Living apart together · Transition to co-residence · Re-partnering ·
Children · Single parents
1 Introduction
Single parenthood has become an increasingly common phenomenon in Western
countries (Bernardi/Mortelmans 2018). In the Netherlands, almost 15 percent of all
children lived in a single-parent household in 2014. However, single parenthood is
often a temporary stage in the life course. In most European countries, the majority
of single parents enter a new co-residential partnership at some point (Bernardi/
Comparative Population Studies
Vol. 45 (2020): 115-142 (Date of release: 31.03.2020)
Federal Institute for Population Research 2020 URL: www.comparativepopulationstudies.de
DOI: 10.12765/CPoS-2020-07en
URN: urn:nbn:de:bib-cpos-2020-07en9
• Roselinde van der Wiel, Clara. H. Mulder, Helga A.G. de Valk116
Mortelmans 2018). A parent’s co-residence with a new partner has an undeniable
effect on both the parent and the child, for example on the parent’s physical and
mental health (e.g. Williams et al. 2008) and economic security (e.g. Bzostek et al.
2012 on mothers), as well as on the child’s well-being (e.g. Bzostek 2008). It is there-
fore important to understand how the presence of an individual’s own children1 –
that is, children who were born either in a previous union or outside a union – are
associated with the parent’s likelihood of making the transition from living apart to
living together with a new partner (who is not the parent of the children).
Earlier research has shown that being a parent is associated with decisions about
union formation with a new partner (e.g. Goldscheider/Sassler 2006; Ivanova et al.
2013). However, most of the existing research on this topic was developed based on
a rather restrictive, tripartite model of relationships (Roseneil 2006), whereby peo-
ple were classifi ed as either single, cohabiting, or married. Based on this model, the
transition from singlehood to co-residence (Bernhardt/Goldscheider 2002; Ivanova
et al. 2013; Lichter/Graefe 2001) and to marriage (Bennett et al. 1995) have been ex-
tensively analysed. Most studies do, however, not make a distinction between start-
ing a relationship and starting co-residence, even though these are different events
(exception: Bastin 2019 on partnership transitions of single mothers in Germany).
Furthermore, living apart together (LAT) partnerships, and even more so those with
pre-partnership children involved, have so far been largely ignored. LAT partner-
ships refer to established, longer-term couple relationships in which the partners
live in separate households (see Haskey 2005; Levin/Trost 1999). In general, LAT can
be a way to combine the intimacy of a partnership with some benefi ts of being alone
(Duncan et al. 2013 for Britain; Strohm et al. 2009 for the United States). Reasons
for living apart rather than co-residing vary with individuals’ life course stages (see,
for example, Duncan et al. 2013 for Britain; Liefbroer et al. 2015 for ten European
countries; Régnier-Loilier et al. 2009 for France; Strohm et al. 2009 for the United
States). These studies show that for younger, childless adults who are not ready to
live together yet, LAT is often a temporary stage, whereas it is typically a more long-
term choice for older adults who wish to maintain their independence – many of
whom have experienced divorce or have been widowed. Caregiving responsibilities
for children are a common reason for LAT for single parents. External constraints
related to, for example, work locations or housing, are frequently mentioned as a
reason to live apart across all stages of the life course.
Only a handful of studies have distinguished LAT as a partnership status and
taken being a parent into account in analysing the formation of new co-residential
partnerships. These include studies that focused on LAT relations after divorce in
Belgium (Pasteels/Mortelmans 2013, 2015), the likelihood of living apart versus to-
gether with a new partner after divorce or widowhood in the Netherlands (de Jong
Gierveld/Merz 2013), intentions to live together (Lewin 2018; Poortman/Hewitt 2015),
and the transition to co-residence in Germany (Krapf 2017; Wagner et al. 2019) and
1 We use the terms "own children" (as used by Goldscheider/Sassler 2006) and "pre-partnership
children" interchangeably.
From Living Apart to Living Together • 117
France (Régnier-Loilier 2016). The results of these studies suggest that being a par-
ent reduces the likelihood that a person will start co-residence with a new partner,
or will have the intention to do so. At a time when the number of single parents
is increasing, this paper focuses on the association between having own children
and the likelihood of an individual making the transition from living apart to living
together with a partner. We add to the literature in three ways. First, we take into
account the different pathways into single parenthood (separation, widowhood, or
out-of-union childbearing).2 The distinctions between these pathways have been
largely ignored in previous research, even though they are an important source of
diversity among single parents (Bernardi/Larenza 2018). Second, we compare sin-
gle parents with people who are childless. Finally, while most studies have focused
exclusively on women, our study examines the gendered nature of these processes
by including men as well as women. The inclusion of men in research on this topic
is essential given that non-resident father involvement (Westphal et al. 2014) and
co-parenting arrangements (Poortman/van Gaalen 2017) are becoming increasingly
common in the Netherlands.
The analyses are based on all four waves of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study
(NKPS). We performed discrete-time event-history analysis, with the transition from
LAT to co-residence as the event of interest, and an indicator of union history com-
bined with the pathway to single parenthood as the key independent variable. The
NKPS data provide detailed information that is rarely available in other datasets,
but include relatively few men and women in LAT partnerships. Our study therefore
cannot provide strong tests of hypotheses, but serves as one of the fi rst to explore
the potentially gendered transition from living apart to living together, the link with
the paths into single parenthood and the role of own children.
2 Background
Drawing upon past research on the subject, we argue that the presence of an indi-
vidual’s own children may be either negatively or positively associated with their
likelihood of making a transition from LAT to co-residence. In general, motivations
for making a transition to co-residence among those in LAT partnerships may be
related to a desire for more intimacy and spending time together, the wish to form
a family (also given social norms prescribing that co-residence should precede par-
enthood), and practical considerations such as pooling resources. Regardless of
motivations, it has been argued that co-residential partnerships generally involve
more partner commitment than LAT partnerships do (see, for example, Kamp Dush/
Amato 2005; Lois et al. 2010). We therefore start from and build upon theoretical
2 We use "partnership" to refer to any type of couple relationship, regardless of whether it is co-
residential or LAT. Co-residential partnerships are also referred to as unions, and include mar-
riage and unmarried cohabitation. Separation and widowhood refer to past unions, not to past
LAT partnerships.
• Roselinde van der Wiel, Clara. H. Mulder, Helga A.G. de Valk118
arguments concerning different levels of commitment in partner relationships and
different motivations for making the transition to co-residence between those with
and those without own children.
2.1 Why parenthood may be negatively associated with the transition
to co-residence: different life phases, protection of family life,
dyadic power, and costs of co-residence
There are different theoretical mechanisms that may explain why partners with own
children may be more or less likely to transition from LAT to co-residence than
those without children. First, those without children are in a different life-course
phase than those with children. It is likely that many of them are motivated to be-
come parents and form a family with their partner. This motivation might be even
stronger among those with previous union experience, because they might feel a
greater urgency to become parents after this did not happen in their previous un-
ion. In contrast, many of those with children might not feel the need to have more
children.
Second, the literature suggests that parents’ (perceived) responsibilities for their
children can be a reason for refraining from co-residence with a new partner. This
reluctance can be fuelled by the wish to maintain a stable family situation, but also,
for example, to avoid the interference of a new partner in the parent’s child-rearing
practices, to prevent the children from growing too attached to a new partner, or
to accommodate the wishes of the children when they do not approve of the new
partner (Lampard/Peggs 1999; Levin/Trost 1999; Levin 2004). These fi ndings sug-
gest that parents prioritise the wellbeing of their own children, and that being in a
new partnership may be attractive as long as this relationship does not affect their
own children too much. Living apart together can be seen as a way of being in a
partnership while protecting the home environment of an individual’s co-resident
children (Levin/Trost 1999; Levin 2004). In the following, we refer to this reasoning
as the “protection of family life” argument.
The results of a mixed-methods study by De Jong Gierveld and Merz (2013) in
the Netherlands confi rmed that parents’ decisions about whether to co-reside with
a new partner after divorce or widowhood are infl uenced by such considerations
even after children have reached adulthood. Indeed, it has been found that com-
pared to childless individuals, both female and male single parents are less likely to
have the intention to co-reside with (Lewin 2018 for 11 European countries; Poort-
man/Hewitt 2015 for the Netherlands) or marry (Reimondos et al. 2011 for Australia)
their LAT partner. The protection of family life argument may, however, apply to
mothers more than to fathers. Parents with co-resident children, who are predomi-
nantly women, could feel more hesitant about introducing a new partner to the
household than parents with non-resident children, who are predominantly men.
Moreover, gender expectations about work and care may result in women being
more inclined than men to prioritise the well-being of their children above their own.
In line with this reasoning, the recent work of Thomas et al. (2017a/b) has suggested
From Living Apart to Living Together • 119
that fathers are more likely than mothers to shift their priorities away from their prior
family ties when they re-partner.
A third argument for why we would expect to observe differences in the likeli-
hood of transitioning to co-residence between LAT partners who do and do not have
own children is grounded in the greater dyadic power (or the bargaining advantage)
of the new partner if they are childless (see Guttentag/Secord 1983 for a discussion
of these concepts). The greater dyadic power of the new childless partner results
from their stronger position on the partner market; i.e., compared to single parents,
whose desirability and "marriageability" are seen as limited, childless individuals
have more potential alternative partners available to them (Goldscheider/Kaufman
2006 for both fathers and mothers; Qian et al. 2005 for mothers; Stewart et al.
2003 for fathers). The new childless partner may be reluctant to form a more highly
committed partnership with the single parent (Guttentag/Secord 1983). Given the
childless partner’s power advantage, the likelihood that the partners will enter co-
residence may thus be reduced. A single parent, by contrast, may have a more lim-
ited choice of partners, and may thus settle for a sub-optimal partner. Uncertainty
about whether a match is optimal may also be a reason for postponing co-residence
until the parent is more convinced of the partner’s suitability, or for rejecting co-res-
idence with the partner entirely (van der Wiel et al. 2018). Some evidence suggests
that the position of single fathers on the partner market is more favourable than that
of single mothers, as women tend to be more willing than men to be a stepparent
(Bernhardt/Goldscheider 2002; Goldscheider/Kaufman 2006; Goldscheider/Sassler
2006). Again, these fi ndings indicate that the patterns in transitioning from LAT to
co-residence are different for fathers and mothers.
Finally, co-residence can be costly for both the parent and the partner. For the
new partner, co-residing with someone who has their own children is associated
with additional emotional, social, and fi nancial costs (Lichter/Graefe 2001). In con-
sidering whether to accept the role of stepparent, women seem to be more con-
cerned about taking on care responsibilities, while men tend to be more worried
about taking on fi nancial responsibilities (Lampard/Peggs 1999 for Great Britain).
LAT can offer an alternative to co-residence that is associated with less commit-
ment and lower costs. Moreover, for single parents, the lower demands and expec-
tations of LAT arrangements may be seen as desirable, providing conditions that
enable them to continue investing resources in their own children, whether co- or
non-resident (compare also the interview fi ndings by Lampard/Peggs 1999).
It should also be noted that for single parents, the transition from LAT to co-res-
idence may come at a cost. For example, in the Netherlands, single parents receive
tax benefi ts and fi nancial support, which they risk losing when they are registered
with a co-residential partner (Tweede Kamer 2017). The potential loss of welfare
income may act as a disincentive to co-residence, although conclusive evidence
that this is the case is lacking. Kalmijn and Monden (2010) found that among single
mothers in the Netherlands, receiving welfare reduced the likelihood of marriage,
but was not associated with the likelihood of cohabitation; possibly because, unlike
marriage, cohabitation arrangements do not have to be offi cially registered. In addi-
• Roselinde van der Wiel, Clara. H. Mulder, Helga A.G. de Valk120
tion, in the United States, Bennett et al. (1995) found a negative, but non-signifi cant
effect of receiving welfare on the likelihood of transitioning to marriage.
Again, these cost-related arguments may be more important for mothers and
their new partners than for fathers, because mothers are more likely than fathers to
be co-residing with their own children.
Overall, these theoretical arguments lead us to expect that women and men with
own children are less likely to transition from LAT to co-residence than those who
are childless. This expectation concerns parents who have younger co-resident
own children in particular. Ivanova et al. (2013) showed for several countries in Eu-
rope that a single parent’s chances of re-partnering were less affected when the
youngest child was over 18 years old.
2.2 Why parenthood may be positively associated with the transition to
co-residence: economic needs, family norms, and the opportunity
for parenthood
There could, however, also be reasons why a single parent would transition more
rapidly than a childless person from LAT to co-residence with a new partner. It has
been suggested that for single parents in poor economic circumstances in particu-
lar, co-residence could create a more stable emotional and fi nancial situation. Sepa-
ration, which is the most common pathway into single parenthood, negatively af-
fects the partners’ economic circumstances. This is particularly true for women, in
part because the mother generally becomes the custodial parent in the Netherlands
(Poortman 2000). Entering a new co-residential partnership can be a strategy for
coping with the fi nancial consequences of separation (de Regt et al. 2013 for Bel-
gium; Dewilde/Uunk 2008 for eleven European countries).
Furthermore, a desire to follow the prevailing social norms that a two-parent fam-
ily is best-suited for raising children may motivate parents to transition from LAT to
co-residence. This is especially likely in a country like the Netherlands, where large
shares of the population still hold traditional views on family life. In a 2008 survey
conducted in the Netherlands, 74 percent of respondents agreed that a child needs
a home with a mother and a father to grow up happily, and 35 percent of respond-
ents disapproved of a woman wanting to be a single mother outside of a stable
partnership (EVS 2010). Social norms have considerable infl uence on the formation
and the development of partnerships (see, for example, Arosio 2010; Lewis 1973).
Thus, pressure from societal norms and parents’ own views on family life could
increase parents’ likelihood of transforming a LAT partnership into a co-residential
one. Given the gendered norms regarding work and childcare responsibilities in the
Netherlands (see, for example, Yerkes/Visser 2006), we may expect that this argu-
ment applies mostly to women.
Finally, it has been posited that some people may be attracted by the opportu-
nity of "instant parenthood" by entering a relationship with a person who already
has own children. Bennett et al. (1995) made this argument for the male partners
of single mothers. Since men have less control than women over the decision to
become a parent because they cannot bear children themselves, co-residing with
From Living Apart to Living Together • 121
a mother and her children can be an alternative way to fulfi lling a desire for (step-)
fatherhood (Goldscheider/Kaufman 2006). Goldscheider and Kaufman (2006) found
some support for this argument, but Bennett et al. (1995) did not (both in the United
States). Similarly, Goldscheider and Kaufman (2006) speculated that some women
may want to have children, but dread the idea of being pregnant and bearing a child.
For these women, stepmotherhood could offer an alternative route to becoming a
parent, thereby making them more likely to transition from LAT to co-residence with
a new partner who has own children.
Based on these theoretical arguments concerning the economic needs, social
norms, and opportunities for parenthood, we might expect the opposite of what
we argued in Section 2.1, namely that women and men with own children are more
likely to transition from LAT to co-residence than those who are childless. In the
empirical part of the paper, we will explore the direction of the relationship between
having own children and the transition to co-residence in our sample.
Furthermore, based on our literature review and the existing empirical evidence,
we expect to fi nd that the effect of having own children is gendered. Both the nega-
tive and the positive effects of having own children may be greater for the transition
to co-residence for mothers than for fathers. The effects of having own children are
probably also greater when the children are younger than when they are older.
2.3 Pathways to single parenthood
Previous studies have only started to address the role of the diversity of the path-
ways to single parenthood (Bernardi/Larenza 2018). However, the theoretical argu-
ments on the factors that stimulate or inhibit the transition from LAT to co-residence
may depend on how the partners became single parents. We explore this diversity
by distinguishing between parents who are separated, widowed, or had a child out-
side of a union. For separated parents, the desire to avoid another painful separa-
tion or problematic co-residential experience – both for themselves and for their
children – can be a reason to avoid making a full commitment to a new partner, and
to instead remain in a long-term living apart together arrangement (Levin 2004 for
Sweden; van der Wiel et al. 2018 for the Netherlands).
Widowed parents may also be afraid or hesitant to commit fully to a new partner
by moving in together. Having experienced the painful loss of a beloved partner
could cause the parent to seek to maintain distance when starting a new relation-
ship. Moreover, continued loyalty to a deceased partner can hinder the develop-
ment of a new partnership (Stevens 2002). Stevens has suggested that this loy-
alty may be the reason why some widowed people refrain from co-residing with a
new partner. Furthermore, in many cases, the partnership preceding widowhood
involved intensive caregiving tasks for the partner, especially for women (see, for
example, DiGiacomo et al. 2013; Hebert/Schulz 2006). Hence, there is evidence that
widows, but not widowers, perceive being relieved of the responsibility to care for
their deceased partner as an advantage of living alone (Davidson 2001 for the Unit-
ed Kingdom). It has also been shown that widowers are more likely than widows to
• Roselinde van der Wiel, Clara. H. Mulder, Helga A.G. de Valk122
say they want a new partnership, but often feel constrained in fi nding a new partner
by their age and poor health (Davidson 2001).
Clearly, the experiences of widowed and separated single parents are very dif-
ferent. It is not immediately obvious how these differences might lead to differenc-
es in their likelihood of transitioning to co-residence. For two reasons, it could be
easier for widowed parents than for separated parents to introduce a new partner to
the household. First, whereas the other parent is likely still involved and enacting a
parenting role in the children’s lives when the parents are separated, there could be
more room or even a greater need and desire for a new (co-residential) parent fi gure
in the lives of the children of widowed parents. Second, the children of widowed
parents appear to have fewer behavioural problems and higher levels of well-being
than the children of divorced parents in the Netherlands (Spruijt et al. 2001). It should
be noted, however, that most of the existing literature on this topic has compared
widowed and separated individuals in general, rather than parents specifi cally. Wu
and Schimmele (2005) found that in Canada, widowed people had lower chances of
re-entering a co-residential partnership than separated people did. It has also been
shown that among those in LAT relationships, widowed individuals were relatively
unlikely to move in together (Régnier-Loilier 2016). Similarly, De Jong Gierveld and
Merz (2013) found that widowhood made parents in the Netherlands more likely to
choose LAT over co-residence when re-partnering.
The third way of becoming a single parent is through out-of-union childbearing
(that is, not with a co-residential partner). This pathway to single parenthood is
observed almost exclusively among women. It is rather uncommon in the Nether-
lands; in 2012, only 8 percent of children in the Netherlands were born into a single-
parent household (Loozen et al. 2014). Mothers of children born outside of a union
may face social stigma (see, for example, Wiegers/Chunn 2015). Because of this
stigma, men may try to keep their romantic involvement with these mothers private
by maintaining separate households, and they may be reluctant to increase the level
of commitment in a relationship. Such a reluctance of men to commit to this specifi c
group of single mothers would go against a positive effect of social norms on family
life leading to conformance to the two-parent family standard (see previous sec-
tion). Moreover, the fact that these women followed an alternative path to family for-
mation could signal that they have a general lack of interest in living with a partner.
A recent study by Bastin (2019) on single mothers’ partnership and household
formation in Germany looked at women’s partnership contexts before single moth-
erhood. The author found few signifi cant differences between the pathways into
single motherhood, but women who were unpartnered when they became a single
mother had a signifi cantly higher hazard of moving in with their LAT partner than the
other single mothers (but at the same time had relatively low relationship formation
rates). It is so far unclear whether this is also true in other contexts, and for men and
women alike. Based on the literature outlined above, our study aims to explore the
potentially different patterns of transition from LAT to co-residence based on the
origins of single parenthood among women and men.
From Living Apart to Living Together • 123
2.4 Other factors associated with the transition to co-residence
We accounted for several other factors that have been found to be associated with
the transition from LAT to co-residence in earlier research. Having co-resided with
another partner in the past has been shown to affect people’s current relationships,
even though these fi ndings are inconsistent. Bernhardt and Goldscheider (2002)
showed, for example, that having been previously married was a positive, signifi -
cant predictor of entering a new union. However, Poortman (2007) found that the
chances of union formation were signifi cantly lower for those who were re-partner-
ing than for those who were forming their fi rst union.
The effect of partnership duration on the chances of co-residing has been found
to be non-linear. In two German studies, partners who had been living apart for a
short time only or for longer than two years were shown to be less likely to start
co-residence than those who had been living apart for one or two years (Krapf 2017;
Wagner et al. 2019). Previous studies on the transition from LAT to co-residence
also found a negative (Régnier-Loilier 2016) or non-linear, inverted U-shaped (Krapf
2017; Wagner et al. 2019) effect of age.
Furthermore, the ages of the partners are relevant in this context, as fi ndings
from in-depth interviews (van der Wiel et al. 2018) and survey data (Liefbroer et al.
2015) have suggested that living apart tends to be a transitory stage for younger
individuals, but is often a longer-term or permanent state for older individuals.
People who are highly educated and employed may be less likely to co-reside
with a partner because they have relatively little to gain from such an arrangement,
and face higher opportunity costs of co-residence (Konietzka/Tatjes 2014). Further-
more, the literature suggests that it is important to take into account whether an
individual lives in an urban or rural area (e.g. Bennett et al. 1995; Coulter/Hu 2017;
Kalmijn/Monden 2010).
As the characteristics of the partner may be associated with an individual’s like-
lihood of transitioning to co-residence, we include information on the partner’s
age, educational attainment, and employment status. Additionally, we account for
whether the partner had own children. Bernhardt and Goldscheider (2002) found
that having co-resident children was negatively associated with women’s likelihood
of union formation, unless it was with a partner who had co-resident children him-
self; whereas for men having co-resident children mattered less. Goldscheider and
Sassler (2006) found that for men, having own children was associated with a lower
likelihood of forming a union only if they did not live with their children, and the po-
tential union was with a childless woman.
Finally, distance between LAT partners was found to be negatively associated
with the likelihood of entering co-residence in Germany in the study by Krapf (2017).
However, it was not possible to incorporate this predictor in our analyses owing to
data limitations.
• Roselinde van der Wiel, Clara. H. Mulder, Helga A.G. de Valk124
3 Data, measures, and methods
3.1 Data and sample
We use the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study (NKPS) (Dykstra et al. 2005; Dykstra et
al. 2012; Hogerbrugge et al. 2015; Merz et al. 2012). The NKPS is a multi-actor panel
study of four waves, each spaced three years apart, which started in 2002/2004
with an initial sample of 8,161 Dutch-speaking men and women between the ages
of 18 and 79 (Dykstra et al. 2005). The response rate of the NKPS at wave one was
45 percent. Response rates in the Netherlands tend to be lower than in other West-
ern industrialised countries (de Leeuw/de Heer 2002). The initial sample size of 8,161
dropped to 2,382 in wave four, after follow-up interviews without refreshment. For
more information on non-response in the NKPS, see the metadata (e.g., Merz et al.
2012). All analyses in this paper are based on unweighted data. We explored the ex-
tent to which panel attrition was selective with respect to partnership status, parent-
hood status, age, and employment status, and concluded that this was not the case
(full details available upon request from the fi rst author). For example, respond-
ents in LAT partnerships at wave one did not differ signifi cantly from cohabiting
respondents in their likelihood of non-response in wave two (Dykstra et al. 2012).
Respondents in LAT partnerships were identifi ed in the survey as those who re-
sponded affi rmatively to the question “Do you have a partner at the moment, that is
to say, someone with whom you have had a relationship for at least three months?”
and then answered negatively to the question “Does your partner live with you
here?” For childless women and both childless men and men with own children,
LAT relationships make up roughly 20 percent of all person-months spent without
a co-residential partner – the other 80 percent are spent in singlehood. For women
with own children, the share in LAT is lower, at 13 percent. Given that, once in LAT,
those with own children spend on average more time in it than those without, this
lower percentage suggests that mothers are less likely than childless women to
enter LAT in the fi rst place.
The dependent variable was whether the person started co-residence with their
partner in one of the subsequent waves. Our sub-sample included all LAT partner-
ship spells that existed at the time of wave one, or that started afterwards. The
observation window started in the month of the fi rst interview. This implies that
some of these spells were left-censored. We kept these spells in the dataset in or-
der to retain as many observations as possible. In the discrete-time analyses with
piecewise constant hazards that we perform, left-censored cases can be included
without technical diffi culties. We include a time-varying categorical variable indicat-
ing the duration of the spell in a piecewise constant way.
Observations were treated as right-censored after the last interview, the start of
co-residence, or the end of the partnership. Having a child with the current LAT part-
ner was another reason for censoring, but this situation was rare (n=25 previously
childless women, n=19 previously childless men, n=11 women with own children,
and n=3 men with own children). Fathers with out-of-union children were excluded
from the analyses because of the very small number of such cases (n=3). Further-
From Living Apart to Living Together • 125
W
o
m
e
n
M
e
n
W
it
h
o
w
n
c
h
ild
re
n
C
h
ild
le
ss
To
ta
l
W
it
h
o
w
n
c
h
ild
re
n
C
h
ild
le
ss
To
ta
l
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
e
rs
o
n
-m
o
n
th
sa
8
,3
7
2
7
,9
4
3
16
,3
15
3
,9
8
8
7,
3
0
3
11
,2
91
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
in
d
iv
id
u
a
ls
b
2
6
2
3
2
9
5
8
9
13
7
2
9
7
4
3
3
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
a
rt
n
e
rs
h
ip
sc
3
2
0
4
3
9
7
5
9
16
9
3
8
3
5
5
2
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
tr
a
n
si
ti
o
n
s
in
to
c
o
-r
e
si
d
e
n
ce
10
1
21
6
31
7
61
19
4
2
5
5
%
p
a
rt
n
e
rs
h
ip
s
ta
tu
s
a
t
e
n
d
o
f
o
b
se
rv
a
ti
o
n
c
S
ti
ll
L
A
T
6
2
4
5
2
3
E
n
te
re
d
c
o
-r
e
si
d
e
n
ce
4
4
5
7
5
2
5
3
5
9
5
7
S
e
p
a
ra
te
d
5
0
41
4
5
4
2
3
9
4
0
%
p
a
re
n
th
o
o
d
s
ta
tu
s
a
n
d
u
n
io
n
h
is
to
ry
a
N
e
v
e
r
in
u
n
io
n
a
n
d
c
h
ild
le
ss
n
.a
.
5
8
2
8
n
.a
.
6
3
41
E
v
e
r
in
u
n
io
n
a
n
d
c
h
ild
le
ss
n
.a
.
4
2
2
0
n
.a
.
3
7
2
4
S
e
p
a
ra
te
d
w
it
h
c
h
ild
re
n
8
2
n
.a
.
4
2
8
0
n
.a
.
2
8
W
id
o
w
e
d
w
it
h
c
h
ild
re
n
13
n
.a
.
7
2
0
n
.a
.
7
O
u
t-
o
f-
u
n
io
n
c
h
ild
re
n
5
n
.a
.
3
n
.a
.
n
.a
.
n
.a
.
%
p
a
rt
n
e
rs
h
ip
d
u
ra
ti
o
n
a
<
10
m
o
n
th
s
2
4
3
0
2
7
2
8
3
0
3
0
10
-<
2
5
m
o
n
th
s
2
5
2
8
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
8
2
5
-<
5
0
m
o
n
th
s
2
7
2
2
2
5
2
5
2
4
2
5
5
0
+
m
o
n
th
s
2
4
2
0
2
2
19
18
18
M
e
a
n
a
g
e
a
4
8
3
4
41
5
4
3
7
4
3
%
l
e
v
e
l o
f
e
d
u
ca
ti
o
n
a
S
e
co
n
d
a
ry
o
r
le
ss
6
4
5
2
5
8
51
5
6
5
4
Te
rt
ia
ry
3
6
4
8
4
2
4
9
4
4
4
6
%
e
m
p
lo
y
m
e
n
t
st
a
tu
sa
E
m
p
lo
y
e
d
6
9
6
7
6
8
7
0
7
0
7
0
O
th
e
r
31
3
3
3
2
3
0
3
0
3
0
T
a
b
.
1:
D
e
sc
ri
p
ti
v
e
s
ta
ti
st
ic
s
–
n
u
m
b
e
rs
,
co
lu
m
n
p
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e
s
o
r
m
e
an
s
• Roselinde van der Wiel, Clara. H. Mulder, Helga A.G. de Valk126
T
a
b
.
1:
C
o
n
ti
n
u
a
ti
o
n
W
o
m
e
n
M
e
n
W
it
h
o
w
n
c
h
ild
re
n
C
h
ild
le
ss
To
ta
l
W
it
h
o
w
n
c
h
ild
re
n
C
h
ild
le
ss
To
ta
l
%
m
u
n
ic
ip
a
l u
rb
a
n
is
a
ti
o
n
l
e
v
e
la
M
o
d
e
ra
te
ly
t
o
v
e
ry
s
tr
o
n
g
ly
u
rb
a
n
is
e
d
71
8
5
7
8
6
4
8
3
7
7
N
o
t
o
r
h
a
rd
ly
u
rb
a
n
is
e
d
2
9
15
2
2
3
6
17
2
3
%
p
a
rt
n
e
r
ch
a
ra
c
te
ri
st
ic
s
av
a
ila
b
ili
ty
a
K
n
o
w
n
9
0
8
2
8
6
9
0
8
3
8
6
U
n
kn
o
w
n
10
18
14
10
17
14
%
p
a
rt
n
e
r
h
a
s
o
w
n
c
h
ild
re
n
a
Y
e
s
6
7
2
6
4
8
71
2
2
4
0
N
o
3
3
74
5
2
2
9
7
8
6
0
P
a
rt
n
e
r’
s
m
e
a
n
a
g
e
a
5
0
3
7
4
4
51
3
4
4
0
%
p
a
rt
n
e
r’
s
le
v
e
l o
f
e
d
u
ca
ti
o
n
a
S
e
co
n
d
a
ry
o
r
le
ss
6
2
5
3
5
8
74
5
5
6
2
Te
rt
ia
ry
3
8
4
7
4
2
2
6
4
5
3
8
%
p
a
rt
n
e
r’
s
e
m
p
lo
y
m
e
n
t
st
a
tu
sa
E
m
p
lo
y
e
d
7
2
7
9
7
5
61
7
8
7
2
O
th
e
r
2
8
21
2
5
3
9
2
2
2
8
U
n
it
o
f
an
al
y
si
s:
a
p
e
rs
o
n
-m
o
n
th
s;
b
i
n
d
iv
id
u
al
s
–
so
m
e
i
n
d
iv
id
u
al
s
co
n
tr
ib
u
te
w
it
h
b
o
th
a
c
h
ild
le
ss
p
ar
tn
e
rs
h
ip
s
p
e
ll
an
d
a
s
p
e
ll
as
a
p
ar
e
n
t;
c
p
ar
tn
e
rs
h
ip
s
p
e
lls
.
S
o
u
rc
e
:
N
K
P
S
w
av
e
s
1
-4
From Living Apart to Living Together • 127
more, the data were truncated after partnership durations of more than 100 months,
because the population at risk and the number actually starting co-residence was
minimal after this duration. At the end of observation, only a small minority of our
population was still living apart together – most had either entered co-residence or
separated (see Table 1).
Our analyses covered 27,606 person-months in 1,311 LAT partnerships of 1,022
men and women and 572 transitions into co-residence (see the fi rst rows of Table 1).
The descriptive statistics in Table 1 show that, especially among women, individuals
with own children made up a signifi cant share of those in LAT partnerships (in line
with previous studies based on other data and countries: Reimondos et al. 2011;
Upton-Davis 2012).
3.2 Measures
The dependent variable was whether or not a transition from LAT to co-residence
occurred. No distinction was made between married and unmarried unions because
only a few transitions from LAT to marriage occurred (n=31 among women and
n=28 among men). The key independent variable was a combination of parenthood
status and union history, and was updated monthly. Respondents were classifi ed
as one of the following: never in a union and childless, ever in a union and child-
less,3 with out-of-union children, separated with children, or widowed with children
(only living biological or adopted children were taken into account). Although prior
research has shown the relevance of distinguishing between co-resident, part-time
resident, and non-resident children (e.g. Goldscheider/Sassler 2006), the small sam-
ple size did not allow for such distinctions.
The following time-varying independent variables were updated at each wave
(but treated as constant between interview waves): educational attainment (0 = up
to secondary education or 1 = tertiary education), employed (0) or not employed (1),
and residence in a moderately to strongly urbanised (1) or less urbanised (0) munici-
pality. The time-varying control variables, which were updated monthly, are age and
duration of the partnership. In addition, we accounted for whether the partners had
own children, as well as for the age, educational attainment, and employment status
of the partners. See Table 1 for the distribution of these variables in the sample as a
whole, and by parenthood status.
Information about the partners’ socio-demographic characteristics was fre-
quently missing. For example, this information was not recorded when a partner-
ship started and ended between waves, when the partnership status was corrected
during a later interview, or was missing at random. When the partner information
was missing in one wave but available for the same partner in the previous or the
next wave, we resorted to the nearest record available. When the age of the partner
was missing, it was imputed using the median partner’s age of the women or the
3 Given the small number of widowed childless women, it was not possible to distinguish these
women from separated childless women.
• Roselinde van der Wiel, Clara. H. Mulder, Helga A.G. de Valk128
men with the same parenthood status and union history. At this point, a remain-
ing 10 percent of person-months had missing values for the partner’s employment
status and educational attainment, and 12 percent of person-months had missing
values for the partner’s parenthood status (levels were the same for women and
men). A dummy variable “partner characteristics unknown" indicates such cases.
See Appendix 1 for a report on the coding of partnership status, partnership dura-
tion, and parenthood status.
3.3 Methods
Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used for the visualisation of the timing of tran-
sitions from LAT to co-residence. Next, discrete-time event-history analysis was
performed with the transition from LAT to co-residence as dependent variable, em-
ploying a logistic regression of person-months (Yamaguchi 1991). To adjust for the
possible clustering of partnerships within individuals, we calculated robust stand-
ard errors. Similar analyses were conducted for our sample of women and men
separately.
4 Results
4.1 Descriptive statistics
Figure 1 shows the estimated proportion of women and men in LAT over time, and
visualises the differences between those with and without own children in combi-
nation with different union histories in terms of the timing of their transition to co-
residence. The fi gure shows that women and men with own children were slower
to enter co-residence with their LAT partner than those who are childless. After two
years in the partnership, only 11 percent of widowed women with children, 18 per-
cent of women with out-of-union children, and 26 percent of separated women with
children were estimated to have entered co-residence. It should be noted, however,
that the numbers of widowed mothers (n=30) and of mothers with out-of-union chil-
dren (n=14) were small. In comparison, 32 percent of childless women who were
never in a union and 44 percent of childless women who were ever in a union had
entered co-residence by that point in time. Although similar overall patterns are ob-
served for men, the level of diversity among men was lower. However, we still fi nd
that those with own children were the slowest to enter co-residence. The estimates
show that after two years, 29 percent of widowed and separated men with children
were estimated to have entered co-residence, compared with 36 percent of child-
less men who had never been in a union and 44 percent of childless men who had
been in a union before. It should be noted here as well that the number of widowers
was small (n=26).
From Living Apart to Living Together • 129
Fig. 1: Kaplan-Meier estimates of the timing of the transition from LAT to co-
residence over time, by parenthood status and union history
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
20 40 60 80 100
Partnership duration (months)
Never in union and childless
Ever in union and childless
Separated with children
Widowed with children
Out-of-union children
0
Proportion still LAT
Women
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
20 40 60 80 100
Partnership duration (months)
0
Proportion still LAT
Men
Source: NKPS waves 1-4
• Roselinde van der Wiel, Clara. H. Mulder, Helga A.G. de Valk130
4.2 Multivariate analyses: the role of own children
The results from discrete-time event-history analysis (see Table 2) largely confi rm
the differences shown in Figure 1, and support our expectation based on protection
of family life, dyadic power, and costs of co-residence for women. Separated wom-
en with children were estimated to be 35 percent ((1-0.645)*100 percent) less likely
to enter co-residence with their LAT partner than childless women who were ever
in a union; this difference was statistically signifi cant (p=0.011). Widowed women
with children (eb=0.423, p=0.087) and women with out-of-union children (eb=0.366,
p=0.108) were estimated to be even less likely to start co-residence than childless
women who were previously in a union. However, these differences were not or
only marginally statistically signifi cant, probably due to the small sample sizes of
these categories.
Women Men
eb b p eb b p
Parenthood status and union history (ref. ever in union and childless)
Never in union and childless 0.792 -0.234 0.112 0.814 -0.206 0.219
Separated with children 0.645** -0.439 0.011 0.841 -0.173 0.444
Widowed with children 0.423* -0.860 0.087 1.812 0.595 0.161
Out-of-union children 0.366 -1.004 0.108 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Partnership duration (ref. 10-<25 months)
<10 months 0.620*** -0.478 0.001 0.696** -0.362 0.026
25-<50 months 0.667** -0.405 0.011 0.829 -0.187 0.285
50+ months 0.668** -0.403 0.026 0.641* -0.445 0.060
Age (ref. 35-44)
18-24 0.819 -0.200 0.470 0.863 -0.148 0.639
25-34 1.661*** 0.508 0.006 1.479* 0.392 0.052
45-54 0.772 -0.258 0.202 0.789 -0.237 0.298
55-64 0.766 -0.266 0.465 0.787 -0.240 0.498
65+ 0.182 -1.703 0.110 0.742 -0.299 0.620
Tertiary education 0.955 -0.046 0.711 1.166 0.153 0.293
Not employed 0.765* -0.268 0.092 0.611** -0.492 0.014
Urban residential environment 0.861 -0.150 0.295 0.865 -0.145 0.425
Partner characteristics unknown 0.409*** -0.894 0.001 0.346*** -1.061 0.000
Partner has own children 0.900 -0.105 0.530 0.812 -0.208 0.299
Partner’s age 0.978** -0.022 0.023 0.976** -0.025 0.032
Partner tertiary education 1.008 0.008 0.947 0.927 -0.076 0.593
Partner not employed 0.964 -0.036 0.842 0.846 -0.168 0.346
Tab. 2: Transition from LAT to co-residence. Logistic regression (odds ratios,
coeffi cients, p-values)
* p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01
Source: NKPS waves 1-4
From Living Apart to Living Together • 131
The regression results for men suggest that, in line with what we found for wom-
en, men who were separated with children may be less likely to start co-residence
than childless men who had previously been in a union (eb=0.841, p=0.444). How-
ever, the estimated effect is smaller than it is for women and the coeffi cient does not
reach statistical signifi cance (please note that we use the term "effect" as a conveni-
ent shorthand for statistical associations, without necessarily implying causality). In
contrast to their female counterparts, widowed men with children were estimated
to be 1.8 times more likely to start co-residence than childless men who were previ-
ously in a union (eb=1.812, p=0.161). Despite the large effect, this difference was not
statistically signifi cant, which is likely because of the small number of widowed men
with children (n=26). Thus, although the data do not provide the statistical power
to draw any fi rm conclusions, our fi ndings do suggest a gradient between different
categories of parenthood status and union history.
The results from a regression model on pooled data for men and women includ-
ing an interaction term between sex and parenthood status/union history partly
confi rm our expectation on gender differences in the effects of having own children
(see Table 3). The gender difference in the impact of being widowed with children,
as opposed to being childless and previously in a union, which was found in the
separate analyses for men and women, is convincingly confi rmed by the interaction
model (eb=4.465, p=0.010). The results further provide some indication that being
separated with children may indeed have a smaller negative effect for men than for
women (eb=1.308, p=0.291).
The bivariate and multivariate fi ndings point in different directions. Whereas the
Kaplan-Meier estimates suggest that widowed mothers were less likely than women
with out-of-union children to enter co-residence, the regression results suggest the
Tab. 3: Transition from LAT to co-residence. Logistic regression, model with
interaction term (odds ratios, coeffi cients, p-values)
eb b p
Parenthood status and union history (ref. ever in union and childless)
Never in union and childless 0.810 -0.211 0.130
Separated with children 0.648** -0.433 0.009
Widowed with children 0.435* -0.833 0.083
Out-of-union children 0.375 -0.982 0.113
Man 0.910 -0.094 0.580
Interaction term
Never in union and childless * Man 0.989 -0.011 0.956
Separated with children * Man 1.308 0.269 0.291
Widowed with children * Man 4.465** 1.496 0.010
* p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01
Notes: Same control variables as in Table 2, results not shown. No parameter estimated
for men with out-of-union children because the category is empty.
Source: NKPS waves 1-4
• Roselinde van der Wiel, Clara. H. Mulder, Helga A.G. de Valk132
opposite. Stepwise modelling (not shown) indicated that compositional differences
in terms of age and employment status explain these contradictory fi ndings: wid-
owed mothers were older and less often employed, and were therefore found less
likely to enter co-residence than women with out-of-union children in the Kaplan-
Meier analysis. The Kaplan-Meier results for men indicated that those who were
widowed transitioned to co-residence more slowly than those who were childless
and were previously in a union. However, after controlling for the ages of the men
and their partners in the regression model, widowed men in fact appear more likely
to enter co-residence than any other category in the parenthood status and union
history variable.
Based on our analyses, we cannot draw fi rm conclusions about differences
between childless persons with and without prior union experience. The Kaplan-
Meier estimates do however suggest that for shorter partnership durations, those
childless persons who were previously in a union are quicker to enter co-residence
than those who were not, but that this pattern reverses at longer partnership dura-
tions (Fig. 1). The regression results show a moderately negative but non-signifi cant
effect of being childless and without prior union experiences (women: eb=0.792,
p=0.112; men: eb=0.814, p=0.219).
The results show little evidence of an effect of the partner having own chil-
dren, although the coeffi cients point in the expected negative direction (women:
eß=0.900, p=0.530; men: eß=0.812, p=0.299). To gain a better understanding of the
role of having own children for each partner, we estimated an additional model that
investigated whether the likelihood of starting co-residence differed depending on
whether only the female partner, only the male partner, both partners, or neither
of the partners had own children (not in table; results available upon request from
fi rst author). The likelihood of women starting co-residence was not found to be as-
sociated with the male partner having own children. Furthermore, women who had
children and whose partner had own children as well were not found to be signifi -
cantly more or less likely to start co-residence than women who had own children
but whose partner did not (eb=0.948, p=0.821). The likelihood of men starting co-
residence was shown to be 45 percent lower when both partners, rather than only
the male partner, had own children (eb=0.551, p=0.044). However, whether only the
male partner, only the female partner, or both partners had children as opposed to
neither partner was not found to make a signifi cant difference in men’s likelihood
of entering co-residence. Thus, we did not replicate previous fi ndings that the ef-
fect of having own children on the likelihood of starting co-residence depended on
whether the partner also had children (Bernhardt/Goldscheider 2002; Goldscheider/
Sassler 2006).
To test whether the effects of having own children on the likelihood of transition-
ing to co-residence differed between parents of minor and adult children, we ran
a model on a sample of parents only (see Appendix 2, Table A1). Mothers whose
youngest child was aged 22 or older were estimated to be almost twice as likely to
enter co-residence with their LAT partner as mothers whose youngest child was
aged 10–21 (eb=1.970, p=0.140). Given the large effect, the non-signifi cance is likely
due to the small sample. For women, children’s age is a reasonable indicator of
From Living Apart to Living Together • 133
their residence status, given that the vast majority of minor children live with their
mothers and it is almost exclusively older children who are non-resident. In line with
previous fi ndings by Ivanova et al. (2013), our result suggests that when children are
older and thus likely to have left the parental home, they matter less for their moth-
er’s partnership choices. Of course, the age of the mother partly captures this effect
in the main analysis, as her age and that of her children are correlated. The number
of children (1 or 2+) and whether the youngest child was under age 22 or under
age 10 was not found to make a difference; effects were very small and p-values
very large. For fathers, the age of the youngest child (aged 22 or older compared to
aged 10-21) was less strongly associated with the transition to co-residence than for
mothers (eb=1.305, p=0.572). Most fathers’ children are non-resident, regardless of
their age. We refer to Appendix 2, Table A2 for the mean age of the individual and
of the youngest child as well as the average number of children, for each group of
union history and parenthood status. As one would expect, widowed fathers and
mothers are on average about 10-15 years older than their separated counterparts,
and so are their children. Hardly any difference in the average number of children is
found between respondents with different union histories and parenthood statuses.
4.3 Control variables
We further observe that the likelihood of entering co-residence was strongly as-
sociated with the duration of the partnership, and was highest between 10 and 25
months after couple formation (Table 2). This fi nding corresponds with the results
found by Krapf (2017) for Germany. As expected, the transition to co-residence
was shown to be age-graded. This relationship followed an inverse U-shape, with
women and men aged 25-34 being the most likely to make the transition, and those
aged 65+ being the least likely. For the age of the partner, we found a modest but
signifi cant negative effect (women: eb=0.978, p=0.023; men: eb=0.976, p=0.032).
The partner’s age squared made no signifi cant contribution to the model, and using
a categorical specifi cation for the partner’s age also yielded no signifi cant results.
Individuals who were not employed were shown to be less likely to start co-resi-
dence than those who were employed (women: eb=0.752, p=0.066; men: eb=0.611,
p=0.014). Furthermore, we found that when the partner’s information was unknown,
the likelihood of starting co-residence was signifi cantly lower. The other control var-
iables for both women/men and their partners were not found to have any sizeable
or signifi cant association with the likelihood of starting co-residence.
5 Discussion and conclusion
We studied the associations between having own children and the likelihood of
entering co-residence with a LAT partner for both women and men. Getting insight
into these patterns is crucial given the large and increasing number of single par-
ents in many countries, and the fact that many of these parents will enter a new
partnership. This paper contributes to the literature by focusing on individuals in
• Roselinde van der Wiel, Clara. H. Mulder, Helga A.G. de Valk134
LAT relationships, which is a common partnership type among women and men
with own children. Furthermore, we provide in-depth analyses of how parenthood
status and union history are associated with the likelihood of transitioning from LAT
to a co-residential union. It should be noted that we do not make any causal claims,
even though in our discussion of the results we sometimes use the term "effect" for
readability.
The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and event-history analysis suggested that
women with own children may be less likely to make the transition from living apart
to living together with a partner than childless women with prior union experience
are. If they did so at all, it took them a relatively long time. This fi nding seems to be
in line with the protection of family life argument, which states that mothers may
choose to have a new partner, but also want to protect their children from any pos-
sible negative effects of the partnership. The results may also refl ect the perceived
additional costs of co-residence and the dyadic power advantage of the male part-
ners. Our fi ndings echo those of Krapf (2017), Régnier-Loilier (2016) and Wagner et
al. (2019) for Germany and France.
It appears that not just the presence of children, but the event at the onset of
single motherhood (separation, widowhood, or out-of-union childbearing) is asso-
ciated with women’s likelihood of transitioning to co-residence. The results sug-
gest that separated mothers are somewhat more likely to start co-residence than
widowed mothers. Mothers who had children outside of a union before the current
partnership had the lowest estimated likelihood of making a transition. This fi nd-
ing may indicate that these women were less interested than the other mothers in
being in a co-residential partnership. We must note, however, that the differences
between mothers with different pathways into single motherhood are not statisti-
cally signifi cant. This could be due to our small sample, and calls for future studies
including this information to replicate our work.
Bastin’s (2019) study also illustrated the relevance of pathways into single moth-
erhood for partnership and household formation. Her fi nding that single mothers
who were unpartnered at the time of birth had a relatively high risk of moving in with
a LAT partner seems contrary to our fi nding at fi rst. However, being unpartnered is
not the same as being out-of-union. The category single mothers with out-of-union
children in our study includes women who had a child within a prior LAT partner-
ship. This history of living apart from a partner even in the situation of having chil-
dren together might indicate a particularly strong preference for LAT. The example
demonstrates the importance of clear defi nitions and terminology in research. Us-
ing qualitative methods, the partnership preferences of these women having chil-
dren without a steady or a co-residential partner could be further explored.
The results for men were by and large similar to those for women, but did not
always reach statistical signifi cance. Our fi ndings seem to suggest that men who
are separated with children may be less likely to start co-residence than childless
men who have also been in a union before; this negative association seems to be
smaller for men than for women. Widowhood may have a different meaning for men
and women, in that this pathway was positively associated with the likelihood of
entering co-residence for men, and negatively for women. These fi ndings suggest
From Living Apart to Living Together • 135
that, similar to what was found in previous studies (e.g. Ivanova et al. 2013), having
own children matters less in the union formation processes of men than of women.
However, the current study could not provide clear evidence for this, due to limited
statistical power.
Our fi nding that women with own children seem less likely to transition from
LAT to co-residence than their childless counterparts with prior union experience
may signify a path of relatively low family stability for themselves and their chil-
dren, as LAT partnerships are generally less stable than co-residential partnerships
(Asendorpf 2008). Family instability has been shown to be associated with nega-
tive outcomes for children’s well-being (e.g. Osborne/McLanahan 2007). Having
a new partner is less intrusive for children when the partner does not live in the
same household. Thus, by living apart from her partner, the relationship between
the mother and her child is managed and protected (Levin 2004). It would be inter-
esting for future studies to investigate what happens to these mothers when their
children have reached adulthood and are no longer living with them. Our additional
analyses have suggested that there were some differences by the age of the child,
but we could not analyse this issue in depth. It may, however, be relevant to learn
more about how these mothers catch up and start new or different types of partner
relationships later in life, and how these relationships are associated with their well-
being, and that of their children.
While the NKPS provided rich data on partnership and fertility histories for our
event-history analysis, the desire for a detailed specifi cation of parenthood status
and union history resulted in our study having limited statistical power. In this light,
we emphasise that non-signifi cant fi ndings must be interpreted with caution and
that they can neither be taken as conclusive support for the substantive hypothesis,
nor as evidence that the null hypothesis is true. It would be useful to replicate and
further develop this exploration using other large datasets or cross-national data
collections, such as the Generations and Gender Survey. A larger sample would
also allow for a distinction between the transition to cohabitation and the transition
to marriage. A further limitation of our data was that they did not allow us to deter-
mine whether parents were (re-)entering a relationship with the father or the mother
of their children, which could have advanced the transition to co-residence. Another
limitation is that co-resident children could not be distinguished from non-resident
children and part-time resident children. Although this information is recorded in
the data, we could not use it because of small numbers. With a larger sample and
more detailed information on the timing of the start and end of partnerships, it
might also be possible to explore how some partnerships start immediately upon
the ending of a previous partnership, or even earlier.
It would be interesting to investigate the transition from singlehood to a LAT
partnership, or directly to a co-residential partnership, in further research on the
effect of parenthood on union formation. Future research could also explore the
underlying mechanisms that explain the effect of having own children on union
formation and union transitions, for example through in-depth interviews. As with
most survey data, we were not able to test these mechanisms using NKPS data.
Despite these limitations and the need for further research, our results suggest that
• Roselinde van der Wiel, Clara. H. Mulder, Helga A.G. de Valk136
individuals’ parenthood and union histories play a part in the ways in which their
subsequent partnerships develop, and that there are gender differences in these
patterns. In times of increasingly complex and pluriform families, with many men,
women, fathers, and mothers experiencing the break-up of a union at least once,
living apart together may well offer an attractive alternative to singlehood, cohabita-
tion, and marriage for a growing number of people. Future studies should therefore
go beyond the standard family typologies to better capture the experiences of peo-
ple who are in LAT partnerships.
Acknowledgements
We thank Prof. Dr. Alessandra de Rose for her feedback at the early stages of this pa-
per, as a thesis supervisor of Roselinde van der Wiel during the European Doctoral
School of Demography. Moreover, we thank Miriam Hils and the language editors
of CPoS for valuable language editing. The research for this paper is part of the pro-
ject "Family ties that bind: A new view of internal migration, immobility and labour-
market outcomes" (FamilyTies). The project is led by principal investigator Clara
H. Mulder (University of Groningen), and has received funding from the European
Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and in-
novation programme (grant agreement No 740113).
References
Arosio, Laura 2010: The heterogamy effect: Does it really exist? A study on partner se-
lection and marital breakdown in contemporary Italy. Paper presented at the XVII Isa
World Congress of Sociology: Gothenburg. Sweden.
Asendorpf, Jens B. 2008. Living apart together: Alters- und Kohortenabhängigkeit einer
heterogenen Lebensform. In: Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie
60,4: 749-764 [doi: 10.1007/s11577-008-0035-4].
Bastin, Sonja 2019: Single mothers' new partners: Partnership and household forma-
tion in Germany. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 81,4: 991-1003 [doi: 10.1111/
jomf.12575].
Bennett, Neil G.; Bloom, David E.; Miller, Cynthia K. 1995: The infl uence of nonmari-
tal childbearing on the formation of fi rst marriages. In: Demography 32,1: 47-62 [doi:
10.2307/2061896].
Bernardi, Laura; Larenza, Ornella 2018: Variety of transitions into lone parenthood.
In: Bernardi, Laura; Mortelmans, Dimitri (Eds.): Lone parenthood in the life course.
Cham: Springer International Publishing: 93-108 [doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-63295-7_5].
Bernardi, Laura; Mortelmans, Dimitri; Larenza, Ornella 2018: Changing lone parents,
changing life courses. In: Bernardi, Laura; Mortelmans, Dimitri (Eds.): Lone parent-
hood in the life course. Cham: Springer International Publishing: 1-26 [doi: 10.1007/978-
3-319-63295-7_1].
Bernhardt, Eva; Goldscheider, Frances 2002: Children and union formation in Sweden.
In: European Sociological Review 18,3: 289-299 [doi: 10.1093/esr/18.3.289].
From Living Apart to Living Together • 137
Bzostek, Sharon H. 2008: Social fathers and child well-being. In: Journal of Marriage and
Family 70,4: 950-961 [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00538.x].
Bzostek, Sharon H.; McLanahan, Sara S.; Carlson, Marcia J. 2012: Mothers' repartnering
after a nonmarital birth. In: Social Forces 90,3: 817-841 [doi: 10.1093/sf/sos005].
Coulter, Rory; Hu, Yang 2017: Living apart together and cohabitation intentions in Great
Britain. In: Journal of Family Issues 38,12: 1701-1729 [doi: 10.1177/0192513X15619461].
Davidson, Kate 2001: Late life widowhood, selfi shness and new partnership choic-
es: A gendered perspective. In: Ageing and Society 21: 297-317 [doi: 10.1017/
S0144686X01008169].
de Jong Gierveld, Jenny; Merz, Eva-Maria 2013: Parents' partnership decision making
after divorce or widowhood: The role of (step)children. In: Journal of Marriage and
Family 75,5: 1098-1113 [doi: 10.1111/jomf.12061].
de Leeuw, Edith D.; de Heer, Wim 2002: Trends in household survey nonresponse: A
longitudinal and international comparison. In: Groves, Robert et al. (Eds.): Survey non-
response. New York: Wiley: 41-54.
de Regt, Sabrina; Mortelmans, Dimitri; Marynissen, Tinne 2013: Financial conse-
quences of relationship dissolution: A longitudinal comparison of formerly mar-
ried and unmarried cohabiting men and women. In: Sociology 47,1: 90-108 [doi:
10.1177/0038038512453793].
Dewilde, Caroline; Uunk, Wilfred 2008: Remarriage as a way to overcome the fi nancial
consequences of divorce: A test of the economic need hypothesis for European wom-
en. In: European Sociological Review 24,3: 393-407 [doi: 10.1093/esr/jcn025].
DiGiacomo, Michelle et al. 2013: Transitioning from caregiving to widowhood. In:
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 46,6: 817-825 [doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsym-
man.2013.01.005].
Duncan, Simon et al. 2013: Why do people live apart together? In: Families, Relation-
ships and Societies 2,3: 323-338 [doi: 10.1332/204674313X673419].
Dykstra, Pearl A. et al. 2005: Codebook of the Netherlands kinship panel study, a multi-
actor, multimethod panel study on solidarity in family relationships, wave 1. NKPS
working paper no. 4. The Hague: Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute.
Dykstra, Pearl A. et al. 2012: Codebook of the Netherlands kinship panel study, a multi-
actor, multi-method panel study on solidarity in family relationships, wave 2. NKPS
Working Paper No. 8. The Hague: Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute.
EVS 2010: European values study 2008: Netherlands (EVS 2008).
Goldscheider, Frances; Kaufman, Gayle 2006: Willingness to stepparent: Attitudes
about partners who already have children. In: Journal of Family Issues 27,10: 1415-
1436 [doi: 10.1177/0192513X06289646].
Goldscheider, Frances; Sassler, Sharon 2006: Creating stepfamilies: Integrating chil-
dren into the study of union formation. In: Journal of Marriage and Family 68,2: 275-
291 [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00252.x].
Guttentag, Marcia; Secord, Paul F. 1983: Too many women? The sex ratio question.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication.
Haskey, John 2005: Living arrangements in contemporary Britain: Having a partner who
usually lives elsewhere and living apart together (LAT). In: Population Trends 122:
35-45.
Hebert, Randy S.; Schulz, Richard 2006: Caregiving at the end of life. In: Journal of Pal-
liative Medicine 9,5: 1774-1187 [doi: 10.1089/jpm.2006.9.1174].
• Roselinde van der Wiel, Clara. H. Mulder, Helga A.G. de Valk138
Hogerbrugge, Martijn J. A. et al. 2015: Codebook of the Netherlands Kinship Panel
Study, a multi-actor, multi-method panel study on solidarity in family relationships,
wave 4. NKPS Working Paper No. 13. The Hague: Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demo-
graphic Institute.
Ivanova, Katya; Kalmijn, Matthijs; Uunk, Wilfred 2013: The effect of children on men's
and women's chances of re-partnering in a European context. In: European Journal of
Population 29,4: 417-444 [doi: 10.1007/s10680-013-9294-5].
Kalmijn, Matthijs; Monden, Christiaan 2010: Poverty and union formation among never-
married single mothers in the Netherlands, 1989-2005. In: Population Studies 64,3:
263-274 [doi: 10.1080/00324728.2010.506244].
Kamp Dush, Claire M.; Amato, Paul R. 2005: Consequences of relationship status and
quality for subjective well-being. In: Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22,5:
607-627 [doi: 10.1177/0265407505056438].
Konietzka, Dirk; Tatjes, André 2014: Two steps of union formation: First intimate re-
lationships and fi rst coresidential unions in the life courses of the German co-
horts 1971-1973 and 1981-1983. In: Journal of Youth Studies 17,8: 1077-1096 [doi:
10.1080/13676261.2014.888405].
Krapf, Sandra 2017: Moving in or breaking up? The role of distance in the development of
romantic relationships. In: European Journal of Population 34,3: 313-336 [doi: 10.1007/
s10680-017-9428-2].
Lampard, Richard; Peggs, Kay 1999: Repartnering: The relevance of parenthood and
gender to cohabitation and remarriage among the formerly married. In: The British
Journal of Sociology 50,3: 443-465 [doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.1999.00443.x].
Levin, Irene 2004: Living apart together: A new family form. In: Current Sociology 52,2:
223-240 [doi: 10.1177/0011392104041809].
Levin, Irene; Trost, Jan 1999: Living apart together. In: Community, Work & Family 2,3:
279-294 [doi: 10.1080/13668809908412186].
Lewin, Alisa C. 2018: Intentions to live together among couples living apart: Differences
by age and gender. In: European Journal of Population 34,5: 721-743 [doi: 10.1007/
s10680-017-9446-0].
Lewis, Robert A. 1973: Social reaction and the formation of dyads: An interactionist ap-
proach to mate selection. In: Sociometry 36,3: 409-418 [doi: 10.2307/2786342].
Lichter, Daniel T.; Graefe, Deborah Roempke 2001: Finding a mate? The marital and
cohabitation histories of unwed mothers. In: Wolfe, Barbara; Wu, Lawrence L. (Eds.):
Out of wedlock: Causes and consequences of nonmarital fertility. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation: 317-343.
Liefbroer, Aart C.; Poortman, Anne-Rigt; Seltzer, Judith 2015: Why do intimate partners
live apart? Evidence on LAT relationships across Europe. In: Demographic Research
32,8: 251-286 [doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.8].
Lois, Daniel; Kunz, Christina; Kopp, Johannes 2010: "Verliebt, verlobt, verheiratet." In-
stitutionalisierungsprozesse in Liebesbeziehungen junger Erwachsener und Jugendli-
cher [„In love, engaged, married.“ Institutionalisation processes in love relationships
of young adults and youths]. In: Walper, Sabine; Wendt, Eva (Eds.): Partnerschaften
und die Beziehungen zu Eltern und Kindern. Befunde zur Beziehungs- und Familienent-
wicklung in Deutschland. Würzburg: Ergon: 55-84.
Loozen, Suzanne; Pool, Marina; Harmsen, Carel 2014: In wat voor gezinnen worden
kinderen geboren? [In what type of families are children born?]. In: Bevolkingstrends,
2e kwartaal: 2-11.
From Living Apart to Living Together • 139
Merz, Eva-Maria et al. 2012: Codebook of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study, a multi-
actor, multi-method panel study on solidarity in family relationships, wave 3. NKPS
Working Paper No. 10. The Hague: Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Insti-
tute.
Osborne, Cynthia; McLanahan, Sara 2007: Partnership instability and child well-being. In:
Journal of Marriage and Family 69,4: 1065-1083 [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00431.x].
Pasteels, Inge; Mortelmans, Dimitri 2013: Gescheiden en dan? Herpartneren in Vlaan-
deren anno 2010 [Divorced and then what? Repartnering in Vlaanderen in 2010]. In:
Relaties En Nieuwe Gezinnen 3: 1-66.
Pasteels, Inge; Mortelmans, Dimitri 2015: Dyadic analysis of repartnering after divorce.
Do children matter? Zeitschrift Für Familienforschung – Journal of Familiy Research
27: 143-164 [doi: 10.2307/j.ctvddzmht.11].
Poortman, Anne-Rigt 2000: Sex differences in the economic consequences of separa-
tion: A panel study of the Netherlands. In: European Sociological Review 16,4: 367-
383 [doi: 10.1093/esr/16.4.367].
Poortman, Anne-Rigt 2007: The fi rst cut is the deepest? The role of the relationship
career for union formation. In: European Sociological Review 23,5: 585-598 [doi:
10.1093/esr/jcm024].
Poortman, Anne-Rigt; Hewitt, Belinda 2015: Gender differences in relationship prefer-
ences after union dissolution. In: Advances in Life Course Research 26: 11-21 [doi:
10.1016/j.alcr.2015.07.002].
Poortman, Anne-Rigt; van Gaalen, Ruben 2017: Shared residence after separation: A
review and new fi ndings from the Netherlands. In: Family Court Review 55,4: 531-544
[doi: 10.1111/fcre.12302].
Qian, Zhenchao; Lichter, Daniel T.; Mellott, Leanna M. 2005: Out-of-wedlock child-
bearing, marital prospects and mate selection. In: Social Forces 84,1: 473-491 [doi:
10.1353/sof.2005.0117].
Régnier-Loilier, Arnaud 2016: Partnership trajectories of people in stable non-cohabit-
ing relationships in France. In: Demographic Research 35,40: 1169-1212 [doi: 10.4054/
DemRes.2016.35.40].
Régnier-Loilier, Arnaud; Beaujouan, Eva; Villeneuve-Gokalp, Catherine 2009: Neither
single, nor in a couple. A study of living apart together in France. In: Demographic
Research 21,4:, 75-108 [doi: 10.4054/demres.2009.21.4].
Reimondos, Anna; Evans, Ann; Gray, Edith 2011: Living-apart-together (LAT) relation-
ships in Australia. In: Family Matters 87: 43-55.
Roseneil, Sasha 2006: On not living with a partner: Unpicking coupledom and cohabita-
tion. In: Sociological Research Online 11,3: 1-14 [doi: 10.5153/sro.1413].
Spruijt, Ed; de Goede, Martijn; van der Valk, Inge 2001: The well-being of youngsters
coming from six different family types. In: Patient Education and Counseling 45,4:
285-294 [doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(01)00132-X].
Stevens, Nan 2002: Re-engaging: New partnerships in late-life widowhood. In: Ageing
International 27,4: 27-42 [doi: 10.1007/s12126-002-1013-1].
Stewart, Susan D.; Manning, Wendy D.; Smock, Pamela J. 2003: Union formation among
men in the U.S.: Does having prior children matter? In: Journal of Marriage and Family
65,1: 90-104 [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00090.x].
Strohm, Charles Q. et al. 2009: "Living apart together" relationships in the United States.
In: Demographic Research 21,7: 177-214 [doi: 10.4054/demres.2009.21.7].
• Roselinde van der Wiel, Clara. H. Mulder, Helga A.G. de Valk140
Thomas, Michael J.; Mulder, Clara H.; Cooke, Thomas J. 2017a: Geographical distances
between separated parents: A longitudinal analysis. In: European Journal of Popula-
tion 34,4: 463-489 [doi: 10.1007/s10680-017-9437-1].
Thomas, Michael J.; Mulder, Clara H.; Cooke, Thomas J. 2017b: Linked lives and con-
strained spatial mobility: The case of moves related to separation among families with
children. In: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 42,4: 597-611 [doi:
10.1111/tran.12191].
Tweede Kamer 2017: Miljoenennota 2017. Rijksoverheid [https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/
documenten/begrotingen/2016/09/20/miljoenennota-2017, 24.03.2020.]
Upton-Davis, Karen 2012: Living apart together relationships (LAT): Severing intimacy
from obligation. In: Gender Issues 29,1-4: 25-38 [doi: 10.1007/s12147-012-9110-2].
van der Wiel, Roselinde; Mulder, Clara H.; Bailey, Ajay 2018: Pathways to commitment in
living-apart-together relationships in the Netherlands: A study on satisfaction, alterna-
tives, investments and social support. In: Advances in Life Course Research 36: 13-22
[doi: 10.1016/j.alcr.2018.03.001].
Wagner, Michael et al. 2019: The transition from living apart together to a coresi-
dential partnership. In: Advances in Life Course Research 39: 77-86 [doi: 10.1016/j.
alcr.2018.12.002].
Westphal, Sarah Katharina; Poortman, Anne-Rigt; van der Lippe, Tanja 2014: Non-resi-
dent father-child contact across divorce cohorts: The role of father involvement during
marriage. In: European Sociological Review 30,4: 444-456 [doi: 10.1093/esr/jcu050].
Wiegers, Wanda A.; Chunn, Dorothy E. 2015: Stigma and resistance: The social experi-
ence of choosing sole motherhood in Canada 1965-2010. In: Women's Studies Inter-
national Forum 51: 42-55 [doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2015.05.001].
Williams, Kristi; Sassler, Sharon; Nicholson, Lisa M. 2008: For better or for worse? The
consequences of marriage and cohabitation for single mothers. In: Social Forces 86,4:
1481-1511 [doi: 10.1353/sof.0.0057].
Wu, Zheng; Schimmele, Christoph M. 2005: Repartnering after fi rst union disruption.
In: Journal of Marriage and Family 67,1: 27-36 [doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00003.x].
Yamaguchi, Kazuo (Ed.) 1991: Discrete-time logit models, I: The analysis of one-way
transition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Yerkes, Mara; Visser, Jelle 2006: Women's preferences or delineated policies? The de-
velopment of part-time work in the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom. In:
Boulin, Jean-Yves et al. (Eds.): Decent working time – new trends, new issues. Geneva:
International Labour Offi ce: 235-262.
Date of submission: 03.07.2019 Date of acceptance: 03.01.2020
Roselinde van der Wiel (), Prof. Dr. Clara. H. Mulder. Population Research Centre,
Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen. Groningen, The Netherlands.
E-mail: r.van.der.wiel@rug.nl, c.h.mulder@rug.nl
URL: https://www.rug.nl/staff/r.van.der.wiel/
https://www.rug.nl/staff/c.h.mulder/
Prof. Dr. Helga A.G. de Valk. Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI)/
KNAW/University of Groningen. The Hague, The Netherlands. E-mail: valk@nidi.nl
URL: https://nidi.nl/en/employees/helga-de-valk/
https://www.rug.nl/staff/h.a.g.de.valk/
From Living Apart to Living Together • 141
Appendix 1: Coding of partnership status, partnership duration, and
motherhood status
An individual’s partnership status was updated the month after a transition oc-
curred; and an individual’s motherhood status was updated the same month if a
child was born, or the next month if a child had died. If a child was born within a
partnership, it was assumed that the partner was the other parent. The duration of
the partnership was measured in months and categorised. For partnerships that
started prior to wave one, only the start year was recorded, and not the month.
These partnerships were assumed to start mid-year. In a small number of cases,
the start time of the partnership was unknown. If this was the case for partnerships
that existed in wave one, the partnership duration was set to the median duration of
other cases who were in a LAT partnership at wave one. For others, the partnership
status change was assumed to occur in the middle month between the two waves.
Of the handful of respondents who reported having entered a new partnership be-
fore ending the previous one, the new partnership was given precedence.
Only the year and not the month of the birth or death of each child was recorded.
We assumed that the impact of having a child was present the whole year regard-
less of the exact time of birth or death, and coded the presence of children as if the
births took place in January, and the deaths took place in December. The only ex-
ception was for children who were born after the fi rst interview but in the same year
as the interview, who were assigned the month of birth following the month of the
interview. If a respondent indicated that they did not know whether their child was
still alive, the child was disregarded in the coding of parenthood status, as it was
deemed unlikely that the child infl uenced the person’s partnership choices. It was
not possible to identify re-partnering with the other parent of a child.
Appendix 2: Additional analyses
Women Men
eb b p eb b p
Parenthood status and union history (ref. separated with children)
Widowed with children 0.536 -0.623 0.204 2.002* 0.694 0.095
Out-of-union children 0.504 -0.684 0.277 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Age of youngest child (ref. age 10-21)
Age <10 0.922 -0.082 0.779 0.598 -0.514 0.331
22 or older 1.970 0.678 0.140 1.305 0.266 0.572
Two or more children 1.004 0.004 0.987 1.168 0.155 0.730
Tab. A1: Transition from LAT to co-residence among those with own children.
Logistic regression (odds ratios, coeffi cients, p-values)
* p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01
Source: NKPS waves 1-4
• Roselinde van der Wiel, Clara. H. Mulder, Helga A.G. de Valk142
Tab. A2: Additional descriptive statistics, means of person-months
Never in union Ever in union Separated Widowed with Out-of-union
and childless and childless with children children children
Women
Age 29 41 47 56 44
Age youngest child n.a. n.a. 17 30 13
Number of children n.a. n.a. 2.0 2.0 2.0
Men
Age 32 43 52 66
Age youngest child n.a. n.a. 19 34
Number of children n.a. n.a. 2.1 2.8
Source: NKPS waves 1-4
Published by
Prof. Dr. Norbert F. Schneider
Federal Institute for Population Research
D-65180 Wiesbaden / Germany
2020
Managing Editor
Prof. Dr. Johannes Huinink
Dr. Katrin Schiefer
Editorial Assistant
Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs
Wiebke Hamann
Layout
Beatriz Feiler-Fuchs
E-mail: cpos@bib.bund.de
Scientifi c Advisory Board
Karsten Hank (Cologne)
Michaela Kreyenfeld (Berlin)
Marc Luy (Vienna)
Natalie Nitsche (Rostock)
Zsolt Spéder (Budapest)
Rainer Wehrhahn (Kiel)
Comparative Population Studies
www.comparativepopulationstudies.de
ISSN: 1869-8980 (Print) – 1869-8999 (Internet)
Board of Reviewers
Bruno Arpino (Barcelona)
Kieron Barclay (Rostock)
Laura Bernardi (Lausanne)
Gabriele Doblhammer (Rostock)
Anette Eva Fasang (Berlin)
Michael Feldhaus (Oldenburg)
Tomas Frejka (Sanibel)
Alexia Fürnkranz-Prskawetz (Vienna)
Birgit Glorius (Chemnitz)
Fanny Janssen (Groningen)
Frank Kalter (Mannheim)
Stefanie Kley (Hamburg)
Bernhard Köppen (Koblenz)
Anne-Kristin Kuhnt (Duisburg)
Hill Kulu (St Andrews)
Nadja Milewski (Rostock)
Roland Rau (Rostock)
Thorsten Schneider (Leipzig)
Tomas Sobotka (Vienna)
Jeroen J. A. Spijker (Barcelona)
Heike Trappe (Rostock)
Helga de Valk (The Hague)
Sergi Vidal (Barcelona)
Michael Wagner (Cologne)