NATIONAL CENTER Series 21 

For HEALTH STATISTICS Numberl 3 

VITAL and HEALTH STATISTICS 

DATA FROM THE NATIONAL VITAL STATISTICS SYSTEM 

.-

Divorce


Statistics


Analysis


United States-1963 

An analysis of national divorce data for 1963 and of 

the likelihood of divorce for various categories of 

the population, with special discussion of family 

dissolution due to death, of migratory divorces, and 

of multiple legal grounds for decree. 

Washington, D. C. Clctober 1967 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Public Health Service 

John W. Gordner William H. Stewort 

Secretary Surgeon General 
\ 

“1, 

“r ; ., 

,. 

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000-Series 21-No. 13 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D. C., 20402- Price cents 

9 
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS 

FORREST E. LINDER, PH. D., Director 

THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, Deputy Dzrector 

OSWALD K. SAGEN, P H .D., Assistant Director /or State Relations 

WALT R. SIMMONS, M. A., Stah”sticaI Advisor 

PHILIP S. LAWRENCE, SC.D., Planning O//zcer 

ALICE M. WATERHOUSE, M.D., MedicaZ Con:ultmzt 

JAMES E. KELLY, D. D. S., Dental Advzsor 

LOUIS R. STOLCIS, M.A., Executive O/ficer 

DONALD GREEN, Information O//icer 

DIVISION OF VITAL STATISTICS 

ROBERT D. GROVE, PH. D., Director ., 

ANDERS S. LUNDE, PH. D., Assistant Director 

‘ROBERT A. ISRAEL, M. S., Cbie/, Mo~%alitySlatisfics Branch 

ARTHUR A. CAMPBELL, Cbie/, Natality .$tatisfics Branch 

CHARLES R. COUNCIL, Chic/. Regiskztiw Methods Branch .- — 

PATIENCE LAURIAT, M. ~,, Chief, Marriageand Divorce Statistics Branch 

,,’ ALICE ?d.H ETZEL, Chief,Statistical Resources Secficm 

.( ,’, 

,>, ,, 

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000-Series 21-No. 13 

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 65-62270 
----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------

--------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

------------------------------

--------------------------------------

------------------------------------

-------- ----------------------------------------

--------------------------

------------------ -------------------------- ---

------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-------------------------

--------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------

CONTENTS


Introduction


Family Formation and Dissolution


The Marriage-Divorce Ratio


Measures of Family FormationandDissolution


Totals and Rates


~eNational DvorceTrend


International Comparisons


Divorces by Region, Division,andState


Mi~atoq ~vorces


Annulments


Detailed Divorce Statistics


Age atDecree


Reporting ofAge


Distribution of AgeatDecree


Likelihood ofllivorce byAge


Age at Marriage of Divorced Spouses


Definition and Reporting


Distributionof AgeatMarriage


Likelihood of Divorce by AgeatMarriage


Race of Husband and of Wife --------------------------------------------


Distributionof DvorcesbyRace


The Likelihoodof Divorce byRace


Interracial Divorces


Number of This Marriage of Husband andofWife


1963 Data -------------


Likelihood of Divorce by MarriageOrder


Resident Status of fieDefendant


Place and Month of Marriage of ~vorcedCouples


Place of Marriage


Month when Marriagewas Performed


Page 

1


1


2 

3 

3 

3 

6 

7 

8 

10 

11


11 

11 

11 

11 

13 

i3 

15 

15 

16 

16 

16 

17 

18 

18 

18 

19 

20 

20 

23 
----------------------------------------------

------------ -----------

-----------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------

-------------------------

--------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

---------------

-------------

----------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

-----------------------------

-------------------------------

--------------------------

----- -----------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------

--- -------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

CONTENTS-Con. 

Page 

Duration of Marriage -------------------------------------,-------------


Reporting and Definition


Distribution of Divorces by Duration ofMarriage


Median Duration


Trend in the Duration of Marriage


Likelihood of Divorce by Duration of Marriage


Children Involved in DivorceCases


Number of Children Involved


Distribution of Divorces by Number of Children Reported


Number of Children Reported and Duration of Marriage----


Legal GroundsforDivorce


Reporting and Tabulation


Legal Grounds and"True Causes


Distributionof Divorces by LegalGrounds


Multiple LegalGrounds---------------------------------------------:


Legal Grounds and DurationofMarriage


The Plaintiff and Party to Whom DecreeGranted


References ------A


Detailed Tables


A?pendix. Sources and Quality ofData


Sources ofData


Data on Family Dissolution by Death ----------------------------------


Sample Desi~-----------------------------------------------------


Estimating Procedures


Sampling Errors ofEstimates


Special Estimates


Completenessof Data


24 

24 

25 

26 

27 

29 

30 

30 

31 

34 

35 

35 

36 

36 

36 

36 

38 

40 

41 

50 

50 

52 

52 

52 

53 

54 

56 
------------------------ ---

-------------------

----------------------------

------------------

SYMBOLS 

Data not available 

Category not applicable . . . 

Quantity zero -

Quantity more than O but less than O.05---- 0.0 

Figure doesnot meet standards of 

* reliabilityor precision 

\ 

\ 
THIS REPORT is an analytical study of the 1963 divo~ce and annulment 

statistics foY the United States. Detailed data on divomes and annulments classified by demo.gyaphic and legal va~ia.bles are limited to the 

22 States that fiavticipated in 1963 in the divo~ce-~egistvation a~ea 

(DRA) . 

The divovce ~ate fov the United States is higher than that fov any othe~ 

nation that repoyts this information to the Statistical Office of the United 

Nations. 

The divovce vate was below the national average in 25 States, most of 

which a~e iocated on the Atlantic Coast and in the noytheyn pavt of the 

North Central Region. It is estimated that only about 1 divovce in 20 is 

granted annually to pevsons who move to another State tempo~arily for 

the sole purpose of getting divovced. 

Data Yeceived fvom 22 States pa~ticipating in the divtirce-ve~”styation 

area indicate that young pevsons and pemons.’ who zoeve Yemavvied have 

an above- avevage likelihood of divovce. It was. also estimated that the 

likelihood of divovce deciines with. inc,tieasing dkv~tion of rnawiage. 

The median duration of maniage at time of dec~ee was 7.5 yeays in 

1963. Theve aye indications that the du~ation has incyeased slightly 

duvizg the 1954-63 decade. 

Couples divorced in the United States YepoYted an estimated 583,000 

children undev 18 yeavs of age, This ~epresents 1.36 childyen pey decvee, ov 8.5 pev 1,000 children ;n the Nation. The number of children 

inc+eased much move vapidly than the number of decvees: in 1953 there 

were only 0.85 chiidyen per decyee. 

The great majority of divorce decrees were granted on grounds of 

cyuelty, desevtion, nonsupport, and indignities. About 20,000 decrees 

were granted on two gyounds OY moye—tlae most widely used combination was cvuelty and nonsupport. 
-----------

-----------

-----------

-----------

-----------

-----------

-----------

-----------

-----------

.,. 

DIVORCE STATISTICS ANALYSIS


AlexanderA. Plateris,
Ph.D.,Division of Vital Statistics 

INTRODUCTION 

Family Formation-and Dissolution 

Duringtheyear 1963,428,000divorcesand


annulmentswere grantedin the UnitedStates


(2.3per 1,000totalpopulation,
 or 9.6 per 1,000 

married women 15 years of age andover).Because some families were disruptedby thedeath


of one spouse,these figuresrepresentonlya


part of allfamilydissolutions
 thattookplace


duringtheyear.The totalnumber ofallfamily


dissolutions
 due to deathwas 850,112in1963—


597,814by the deathof thehusbandand 252,298


by the deathof the wife (table
A).Thus outofa


totalof1,278,112 familydissolutions
 thatoccurred


in 1963, 46.8percentwere due to the deathof


the husband,33.5percentto a judicial
decree,


and 19.7 percent to the death of the wife.


As shown in figure1, the totalnumber of


familydissolutions during1963 (1,278
,112)was


smaller than thatof new familiesestablished


Table A. Family formation and dissolution: United States, 1940, 1949-51, and 1959-63


[Data refer only to events occurring within the United States.Data cm international migration are not included. Deaths of married 

persons include numbers published in sources listed in the appendix that have heen adjusted by distributing proportionally the 

deaths of persons with marital status not stated] 

Family dissolution


Net


increase
 Year of Marriages ,. Deaths of married persoas Divorces in occurrence .—- . and married Total 

All annu1- couples


deaths Rusbands Wives ments


1963 1,654,000 1,278,112 850,112 597,814 252,298 428,000 375,888 

1962 1,577,000 1,235,099 822,099 576,277 245,822 413,000 341,901 

1961 1,548,000 i,210,533 796,533 559,038 237,495 414,000 337,467 

1960 1,523,000 1,190,769 797,769 558,801 238,968 393,000 332,231 

1959 1,494,000 1,164,218 769,218 536,671 232,547 395,000 329,782 

1951 1>594,694 1,066,800 685,800 464,105 221,695 381,000 527,894 

1950 1,667,231 1,058,615 :;;,$:; 453,656 219,815 385,144 608,616 

1949 1,579,798 1,059,987 443,573 219,414 397,000 519,811 

1940 1,595,879 900,465 636:465 406,240 230,225 264,000 695,414 

1

A more realistic view is shown by comparisons of data for 1949-51 with those for 1961- 20 

[ 

63. During the intervening period; because of the 

- All marriages increasing proportion of older people, there was 18 xC. Alldissoluf ions 

Oeafhs of husbonds an increase in marriage disruptions, with a t	 1111111 

~1/Oeoths of wives higher rate due to deaths than to divorce. AWN Divorces


on Increase of morried COUPIB9 Between the two 3-year periods, the net increase


of married couples declined 36.3 percent while 

the total number of marriages performed changed 

little. 

The Marriage-Divorce Ratio 

The ratio of current divorces to current 

marriages, approximately one divorce granted 

per four marriages performed, is often interpreted to mean that one couple in four will 

eventually get divorced. This interpretation is 

misleading for several reasons, and the same 

can be said about ratios of other types of fare-. !l!Bl_ ily dissolution to current marriages.

The overwhelming majority of divorces and 

deaths that took place in 1963 occurred to persons married not during that year but during Figure 1. Family formation and dissolution.	 various past years. Therefore, the number of 

dissolutions should not be compared with the 

during the same period of time (1,654,000). number of couples married during the year but 

This represents an increase of 375,888 in the with the total population at risk—namely, to the 

total number of married couples. These figures total population of mar.-ied couples. The number 

are limited to family formation and dissolution of family dissolutions depends on the composition 

that occurred within the United States and do not of the married population by age, by duration of 

include couples that migrated to the United marriage, and by other characteristics. Divorces 

States; hence, the total increase in married occur mostly to young persons after a short 

couples was larger than 375,888. period of married life and, on the other hand, 

Data in table 1 indicate a tendency of mar- deaths occur mostly to much older persons 

riage dissolutions to grow and for the net in- after many years of marriage. The composition 

crease of married couples to decline, In 1940 of the population married during the year is quite 

the net increase in the number of married different from that of the total married population, 

couples amounted to 43.6 percent of all mar- and the former cannot be used for the purpose 

riages performed during the year; by 1950 it of making probability statements about the latter. 

was 36.5, and by 1960 it was only 21.8 (about Another argument against the use of ratios 

one-half of the percentage observed for 1940). for forecasting the population to be divorced is 

Inasmuch as data on deaths of married persons based on the fact that the number of marriages 

are not available for 1941-48, deaths of married is larger than the number of marriage dissolumen in World War II and the tremendous in- tions, as shown in the preceding section. If the 

creases. and subsequent declines of marriages ratio of divorces to marriages performed during 

and divorces during the postwar years are not the same year (0.26 in 1963) were interpreted 

included in the comparison shown in table 1, and to mean that 26 percent of all married couples 

therefore this table does not give a complete would eventually ‘divorce, the ratio of deaths of 

picture of the trend during the 1940’s. married persons to marriages (0.51) would be 

2

--------

-----

------

------------

---------------

-------------

--------

interpreted to mean that 51 percent of all married unions would eventually be dissolved by 

death. The sum of the two percentages (77) would 

then be the proportion of unions that would be 

disrupted either by death or divorce. Thus, the 

consistent use of ratios in probability statements would not account for 23 percent of all 

couples. 

Measures of Family Formation 

and Dissolution 

A set of comparable rates, all based on 

the same population and presenting a much clearer 

picture of the incidence of family formation and 

dissolution than rates computed using different 

populations, are shown in table B. Inasmuch as 

Table B. Rates of family formation and 

dissolution per 1,000 married men and 

women: United States, 1963 

[Data refer only to events occurring within the United States] 

Type of rate Men I

Women 

Rate per 

1,000 married persons 

Marriage rate—rate of 

gross increase of 

married population 38.0 37.3 

Total dissolution rate 29.2 28.6 

Death rate of 

married population 19.4 19.0 

Of husbands 13.6 13.3 

Of wives 5.8 5.7 

Divorce rate 9.8 9.6 

Rate of growth of the 

married population 8.8 8.6 

accurate data are not available for the population at risk—the population of all rna~ried 

couples’— the estimated numbers of married men 

and of married women were used as approximations.1 (National divorce rates per 1,000 married women 15 years and over, which have been 

computed routinely, are shown in table C for the 

years 1920 through 1963.) 

TOTALS AND RATES 

The National Divorce Trend 

The national divorce total of 428;000 for 

1963 was the highest annual number ever observed, except for the years 1945-47 when the 

post-World War 11 divorce peak occurred. The 

1963 total represents an increase of3.6peycent 

over the figure for 1962 and an increas-eof 8.9 

percent over that for 1960. The 1963 divorce 

rate of 2.3 per 1,000 population was much lower 

than that for the early postwar years, when the 

maximum rate of 4.3 was observedin 1946. ‘The 

1963 rate is close to the levels observed since 

1955. 

The trend of the divorce rate since 1867, 

the first year for which this rate was computed, 

showed a long-term increase thatlasted80 years, 

reaching a record peak in 1946. During this 

period, the rate increased from 0.3 to 4.3 per 

1,000 total population. The trend was accelerated 

by wars and reversed by economic depressions. 

During the 44 years shown intable C and figure 

2, the rate first declined from the slight postWorld War I peak, then resumed its upward trend 

(which was interrupted bythe great depression), 

and almost doubled during the war and early 

postwar years—from 2.2 in 1941 t04.3in 1946. 

It declined rapidly afterwards, going back to 2.2 

in 1957; since then ithasremained approximately 

at the same level. At the present moment it is 

too early to say whether the slight increases of 

the rate found in 1961 and 1963 indicate the beginning of a new period of growth, buttheprovisional estimates of the national divorce totals 

for 1964 and 1965 (445,000 and 481,000, respectively, or 2.3 and 2.5 per 1,000 population) suggest that the upward trend may have resumed. 

The crude divorce rate, computed for the 

total population, depends in part onthe proportion of married persons in the population, as 

married persons only are subject to the risk of 

divorce. Therefore the divorce rate per 1,000 

married women is a more refined measure of 

the incidence of divorce (table 3). The divorce 

rate per 1,000 married women was 9.6in 1963— 

slightly higher than the 1962 rate of 9.4, equal 

to the 1961 rate, and higher than the rates for 

. 
----------------------------

-----------------------------

---------------------------- ----------------------------

-------

-------------------- -------------------- ---------------------

-------------------- -------- ----

---------------------------- ---------------------------

--------------------

-------------------- --------- ----

-------- ---- ---

Table C. Estimated number of divorces and annulments and rates , with percent changes


from preceding year: United States, 1920-63


[Data refer only to events occurring within the United States. Includes Alaska beginning 1959, and Hawaii, 1960] “ . . . 

— 

Year


1963----------------------------


1962


1961---------------------------- 414,000


1960---------------------------- 393,000


1959 395,000


1958---------------------------- 368,000


1957---------------------------- 381,000


1956 382,000


1955 377,000


1954---------------------------- 379,000


1953-----.------.-------.“ 390,000


1952---------------------------- 392,000


1951---------------------------- 381,000


1950--.-,---- 385,144


1949-------- 397,000


1948-------- 408,000 -15.5


1947---------------------------- 483,000 -20.8


1946---------------------------- 610,000 -!-25.8


1945-------- 485,00(1 +21.3


1944-------- ----e--- 400,000 +11.4


1943----------------------------359,000 +11.8


1942---------------------------- 321,000 +9.6


L941 293,000 +11.0


1940 - 264,000 +5.2


1939---------------------------- 251,000 +2.9


1938---------------2------------ 244,000 -2.0


1937--’------ 249,000 +5.5


1936---------------------------- 236,000 +8.3


1935-------- 218,000


1934-------- -“------- 204,000 +?3::


1933---------------------------- 165,000 +0.6


1932---------------------------- 164,241 -12.6


1931---------------------------- 188,003. -4.1


1930---------------------------- 195,961 -4.8


Rate


per
 Rate 1,000
 Percent per Percent married Percent


Number change I.,ooo change female change


in total in in


numb er popu­


lation


428,00Q 

413,000 -0.2 2; +5.3 

-0.5 2; 

+7.3 2.2 

-3.4 2.1 

-0.3 

+1.3 2:3 

-0.5 

-2.8 ;:: 

-0.5 2.5 

+2.9 2.5 

-1.1 2.5 

-3.0 2.6 

-2.7 2.7 

+3.6


$:


4.3


3.5


2.9


2.6


;:;


2.0


1929----------------------------


1928----------------------------


1927----------------------------


1926----------------------------


1925----------------------------


1924----------------------------


1923----------------------------


1922----------------------------


1921-----”-- -----.--


1920----------------------------


205,876 +2.8 1.7


rate popu- rate
 lation


15+


yearsg


+4.5 +2.1


-4.3’ -2.1


+4.5 +4.3
 ,- -1.1


:.;	 +4.5


-3.3


-4:3	 -2.1


-I-1.1


-4.; -2..1


-4.0 -4.0


-2.0


+2.0


-3.; -3.9


-3.7 -2.8


-3.6 -5.4


-17.6 -17.6


-20.9 -24.0


+22.9 +24.3


+20.7 +20.0


+11..5 +9.1


+8.3 +8.9


+9.1 +7.4


+10.0 +6.8


i-5.3 +3.5 

-I-1.2 

::; -3.4 

1.9 -I-5.6 

1.8 +5.9 ‘2:: 

1.7 +6.3 +4.0 

1.6 +23.1 +23.0 

1.3 

-13.5 -14.i 

;:; -6.2 -5.3 

1.6 -5.9 -6.2 

A2.6 

200,176 +2.0 1..7 -!-6.3 ,. 

196,292 +6.3 +4.(i 

184,678 -1-5.3 Hi +6.; +4.2 

175,449 +2.6 1.5 

170,952 +3.5 +1.; 

165,096 +10.9 H -I-7.1 +7.6 

148,815 -6.7 -6.7 -8.3 

159,580 -6.4 ::: -6.2 -10.0 

170,505 +20.5 1.6 +23.1 

lpopulation enumerated as of April 1 for 1940, 1950, and 1960 and estimated as of


July 1 for all other years; includes Armed Forces abroad for 1941-46.


2Populat~“on enumerated as of January 1 for 1920 and as of April 1 for 1930, 1940,


1950, and 1960 and estimated as of July 1 for all other years.


4

---- -----

---

DIVORCE RATES: UNITED STATES, 1920-63 

18 

16 -

.) 

14 — 

12 ._ 

Per 1,000 married female population 

A“” 1. 15 years of age and over ~ 

10 / ‘

~ ‘ 8 

6 

4 /% 

*%, . ,4 *$ Perl,OOO total population 

4? ** ** +.=.-=*., .*-a.. * * 2 

---..=..*-=-*-”- -O..#-*”----

0 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1920 1930 1940 

Figure 2. Divorce Fates: 

allyears from 1954 to 1960.These differences


indicatethat the increase in the number of


divorceswas partially
 duetoreasonsotherthan


the growth of the married population. This 

statement can also beillustrated by ratios of the, 

population to divorce: in 1963 a divorce was 

granted to 1 of every 104 margied women, in 

1962 to 1 of every 106, andin1960tolof every 

109. 

Inasmuch asthe number ofpersons divorced 

is twice the number of divorces granted, 856,000 

persons were divorced in 1963. In addition, 

583,000 children of divorced couples were involved in divorce cases. This brings the total 

number of persons involvedin divorce to 

1,439,000. tie involvement rate was 7.6 per 

1,000 population. Analogous figures for other 

years are shown in table D. 

1950 1960 1970 

United States, 1920-63.


Table D. Number of husbands, wives, and ‘


children involved in divorce and rates


per 1,000 total population, with per­


~ent change from preceding year: united


States, 1953-63


Total Year involved 

1963---------- 1,439>000 

1962---------- 1,363,000 

1961---------- 1,329>000 

1960---------- 1>249>000 

1959---------- 1,258>000 

1958---------- 1,134>000 

1957---------- 1,141,000 

1956---------- 1,125,000 

1955---------- 1,1013000 

1954---------- 1,099>000 

1953---------- 1,11O,QOO 

— -

Percent Rate
 change


+5.6 70’6


+2.6 7.3


+6.4 7.3


-0.7 

+10 � 9 “ ;:: 

-0.6 ., +1.4 

+2;2 ::; 

+3.2 6.7 

-1.0 6.8 

7.0 

5 
--------

------------ --------------

--------------

--------------

------

------- --------------

---------------

----------

---------

------------

------------- --------

---------- -------------

-------------- ------------

--- --- ---

---

---

---

--- ---

---

---

International Comparisons 

Almost all countriesreporttheirannual 

divorcetotalsand ratestotheStatistical Office 

of the UnitedNations,and thesedataare publishedannuallyin the Dernopaphic Yea~book. 

Twelve countriesand dependencieswhose laws 

do not providelegalmeans for the dissolution 

of legitimatemarriages are Argentina,Brazil, 

Chile,Columbia,Ireland, Italy, Malta,Paraguay,

Peru, the Philippines,SantaLucia,and Spain. 

Some annulmentsmay havebeengrantedinthese 

countries,buttheywere notreported. 

Table E shows theofficialdivorceratesfor 

otherselectedcountries. These were listed accordingto theleveloftheirlatestdivorcerate. 

In 1963 the UnitedStateshad thehighestcrude 

rate among the reportingsovereigncountries, 

but in 1960 and earlieryears therateforthe 

UnitedArab Republic(Egypt) was highest. Three

minor politicalareas not listedinthetablereportedhigherratesthandidtheUnitedStates. 

One of them istheVirginIslands,witha rateof 

4.3.The remainingtwoareaswere EastBerlin, 

with a rate of 3.0,and Zanzibarand Pemba, 

with its latestreportedrate of 4.4 for 1957. 

Table E. Divorce rates per 1,000 population: United States and selected foreim coun- tries, 1930-63 

[Based on the Demographic Yearbook of tbe United Nations, 1958,1961, 1964, and 1965] 

Country 1963 1960 1955 1950 1945 1940 1935 1930 

Denmark 

United States 2.27 2.18 2.29 2.55 3.66 2.00 1.71 1.59 

United Arab Republic 

(Egypt)l 22.11 2.50 2.39 2.95 3.45 2.44 2.80 

Romania 1.92 2.01 1.80 1.47 0.89 0.59 0.50 0.38 

Hungary 1.82 1.66 1.63 1.21 0.22 0.50 0.63 0.64 

1.38 1.46 1.53 1.61 1.45 0.91 0.81 0.65 

Denmark-------------East Germanys-------- 1.33 1.34 1.35 2.47 0.75 0.75 0.63 

U.S.S.R.------- 1.3 

Czechoslovakia ::;2 1.12 1.05 1.06 0.71 0.61 0.50 0.40 

Austria 1.14 1.13 1.29 1.52 0.67 0.93 0.11 0.10 

Sweden 1.12 1.20 1.21 1.14 0.97 0.55 0.44 0.36 

West Germany3-------- 0.84 0.83 0.85 1.57 0.75 0.75 0.63 

Switzerland 0.82 0.87 0.89 0.90 0.84 0073’ 0.73 0.67 

Japan------- 0.73 0.74 0.85 1.01 0.67 0.70 0.79 

Australia 0.68 0.65 0.73 0.90 0.97 0.46 0.36 0.28 

England and Wales---- 0.67 0.51 0.59 0.69 0.36 :.;: 0.10 0.09 

France--------------- 0.63 0.66 0.67 0.85 0.62 0.51 0.49 

Belgium 0.56 0.50 0.50 0.59 0.38 0:22 0.31 0.31 

Mexico------- 0.50 0.43 0.41 0.31 0.43 0.22 0.24 0.10 

Netherlands 0.49 0.49 0.51 0.64 0.50 0.33 0.35 0.36 

Scotland 0.42 0.35 0.40 0.42 0.43 0.15 0.10 0.10 

Canadag 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.39 0.42 0.21 0.13 0.08 

Venezuela 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.14 0.15 0.09 0.04 0.01 

lBegimningwith 1955, data include evocable divorces among the Moslem population, 

which approximate legal separations. 

2Provisional. 

3Rates for 1930, 1935, and 1940 refer to Germany as a whole. 

4Prior to 1950 excludes Newfoundland. 

6 
All countries except Egypt and Japan, the 

only countries with a non-Western cultural background, experienced a considerable increase in 

the divorce rate during the 34-year period 

1930-63. Although rates for the United States 

were highest for all years shown in table 5 (except for some rates for Egypt), the relative 

increase was smaller than that for most other 

countries. The ratio between the divorce rate 

for 1963 and that for 1930 may be used to 

measure this increase. This ratio was 1.4 for 

the United States. Smaller ~atios were found 

only for France, Switzerland, West Germany, 

and the Netherlands, where they were 1.3 or 1.4, 

and for Japan, (0.9) and Egypt (0.8). In the remaining countries, the increase was larger than 

that for the United States—the largest ratios 

were 25.0 for Venezuela, 11.4 for Austria, 7.4 

for England and Wales, 5.1 in both Canada and 

Romania, and 5.0 for Mexico. From the available data, it is impossible to estimate how much 

of the change is due to a higher incidence of 

divorces and how much to improved registration 

practices in some of the reporting countries. 

Changes in crude rates may also reflect differences in age structure and marital status of the 

population. 

Most of the reporting countries experienced 

a sharp increase of the divorce rate during or 

immediately after World War II. Afterwards, the 

rate declined in the United States and several 

other countries but continued to grow in others. 

This postwar growth was particularly pronounced 

in Hungary and Romania. 

It is difficult to find an explanation for the 

differences in the divorce rates among various 

countries, except that most Communist countries 

have comparatively high rates. The usual explanations, such as differences in .religion or in 

urbanization, do not seem to apply. It is particularly interesting to compare the United States 

and Canada, because Canada has always had one 

of the lowest rates listed in the Demographic 

Yeavbook despite geographic proximity and cultural similarity. On the other hand, me Canadian 

rate grew much more rapidly than the American 

rate. In 1930 the ratio between the two rates was 

19.9, but by 1963 it had declined to 5.5. 

Divorces by Region, Division, and State 

Variation in the incidence of divorce was more 

pronounced within the United States than among 

the other countries. In 1963 the rate for the 

United States (2.3 per 1,000 population) was 

about nine times as high as the lowest rate (0.25 

for Venezuela), but in the same year the rate 

for Nevada was 62 times as high as that for New 

York (table 1). The differences between the States 

were due in part to variations in the permissiveness of the divorce laws and to the concentration 

of migratory divorces, (those granted to persons 

who came to the State solely for the purpose 

of obtaining a divorce decree rapidly). However, 

comparatively high divorce rates were also found 

in States where few if any migratory divorces 

occurred. It was observed before the beginning 

of this century that the divorce rate tended to increase from East to West; 2 this generalization 

still holds. In 1963 the divorce rate was 0.9 for 

the Northeast, 2.2 for the North Central, 2.8 for 

the South, and 3.6 for the West. The rate for the 

West was approximately four times as high 

as that for the Northeast. 

Rates were available for eight of the nine 

geographic divisions (the rate for the West 

South Central Division could not be computed because of incomplete reporting by Louisiana). As 

shown in table 1, the lowest rate was for the 

Middle Atlantic Division; the highest rates were 

for the Mountain and Pacific Divisions. 

One-half of the States had divorce rates below the national average of 2.3 per 1,000 total 

population. The other half had rates higher than 

or equal to that average (fig. 3). Low divorce 

rates were found in two groups of geographically 

contiguous States. One group of 15 States and the 

District of Columbia, which included the entire 

Northeast Region, was on the Atlantic Coast and 

reached from Maine through South Carolina. The 

second group included eight States in the northern 

part of the North ‘Central Region. In addition to 

these two groups of States, Hawaii and Louisiana 

also had low divorce rates. (Though the State 

rate for Louisiana was not available, data from 

42 reporting parishes indicated that it was low.) 

7 
—. 

m STATE RATE ABOVE OR EQUAL TO THE NATIONAL RATE 

-, STATE RATE BELOW THE NATIONAL RATE 

Figure 3. Divorce rates per 1,000


The 24 States with divorce rates higher than 

the national average (and Kentucky with a rate , 

identical to the average) covered the remaining 

part of the country between the Appalachians 

and the Pacific and included all continental 

States of the West Region. Puerto Rico and the 

Virgin Islands also had above average rates. 

The highest divorce rates were found in Nevada 

(24.9), Arizona (5.6), and Oklahoma (4.8), and the 

lowest in New York (0.4), New Jersey (0.8), and 

South Carolina (1.0). 

The comparison of 1963 data with those for 

1962 indicates that 37 State totals increased, 12 

declined, and one did not change (Colorado’s). 

These changes were generally small. The divorce 

rate per 1,000 population did not change in 17 

States and the District of Columbia, increased 

.. 

8


population: each State, 1963.


in 24, and declined in 8. (This comparison could 

not be made for Louisiana.) A change of only one 

decimal po,int was involved in 18 increases and 

6 declines”, hence it can be said that in’42 

of the 50 States the divorce rate either did not 

change at all or changed very little. The divorce 

rate showed pronounced changes in only three 

States: an increase of 0.4 decimal points in,, 

Arizona and of 0.5 in Idaho, and a decline of 2.0 

points in Nevada. . 

Migratory :Divorces .. 

Migratory divorces are divorce decrees obtained outside the usual State of residence of the 

parties in places where divorce laws are particularly permissive and/or judges interpret these 
laws to the advantage of the seekers of speedy 

divorce. Such places are often referred to as 

“divorce mills.” Typically, the plaintiff moves 

to a divorce-mill State for the minimum period 

of time required to establish Iegal residence and 

to come under the jurisdiction of courts ofthat 

State, then leaves as soon as the decree is 

rendered, and, presumably, returns to his or 

her earlier Stateof residence. 

Migratory divorces should be distinguished 

from divorces of migrants, i.e., divorces of 

people who migrate and obtain adecree intheir 

new place of permanent residence. In the case 

of migratory divorce, the residence established 

in the divorce-mill State is alegalfiction necessary for taking advantage of the permissive 

divorce laws, while in the case of divorcing migrants, the plaintiffs honestly intend to live 

indefinitely in their new State of residence. 

figratory divorces should also be distinguished from those obtained outside the county 

of usual residence of the plaintiff but in his State 

of residence. Some persons may wish to be divorced where they are not known or may have 

other reasons for filing the divorce petition in 

another county. Such moves may result in the 

concentration of divorces in particular counties. 

These divorces are not considered migratory as 

long as the plaintiff does not cross a State line 

in order to obtain the decree. 

The opinion is often expressed that low divorce rates in many Eastern States with strict 

divorce laws are due to large numbers of Easterners obtaining divorces in divorce mills and 

that variations among State rates would be much 

less pronounced if rates were computed by usual 

residence rather than by place of occurrence. 

In order to explore such possibilities, estimates 

of the numbers of migratory divorces have been 

prepared. 

These estimates were based on variations 

among county divorce rates in States where the 

existence of divorce mills seemed likely. These 

States are characterized by permissive legal 

grounds for divorce, by short periods required 

to establish legal residence, and by the availability of various services useful to the divorce 

seekers. County rates were computed for States 

that possessed these characteristics, and one 

entire State and 26 counties in four other States 

were identified as probable divorce mills. Then 

divorces of the” permanent residents of these 

areas were estimated and subtracted from the 

totals. The method of estimation is described 

in the appendix. Because the method is based 

on divorce rates by counties, estimates were 

“prepared only for 1960, a year for which county 

population figures were avaiIable from the census 

enumeration. 

.Altogether, 19,000. migratory divorces were 

estimated to have occurred in the United States 

in 1960. This is 4.8 percent of the national divorce total, or 0.1 per 1,000 population (table F). 

Even if it were assumed that migratory divorces 

are underestimated by 100 percent, their number 

would be less than 10 percent of the national total. 

However, there is no reason to believe that they 

have been substantially underestimated, particularly in view of the inclusion of several marginal counties among the presumptive divorce 

mills. Some migratory divorces are granted to 

Americans in Mexico and in other foreign countries. These were not included in the estimatti 

The comparative insignificance of the number of migratory divorces granted in the United 

States in 1960 can best be visualized when compared with divorces occurring in States from 

which, presumably, large numbers of divorce 

seekers come. If it is assumed that all migratory 

divorces that were granted in 1960 were exclusively to residents of New York, then the crude 

resident divorce rate for that State would have 

increased to 1.6 and still would have been 

considerably below the national rate of 2.2. Since 

many migratory divorces were granted to residents of States other than New York, the resident divorce rate for that State had to be much 

lower than 1.6. on the other hand, if it is assumed 

that all migratory divorces granted in Nevada 

were obtained exclusively by residents” of California, then the resident rate for that State would 

have been 3.6 as compared with the observed 

rate of 3.1. Hence, the resident divorce rate for 

California, though above 3.1, was considerably 

below 3.6. 

These figures indicate that the incidence of 

migratory divorce in 1960 was not as large as 

it is widely believed to be. Migratory divorces may ~ 

have declined since 1960, as the State authorities 

and the Bar Association of Alabama took action 

9 
---------

---------

-----------

-----

-----

Table F. Total, resident, and migratory divorces and rates: United States and five 

selected States, 1960 

[Rates areperl,OOO btalpopulation inarea. Forestimating methods, seeappendix] 

Area 

United States 

Percentages 

Total 

Alabama, 8 counties---

Arkansas, 8 counties-­

Florida, 7 counties---

Population 

179,323,175
 ...


1,338,740


255,124


472,302


259>869


Idaho, 3 counties 66,166 

Nevada, the State 255,278 

All divorces 

393,000 2.2


100.0 ...


23,307 17.4


9,122 35.8


2,533 ;.:


2,532 .
 ’665 10.1


8,455 29.6
 , 

Estimated 

resident 

divorce 

Number Ratel 

374,000 2.1


95.2 ...


4,082 3.0


689 2.7


1,275


936 M


212 3.2


970 3.4


Estimated 

migratory 

divorce 

Number I Rate 

19,000 0.1


4.8 ...


8,433 33.1


1,258 2.7


1,596 6.1


453 6.9


7,485 26.2


lEstimated rates for resident divorces are rates for combined counties outside the 

divorce-mill areas for Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, and Idaho, and rate for the West 

Region for Nevada. 

against unconstitutional granting of migratory 

divorce in that State. Following this action, the 

total number of divorces granted in Alabama 

declined from 17,320 in 1960 to 12,566 in1963, 

a decline of 4,754 (or 27.4 percent), and the 

annual divorce rate declined from 5.3 to 3.7. 

However, it should be pointed outthatthenumber of divorces in other States with divorce 

mills increased during the same period, butno 

information is available as to whether the increases were largely among migratory divorces. 

Annulments 

Divorce statistics shown in this report refer 

to absolute divorces and to annulments andexclude various limited matrimonial decrees such 

as divorces from bed andboard, limiteddivorces, 

legal separations, decrees of separate maintenance, and others. The national total for 1963 

included 12,701 ~eported annulments, which was 

3.0 percent of the absolute divorces and annulments combined. These figures were incomplete because Idaho, Massachusetts ,andMissouri 

failed to report divorces and annulments separately. The number of annulments granted in 

these three Statesis usually small: itwas229in 

1962 and 204 in 1961. In addition, for asmall 

number of decrees reported by other States, 

it was not stated whether they were absolute 

divorces or whether they were annulments. 

The number of annulments granted inmost 

States was small—O in Vermont, less than 100 

in 31 States and the District of Columbia, and 

between 100 and 1,000 in 13 States. California 

and New York were the only two States that reported more than 1,000 annulments. 

The 1963 annulment total for California was 

6,134 as compared with 5,984 in1962and 5,643 

in 1961. The figure for 1963 represented 10.9 

percent of all divorces and annulments granted 

in the State and almost one-half of all annulments reported in the United States. For New 

York 2,284 annulments were estimated, 36.2percent of the combined annual total of divorces 

and annulments for that State and 18.0 percent 

of the national annulment total. The annulment 

figures reported for past years from New York 

were 2,331 in 1962 and 2,310 in 1961. Asin 

prior years, ,about two-thirds of all annulments 

reported for 1963 were granted in California 

andNewYork. 

10 
DETAILED DIVORCE STATISTICS 

Annual divorce and annulment totals were 

received from all States, even though some figures were incomplete or estimated, but detailed 

statistical information was limited to the 22 States 

included in the divorce-registration area (DRA). 

The present report includes for the first time 

detailed divorce statistics from Rhode Island, 

which was added to the DRA as of January 1963. 

Criteria for admitting States to the DRA 

and methods of collecting and preparing detailed 

divorce statistics are described in the appendix. 

The participating States are listed in tables I, 

II, and IV of the appendix. 

The detailed statistics include the information 

about the following variables: 

Age ,of husband and wife at time of decree 

Age of divorced spouses at time of marriage 

Race of husband and wife 

Number of this marriage of husband and wife 

Resident -status of the defendant husband or 

wife 

Place of marriage of the divorced couple 

Duration of marriage at time of decree 

Month of marriage of the divorced ,couple 

Children of divorced couples 

Legal grounds for decree 

Plaintiff 

Party to whom the decree was granted 

Reporting of Age . 

Despite the importance of data on age, the 

reporting of this item was very incomplete. 

Information on age of the parties to divorce, 

their dates of birth, or both, is required from 

all registration States, but these items are often 

left blank on the certificates. For the entire DRA 

age was reported in 54 percent of cases, and 

only six States had a satisfactory level of completeness: Hawaii, Iowa, Missouri, Rhode Island, 

Tennessee, and Wisconsin. All of these States 

reported age on 93 percent or more of their 

divorce certificates. At the opposite extreme, 

four States reported age on less than 10 percent 

‘of the certificates. 

Distribution of Age at Decree 

The percent distribution of divorces and annulments by age of husband and of wife at time 

of decree was prepared only for the six States 

that reported this item with a high decree of 

completeness (tabIe 2). The data indicate that at 

time of divorce the modal 5-year age group was 

25-29 years for husbands and 20-24 years for 

wives. These modal values held for all of these 

States except Hawaii, where the peak age group 

was 30-34 years for husbands. In general, 

approximately one-half of- all divorces were 

granted to men and women between the ages of 

20 and 35. 

In the six States combined, teenagers represented 2.0 percent of the divorced husbands” and 

7.7 of the divorced wives; however, among the 

States the figures varied from 0.2 and 2.8 percent in Rhode Island to 2.5 and 9.2 percent in 

Missouri. 

When the peak divorce age was passed, the 

percentages declined gradually and fairly con- . 

sistently (fig. 4}. The oldest age group shown in 

table 2 (65 years and over) included 2.2 percent 

of husbands and O.9 of wives in the six States. 

The median age at decree in all registration 

States combined was 34.8 years for husbands and 

31.3 years for wives as compared with 34.5 and 

31.0 years, respectively, in 1962. For individual 

States the 1963 medians varied between a minimum of 31.5 and 26.4 years in Wyoming and a 

maximum of 37.0 and 33.5 years in Ohio (table 

G). From 1962 to 1963 the median age of husbands. increased in 8 States and declined in 13; 

for wives it increased in 10 States and declined 

in 10; and in 1 State the median did not change. 

Likelihood of Divorce by Age 

Age-specific divorce rates computed for four 

selected States from 1960-61 data indicated that 

for the total population the likelihood of divorce 

declined with increasing age. ~ These rates could 

11

.-

Figure 4. Percent of divorces and annulments, by age of husband and of wife at time of decree: total of 

six selected States, [963. 

not be computed for 1963 because population 

data by sex, age, and marital status were not 

available for individual States. Hence a different method hadto be used forobtainingan indicationofthe association between age and likelihood 

of divorce. Median ages of all married men and 

women in the United States were computed for 

the years 1959 through 1963 from data estimated 

by the Bureau of the Census.4 Medians for the 

United States must fall within the range between 

the lowest and highest State medians. Although 

not all States belong to the DRA, the States included are widely distributed throughout the 

Nation, and it can be expected thatmedianage for 

the United States would fall within the range of 

medians for the registration States. Hence if the 

median ages of all married persons in the United 

States differ markedly from the median ages of 

persons who divorce in the registration States, 

then it can be assumed that the age distribution 

of those who divorce is different from that of 

the total population and that the likelihood of divorce is higher for some age groups than for 

others. 

Median ages for the total married population 

were compared with the highest and the lowest 

medians for States reporting age at decree for’ 

each year from 1959 through 1963 (table H). 

These comparisons show that in spite of changes 

in the number of States reporting age the highest 

State medians for divorced persons were considerably below the median ages of the total 

married population. This was true for both husbands and wives for each year included in the 

comparison. These data indicate that the likelihood of divorce for younger couples is higher 

than for older couples. This finding supports the 

pattern shown by the age-specific divorce rates 

for 1960-61. 

12

------------------------

--------------------------

--------------------------- -------------------------

-----------------------

-----------------------

------------------------

----------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------

-------------------

----------------------

-----------------------

---------------------- -------------------------

Table G. Median ages of divorced husband and wife at time of decree and at time of


marriage: divorce-registrationarea and each”registration State, 1963


[BYpl_ace ofo..umm.e. Basedonsample data. Computed
 ontotals excluding fi~ures for age not etated] \ 

Percent of
 Median age of husband Median age of wife cases of


Area


Divorce-registrationarea--


Alabama------------------------
 Alaska-------------------------
 Georgi.a


Hawaii-------------------------
 Idaho


Iowa


Kansas


Maryland-----------------------
 Michigan


Missouri


Montana


Nebraska


Ohio


Oregon


Pennsylvania


Rhode Island


South Dakota---------%---------


Tennessee


Utah---------------------------
 Virginia


Wisconsin


Wyoming


age of


husband
 At 

of 

decree riage riage decree 

34.8 23.9 31.3 20.6 46.2 

35.5 24.5 31.3 22.1 98.1 

35.6 27.6 30.2 23.3 71.9 

33.0 23.4 29.8 19.9 62.0 

35.8 25.3 32.6 22.5 2.9 

32.4 24.2 28.6 21.2 25.7 

33.0 23.7 29.8 20.1 

33.5 24.1 30.1 20.9 2%: 

36.4 23.5 33.0 19.7 52.0 

32.5 22.8 33.2 21.2 98.1 

34.9 24.0 31.1 20.2 3.7 

35.1 25.0 30.9 21.7 27.3 

33,6 23.9 29.8 20.4 48.6 

37.0 ;$; 33.5 21.5 ;:.; 

35.3 31.5 21.6 

35.5 23:4 32.3 20.6 17:5 

35.0 23.6 32.7 20.9 

32.3 24.0 28.1 20.5 9?:: 

34.2 23.6 30.1 19.9 

31.6 23.5 28.6 19.8 3::? 

34.9 23.6 31.8 20.4 30.7 

35.4 24.0 32.2 20.9 

31.5 23.3 26.4 19.7 

time At time At time At time not stated
 of of mar- decree 

of mar- at time of


AGE AT MARRIAGE OF durationof marriage were availableforalrnost 

DIVORCED SPOUSES all divorces,the completenessof reportingof 

age at marriage was only slightlylower than 

Definition and Reporting thatof age at decree—for husbandsitwas 53.4 

and 53.8percent,respectively,and forwivesit


Ages of the divorcedspousesatmarriage was 53.2 and 53.9 percent,respectively.
 The


are not reportedin any registration
 State,but completenessofage atmaryiagewassatisfactory


theycan be computedfrom thedataavailableon (over85 percent)inthesame sixStatesthatre­


divorcerecords. portedage at decree witha highlevelofcom-


Age at marriageiscomputedby subtracting pleteness:
Hawaii,Iowa,Missouri,Rho&leIsland,


month and year of birthfrom month andyearof Tennessee,and Wisconsin.The percentdistribu­


marriage or by subtracting duration
ofmarriage tionofdivorcesby age atmarriagewascomputed


from age at decree.Sincedateofmarriageand onlyforthesesixStates(table
J).


13 
------------------------

---------------------------------- --------------------------------- ---

------------------------

-------- -------- --

-------------------- ---------------- ------------ ---------------

---------------

------------------

--------------------

----------------

------------

---------------

---------------

Table H. Median ages of all married persons in the United States and range of median


ages at decree in registration States 1959-63


Median age 1963 1962 1961 1960 19591


Husband


Total population --”------ 44.7 44.6 44.6 44.2 44.1


At decree:


Highest age-------- 37.0 40.0 35.9 36.7 35.9.


Lowest age -“------ 31.5 31.8 31.9 27.5 32.0


Wife


Total population-.------ - 41.4 41.3 41.1 40.9 40.6


At decree:


Highest age-------- ---,---,-- ----!---- 33.5 34.7 33.4 33.5 32.5


Lowest age-------------------------------------------26.4 28.3 26.7 23.6 29.0


lFor 1959, age at decree was reported by only 12 registration States.


Table J. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by age of divorced husbands


and wives at marriage: six selected States, 1963


[Byplace ofoccurrenc,e. Based ensample data. States incl.ded inthistable reported ageatmamiage with alevel of completeness of 85percent or more] 

Area


-Pusband
 .—


Total, 6 States---


Hawaii------------------
 Iowa


Missouri


Rhode Island


Tennessee


Wisconsin


Wife


Total, 6 States---


Hawaii


Iowa


Missouri


Rhode Island


Tennessee


Wisconsin


All


di­
 vorces
 and


annul­


ments


100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0


100.0


100.0


100.0


100.0


100eo
 100.0


100.0


Under


20


years


19.4


11.3


20.6


19.5


15.3


22.9


14.2


48.3
 ——


33.8


49.6


49.2


44.5


50.9


45.0


Age at marriage


20-24


years


25-29 30-34 >5-39 40-44 45 years


years years years years and over


1 1 1 I 

Percent distribution


39.6
 -


37.4


39.7


38.6


47.9


37.5


45.3


24.7


32.6


25.9


21.2


30.7


24.1


29.2


16.4 8.3


22.4 11.5


18.1


15.0 ::;


17.0 8.5
 T15.4 8.3


18.3
 8.1

I


10.1 5.4


5.5


5.1


3.6


5.1


2.8


3.8


3.5


3.8 6.8


6.3


6.3


:::


6.2


6.3


4.3


3.2


4.4


4.9


;:2


4.6

Distribution of Age at Marriage ,. 

Almost one-half of the wives divorced in the 

six States were married in their teens, and a 

further 25 percent at ages 20-24. Thus only one 

out of every four divorced wives was married 

when 25 years of age or older. For divorced hus -

bands the modal age group at marriage was 20-

24 years; this age group included about 40 percent of the husbands, while one in four divorced 

husbands were married when 30 years of age or 

older. 

There was comparatively little variation 

among States in the distribution of divorces by 

age at marriage. The greatest variation occurred 

among the proportions of divorced spouses in 

Hawaii and Tennessee who had married in their 

teens. The proportion of divorced husbands who 

had married when they were less than 20 years 

of age was almost twice as hig~ for Tennessee 

(22.9 percent) as for Hawaii (11.3). 

Although the contrast was not quite as great 

for divorced wives, a significantly larger proportion had also married in their teens in Tennessee 

than in Hawaii (50.9 percent as compared with 

33.8). These lower proportions of teenage marriages in Hawaii along with the slightly higher 

proportions of divorced spouses who had married somewhat later (25 -39 years for husbands 

and 20-39 years for wives) indicate that age at 

marriage for divorced spouses in Hawaii may 

be slightly higher than in the continental States 

shown in table J. 

For all registration States combined, the 

median age at marriage of divorced spouses was 

23.9 for husbands and 20.6 for wives (table G); 

these medians differed very little from comparable 1962 figures (24.0 and 20.7). For individual registration States, the median ages of 

husbands ranged from 22.8 in Michigan to 27.6 

in Alaska, and those of wives ranged from 19.7 

in Maryland and Wyoming to 23.3 in Alaska. 

Between 1962 and 1963 the median ages at 

marriage of divorced persons increased both 

for husbands and for wives; in 7 States the medians 

declined in 14 States for husbands andin 12 States 

for wives; in 2 States the median age of wives 

remained unchanged. 

Likelihood of Divorce by Age at Marriage 

Divorce rates by age at, marriage cannot 

be computed because of the lack of population 

bases. Tlierefore, another method had to be used 

to investigate the association between age at 

marriage and the likelihood of divorce. This was 

done by comparing the proportion of married persons marrying when under 20 years of age with 

the proportion of divorced persons who were 

married when under 2CI. Such comparisons are 

shown in table K for the years 1957-63 for a 

uniform group of 15 States. 

The percentage of teenage marriages was 

higher among persons who divorced than among 

those who married. This is true for both sexes 

and for all years included in table K. Since per. 

sons who married while under 20 years of age 

are overrepresented among the divorced, the 

likelihood that teenage marriages will end in 

divorce is greater than for marriages occurring 

at older ages. This statement must be qualified 

in two respects. 

Only about one-half of the persons divorced 

in 1963 were married during the years 1957-63, 

and their dislzibution by age at marriage may not 

be representative of the total married population. 

Because percentages of teenagers among perTable K. Percentages of brides and ~roorns 

and of divorced-husbands and wives married under age 20: tota 1 of 15 selected 

States, 1957-63 

[By place of OW.X,,WICV2. The following States are included: 

Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, 

Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, 

Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming] 

Marriages Divorces -

Year I 

Grooms Brides El= 

1963--- 14.1 38.6 19.7 47.4 

1962--- 15.3 40.5 18.9 47.4 

1961--- 14.3 40.4 20.0 47.8 

1960--- 14.0 40.3 16.4 46.0 

1959--- 13.2 39.1 . . . . . . 

1958--- 12.9 39.0 . . . . . . 

1957--- 12.0 37.8 ..* . . . 

)


15 
sons married during 1957-62 increased consistently each year and because data indicate that 

teenage marriages have been increasing at least 

since 1951, the persons married in their teens 

would probably be even more overrepresented 

arnongthedivorcedif data for earlier years were 

available. 

Information on age at marriage was not stated 

on a very large proportion of divorce records 

received from most of the 15 States included in 

the comparison. For 1963, age at marriage was 

not stated in 47 percent of the divorces, and the 

percentages of teenage marriages among the 

divorced are correct only if it is assumed that 

among those whose age was not stated the proportion of persons married in their teens was 

similar to that of persons for whom age wak 

given. . ,. 

RACEI OF H,usBANDI AND OF ~WIFE 

Distribution of Divorces by Race 

Information about race of divorced husbands 

and wives was reported in about 56 percent of 

all divorces in the divorce-registration area. In 

one State (Ohio) this information was not required; in the remaining 21 States the reporting 

was 66 percent complete—varying in levels of 

completeness for individual States between 9 and 

99 percent. The level of completeness for the 

eight States shown in table 3 (Hawaii, Iowa, 

Missouri, Montana, Rhode Island, Tennessee, 

Virginia, and Wisconsin) was above 85 percent. 

In all registration States combined, 89.5 percent of divorced husbands were white, 9.3 percent were Negro, and 1.1 percent belonged to 

other races: American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, 

Hawaiian, Eskimo, and so forth. These percentages were similar for the divorced wives. In all 

States except Hawaii, many more divorces were 

granted to white persons than to persons of all 

other races combined. In Hawaii, however, the 

largest group was the nonwhite group, excluding 

Negroes. 

The percentages of divorces granted to members of the three major racial groups varied 

considerably among the States, reflecting in part 

the racial distribution of the State population. 

For the States listed in table 3, the percentage 

for white persons varied between 42 for divorced 

wives in Hawaii and 97 for both husbands afid 

wives in Iowa. The percentage for Negroes varied 

between 1 percent for wives in Hawaii and Montana and 21 percent for both husbands and wives 

in Virginia. For other races the percentages for 

husbands were O in Missouri and Tennessee 

and 58 for wives in Hawaii. . . . 

The Likelihood “of Divorce by Race ,. 

The likelihood of divorce varies among racial 

groups of the same State and among groups of 

the same race in different States. Divorce rates. 

for white and nonwhite persons, computed for the “, 

eight States listed in table 3, show both types of 

variation. s Separate rates for Negroes and for 

other nonwhite persons could not be computed . because of the lack of population data. In Hawaii, 

where very few of the nonwhite persons are 

Negroes, the rates for white persons were 

considerably higher than for nonwhite; this dif ­

ference was particularly pronounced for men (3.5 

and 1,7 per’ 1,000). In Montana, where fewer 

divorces were granted to Negroes than to other 

nonwhite persons, the rate was nearly the same 

‘for both color groups (2.7 and 2.8). In the remaining six States, where almost all nonwhite 

persons divorced in 1963 were Negroes, pronounced differences could be observed between 

the Southern and the Northern States. In Tennessee 

the rates for white persons were higher than 

those for nonwhite (2.8 as compared with 2.3); 

in Virginia rates were the same for both groups 

(1.9); and in Missouri– which is often considered 

to be a border State, partially Southern and partially Northern—the rates for white persons were 

slightly lower than those for nonwhite (2.7 and 

3.1). On the other hand, the rates for Negroes in 

the three Northern States were much higher than 

those for white; the largest differences were 

found in Iowa, where the Negro rate was thre,e 

times as high as the white rate (1.8 for white; 

5.5 for nonwhite men, and 5.7 for nonwhite women). These figures suggest that factors other ~ 

than race affect the likelihood of divorce for 

racial groups. There seems to be a particularly 

pronounced difference between Negroes living in 

the Northern cities and those living in the South. 

These differences may be due to migration and 

urbanization. 

16 
------------------

-------

---------------------

The divorce rate does not necessarily reflect 

with accuracy the total marriage disruption (divorce and informal separation combined). The 

1960 census showed a very high prevalence of 

separation among nonwhite persons in Iowa, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin. For the 

total nonwhite population 14 years of age and over 

in the United States, the percentage was 5.4 for 

men and 8.4 for women. The compa rabIe percentages for the white population were 1.0 for 

men and 1.3 for women. G Similar differences 

are found in most States. However, some of the 

difference between the two color groups is 

probably due to inaccurate reporting of marital 

status. 

Interracial Divorces 

Out of the 85,152 divorces for which race 

of both husband and wife was reported, 75,873 

(89.1 percent) were granted to white couples and 

8,694 (10.2 percent) to nonwhite; the latter figure includes divorces granted to couples where 

the husband and wife belonged to different nonwhite races. In the remaining 585 divorces, one 

spouse was white and the other nonwhite—in 

355 cases the husband was white and the wife 

nonwhite, while in 230 the reverse was true 

(table L). The difference between these two 

figures is numerically small and could be easily 

dismissed as insignificant, except that for all 

years for which data on interracial divorces are 

available the couples where the husband was 

white and the wife nonwhite were more numerous 

than those where the husband was nonwhite and 

the wife white. For the years 1960, 1961, and 

1963 combined, 1,728 divorces of racially mixed 

couples were reported, and 1,024 such couples 

(59.3 percent) had a white husband and a nonwhite wife. During the same 3 years, however, 

there were more marriages between nonwhite 

husbands and white wives than between white 

men and nonwhite women. This seems to suggest 

that the likelihood of divorce is greater when the 

husband is white and the wife nonwhite than when 

the husband is nonwhite and the wife white. 

Most interracial divorces (338 out of 585) 

were granted in Hawaii, 48 in Alaska, and 199 in 

14 reporting States; information on race was not 

collected in Ohio and no interracial divorces were 

reported from five States: Alabama, Georgia, 

Michigan, Oregon, and Wyoming. Despite the 

difference in the racial composition of the nonwhite group, more racially mixed couples with 

white husbands than with nonwhite husbands were 

divorced. This was true in Hawaii, Alaska, and in 

the remaining registration States combined. 

Table L. Number of divorces and annulments, by color of husband and of wife: divorceregistrati,on area, Hawaii, and other registration States combined, 1963 

[By @WZ!Of 0cc”,,~~cc2.3as.ed011W@ data] 

Divorce- Hawaii registration area Other States 

Color 

Number Percentl Number Percenti Number Percentl 

Total 152,594 100. O 1,514 100.0 151,080 100.0 

Husband and wife white 75>873 89.1 493 “ 33.4 75,380 9;.; 

Husband and wife nonwhite----

Husband white, wife nonwhite8,694 

355 

10.2 

0.4 

643 

209 

43.6 

14.2 

8, ()); 

0:2 

Husband nonwhite, wife white- 230 0.3 129 8*8 101 0.1 

Color not stated for either 

or both 67,442 

I . . . I 40 . . . 67,402 . . . 

1

Excludes the category “color not stated for either or both spouse s.” 

17

NUMBER OF THIS MARRIAGE OF 

HUSBAND AND OF WIFE 

1963 Data 

Information about the number of times divorced husbands and wives were previously 

married was tabulated for all registration States. 

This is the first such tabulation since the divorce 

sample was initiated in 1960. For the years 

1960-62, only marriage order was tabulated—i.e., 

the classification of the divorced spouses by 

whether they were married once or more than 

once. The larger sample selected for 1963 permitted the subclassification of persons married 

~more than once into those married twice and 

those married three times or more. 

The number of this marriage is one of the 

least completely reported items of statistical 

information. For the divorce-registration area 

it was not stated for 47 percent of all decrees. 

Two registration States, Nebraska and Virginia, 

did not have this item on their divorce report 

form, and in the remaining registration States 

the reporting was 57 percent complete. Only for 

the six States shown in table 4 was this item 

available for at least 85 percent of all records. 

For the divorce-registration area 74.4 percent of all husbands and 73.0 percent of all wives 

for whom the information was available were 

married once; two marriages were reported by 

19.6 percent of husbands and 20.5 of wives; and 

three marriages or more by 6.0 percent of husbands and 6.4 percent of wives. Data for the six 

States with a satisfactory level of reporting 

(table 4) indicate that for a given State there is 

comparatively little difference between the distributions of husbands and wives by number of this 

marriage. However, differences among States 

are rather pronounced–the percentage of husbands married once varied between 83.1 in Rhode 

Island and 68.9 in Tennessee, of those married 

twice between 23.5 percent in Tennessee and 14.0 

in Rhode Island, and of those married three 

times or more between 8.7 in Iowa and 3.0 in 

Rhode Island. For wives, the percentages are 

similar but the range is narrower. 

Likelihood of Divorce by Marriage Order 

Divorce rates by marriage order could not 

be computed because population bases were not 

available. The method used to determine the 

relative likelihood of divorce among persons 

married once and persons married more than 

once is to compare the distributions of divorces by marriage order of husband and wife 

with similar distributions of marriages performed. If a pattern could be found indicating that 

one of the two marriage-order categories is consistently higher among persons’ who were divorced than among those who were married, it 

would then indicate that persons belonging to 

this category have a higher likelihood of divorce 

than those belonging to the other. Percentage 

distributions by marriage order were prepared 

for a ‘group of nine States for which data were 

available (Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Utah) 

for as many years as data could be obtained. Although divorce data for the nine States include 

many cases with marriage order not stated, the 

percentage distribution for 1963 is similar to that 

for the total of the six States 

falls well within the range 

States found in that table. 

Data shown in takle 

proportion of remarried 

among those who divorced 

among those who married. 

shown in table 4 and 

of variation among 

M indicate that the 

persons was higher 

during the years than 

ThLs generalization 

is true for the years shown. More than one-half 

of persons divorced during 1963, both in the nine 

States and in, the total DRA, were married during 

the 8 years 1956-6,3. Thus it seems that remarried persons, the majority of whom had been 

previously divorced at least once, were more 

likely ‘to divorce again than those who were 

married for the first time. However, the cliffer ­

ence between the rates for the two marriageorder categories seemed to decline as the percentage of remarriages slowly increased from 

1956 to 1963. Although it is not known how 

representative the nine States are, it should be 

noted that they are widely distributed from East 

to West and that all four regions and seven of 

the nine geographic divisions are represented by 

at least one State. 

18

-------- -------------- --

------- -------------- ------- ---

------- --------------- ---

Table M. Percent distribution of marriages and of divorces, by marriage order of hus­


band and wife according to yearof event: total of nine selected States for specified


years


[qlplace
of occurrence. Data from the following States are included: Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, Penn. 

,sylvania, Tennessee, and Utah. F@res i’or1960-63 based on samples; those for earlier years based on tozal counts] 

Husband Wife I 

Total Married Married 

Married more Married more once than once than 

Year of event


Divorces


1962--------------------------------------

1961 --------------

Marriages 

1963--------------------------------------

1962--------------------------------------

1961 -------

1960--------------------------------------

1959--------------------------------------

1958 ------- ~------

1957--------------------------------------

1956--------------------------------------

Data in table M are supported by a setof 

ratios computed for Hawaii, Iowa, Tennessee,and 

Wisconsin for the years 1960-61.7 These were 

ratios of divorces of first-married persons to 

the population married once and living with their 

spouses and of divorces of the remarried to the 

populationof persons who were remarried, irrespective of their current marital sta~s. l%ough 

the method of computation used tends toimderstate the differences between marriage-order 

groups,thedivorce ratiosforfir:t marriageswere 

less than one-half ofthe ratios for remarriages: 

6.2 and 17.3 per 1,000 for husbands and6.2 and 

15.5 for wives. Similar relationships were found 

between the ratios of each oftheincluded States.7 

All the available data indicate that thelikelihood of divorce is higher among persons whoremarry than among those who marry for the first 

time in spiteof the comparatively olderageof the 

remarried persons. Hence, there is reason to 

believe that the difference between the likelihood 

of divorce ofthe two marriage-order categories 

once 

Percent distribution 

100.0 74.1 25.9 

100.0 72.5 27.5 

100.0 73.2 26.8 

100.0 78.6 21.4 

100.0 78..7 21.3 

100.0 78.4 21.6 

100.0 79.3 20.7 

100.0 79.3 20.7 

100.0 79.8 20.2 

100.0 80.4 19.6 

100.0 80.2 19.8 

once


73.2 26. 8“ 

71.4 28.6 

72.4 27.6 

78.3 21.7 

79.1 20.9 

79.1 20.9 

78.7 21.3 

78.6 21.4 

79.2 20.8 

79.7 20.3 

79.4 20.6 

would be more pronouncedif ageat decree were 

held constant. 

RESIDENT STATUS 

OF THE DEFENDANT 

The legal residence ofthe plaintiffis always 

in the State where the divorce caseis tried, although his usual residence may bein a different 

State. This is why only data on the residenceof 

the defendant were tabulated. This item wasreported in amuchhigher proportionof cases than 

age, race, and number of this marriage. Even 

though residence is not reported in one State 

(Kansas), the level of completeness for the DRA 

was 76.4 percent. When Kansas is excluded, the 

level of completeness increases to79.2 percent. 

Since the level of completeness was 85 percent or more in 12 States, the percent distribution of divorced husbands and wives by resident 

status was computed for these 12 States (table 

N). 

19

---------- ------

------

-------

------

--

-----

-----

In the 12 Statescombined the percentof


defendant husbands(86.0) living intheState
where


the decreewas grantedishigherthanthatofde­


fendantwives(75.8) (table
N).Similardifferences


were foundineachofthe12States,
 withthelargest


difference(15.5percentagepoints)for Hawaii


and the smallestforMaryland (3. 1 points).
 The


proportionof defendantsresidingoutsidethe


regionis higher for defendantwives thanfor


defendant
husbands.Insome Statesthedifference


is minimal, but in othersthe percentagefor


wives is more than doublethatforhusbands.


The difference
betweenthe placesof resi­


dence of the two partiestodivorceisduetothe


postseparation mobility
ofeitherorbothspouses.


As none of the Stateslistedin tableN seems


topossess a divorcemill,the data show the


effects ofbonafidemigration—migration
 withthe


intention
 to settleinthenew placeofresidence.


In a typicaldivorcecase the wifeis the


plaintiff
 and the husband the defendant;this


happensinaboutthreeoutofeveryfourdivorces.


In the comparatively
few cases where thewife


was the defendant, thepostseparation
 mobility


tended to cover lorigerdistancesthan in the


typicalcases—not only was the proportion
of


defendantslivingin,.
 the same Statesmaller(8.5


percent)buttheproportionlivingin a different


regionwas almosttwiceas large(16.1percent).


The”causeofthisdifference
 cannotbeascertained


from theavailable
 data.


PLACE AND MONTH OF MARRIAGE 

OF DIVORCED COUPLES 

Place of Marriage 

The placeofmarriageofthedivorced
couple


was reportedby most Stateswitha highlevelof


completeness—90percentforthedivorce-regis-


tration
areaas a whole.


Table N. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments,by resident status of defend- ‘


BY pl~c~
of occurrence. 

Area


Total, 12


States----


Hawall-------­
 lowa


Maryland


MLssourl


Montana


Nebraska


Ohio----------
 Pennsylvania


Rhode Island--


South Dakota--


Tennessee


Wisconsin


ant husband and wife: 12 selected States, 1963


Based on sample data,. States included in this table reported residence with a level of conrpleteness’of 

85 percent or more 1 

I 

Defendant husband Defendant wife


I 1 

Resident of— I Not resi- Resident of—,,, Not resident of


State Other any
 Total Tots1 where State, State in


decree same region


granted region


Percent distribution


100.0 86.0 5.4 8.5	 — 

100.0 75.8 8.1 16.1

100.0 

100.0 84.6 8.4 100.0 69.1 12.4 18.5 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

86.3 

74.5 

.88.8 

::; 

13.2 

4.0 

1;:: 

7.2 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

75.7 

71.4 

78.0 

1::: 

7.7 

15.3 

::,:’. 

. 

100.0 86.6 8.2 100.0 72.9 16.0 

100.0 90.8 H 100.0 78.3 

100.0 

100.0 

87.1 

83.4 

$!? 

6.0 1::: 

100.0 

100.0 

75.3 

78.:5 

;:! 

. 

100.0 76.2 11.2 12.6 100.0 67.4 17.0 15.6 

100.0 86.5 100.0 72.3 19.9 

100.0 87.4 ::: !:; 100.0 74.7 1X! 12.9’ 

90.2 4.8 4.9 100.0 79.2 8.0 12.8 

20


I 
----------------------------

-----------------------------

---------------------------- ---------------------

------------------------------

-------------------------------

--------------------------

----------------------------

----------------------------

-------------------------- --------------- -----------------------------

-----------------------

-----------------------

--------------------------

---------------------------

--------------------------

. . 

Table O. Percent di.stri.bution
 of divorces and annulments, by place where marriage was


performed: divorce-registrationarea and each registration State, 1963
 . 

By placeofoccurrence. Based011sampledata] 

All divorces


State where decree was granted and


annulments


I 

DRA-------------------------- 100.0 

Alabama 100.0 

Alaska 100 � o 

Georgia 100.0 

Hawaii-------- 100*O 

Idaho 100*O 

Iowa 100.0 

Kansas----------------------------- 100.0 

Maryland 100.0 

Michigan--------------------------- 100� o Missouri 100.0 

Montana 100.0 

Nebraska 100 � o 

Ohio----------------- 100.0 

Oregon 100*O 

Pennsylvania 100.0 

Rhode Island 100.0 

South Dakota----------------------- 100.0 

Tennessee 100.0 

Utah------------------------------- 100.0 

Virginia 100.0 

Wisconsin 100.0 

Wyoming---------------------------- 100.0 

Place where marriage was


In other
 In same State, same
 State region


. . . . . . . Yercenc dlstrlbutzon


60.3 21.9


58.8 34.9


43.9 26.5


75.3 20.3


66.9 12.0


51.3 36.1


61.5 27.9
 ~ 56.2 12.6


67.5 21*2


70.5 13.5


64.7 13.0


63.7 22.5


60.4 21.9


58.1 13.5


38.8 51*1


65.3 6.0


63.1 23.1


57.0 23.5


48.3 46.2


48.7 40.7


54.8 34.4


61.0 27.9


47.7 27.5


performed


Not in


region


17.8


2;::


4.4


21.1


12.6


10.5


31.2


:;.;


22:3


13.8


17.7


28.4


10.1


28.6


13.8


1;.;


10:6


10.8


11.2


24.8
 .


For the registration
Statescombined, 60 divorce.The most prevalentreasons are the””


percentof the couplesdivorcedin 1963 were following:
 (1)a coupleis marriedintheirState


married in the same Statewhere they were of residenceand latermigratesto a different


divorced,22 percentin a different
Stateof the Statewhere divorceoccurs; (2)the coupleis


regionwhere theywere divorced,and 18 per- married in the home of the bride’sparents,


centoutsidethisregion,including thosemarried which is locatedin a different
Statethanthat


abroad.Data for individual
 Statesare shown in where they intendto reside,and theyare di­


tableO. Because of samplingvariability,
 itwas vorced in theirown Stateof residence;(3}the


not possibleto tabulatedivorcesby Statewhere marriages performedina “marriagem
ill’’out­


the couplewas married, only by the placeof sideoftheirown State;
(4)thedivorceisgranted


marriageinrelation
tothedivorceState. in a “divorcemill” outsidethe Stateof usiial


There are severalreasonsforthedifference residenceof the couple,and(5)anycombination “


between the Stateof marriage and the Stateof oftwo or more factorslisted
above.
 . .


21

DRA 

GEORGIA 

MICHIGAN 

~MARYLAND 

w 

ALABAMA ~


OHlO
 1=SOUTH DAKOTA


UTAH 

TENNESSEE 

wYOMING 

ALASKA 

OREGON 

, , , ( ( r 1 1 I 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

PERCENT 

— 

Figure 5. percent of divorced couples married in State where divorced: divorce-registration area and


each registration State, 1963.


The proportion of divorced couples whowere 

both married and divorced in the same State 

varied depending ontheregion:it wasconsiderably 

higher in the Northeast and North Central thanin 

the South and West (fig. 5). All reporting States 

canbe divided intotwo equalgroups, using60 percent as the dividing criterion-table O indicates 

that inn States theproportionof couplesmarried 

in the divorce Stateis above 60 percent andin 11 

States below 60 percent. In 7 of the 10 Northeastern and North Central States, however, this 

proportion is over 60, butonlyin40f12 Southern 

and Western States is this true. 

The distribution of couples married outside 

the divorce State depends onthe location of this 

State with respect to the lines dividing the four 

regions. States located on such lines, particularly 

if a larger proportion of the State lines coincides 

with lines dividing the regions, tend to have comparatively many divorced couples married outside 

of the region and comparatively few married in 

different States of the same region. This is true 

for the States where the proportion of divorced 

couples married out of the region is 20 or more 

(Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Wyoming). Alaska and Hawaii also be22

long in this group because theconcept of region 

has little meaning in these States. 

Month When Marriage Was Performed 

Marriages have a distinct pattern of SeaSOIXd, 

‘distribution, with a concentration in June and comparatively small numbers performed during the 

first 3 months of the year. In 1963 the number of 

marriages performed in January (96,326 for the 

whole United States) as well as’ that performed in’ 

March (101 ,585) represented less than one-half of 

the number performed in June (206,357); similar 

variations were found in earlier years. The question arises whether the likelihood of divorce varies 

depending on the month when the marriage took 

place. 

The date of the marriage of the’ divorced 

couple is asked on the divorce record in all registration States, and the month of marriage is reported with a high degree of completeness. In 1963 

this information was available on 97 percent of 

records received from all registration States 

combined. The distribution of 1963 divorces by 

month when marriage was performed can be compared with the distribution of marriages by month 

of occurrence for 1963 and earlier years. The 

distributions of both divorces and marriages by 

month the couples were married were prepared 

for the 22 States that were included in the DRA in 

1963 (fig. 6). Comparisons of distributions for 

couples divorced in 1963 with those for couples 

married in the years 1959 through 1963 are 

shown in table P. 

The percentages indicate that the seasonal 

variation of marriages of divorced couples is 

less pronounced than the seasonal variation of all 

marriages performed. The proportion of divorced 

couples married in months of a high incidence of 

marriages (June and August) is lower than the 

proportion of all couples married during these 

months; this is true for all years of marriage 

shown in the table. On the other hand, the proportion of couples married during the months when 

comparatively few marriages are performed 

(January, February, and March) is higher for persons divorced in 1963 than for persons married in 

any of the 5 years 1959-63. For the remaining 7 

months the propoflion of marriages of divorced 

couples falls within the range of variation in the 

Marriages of couples J 

divorced in 1963 i 

. 

J I I I I 

JFMAMJ’JA 

A 

f\ 

I I I I I I 1,


SONO 

MONTH OF MARRIAGE 

Fiqure 6. Percent of divorces and annulments b! 

~onth couple married and of marriages by month 

of occurrence: divorce-regi strat ion area, 1963 ,.


proportion of all ‘couples married during each of 

these months in various years. 

These data seem to indicate that couples who 

follow the fashion of getting married during the 

peak marriage months are slightly less likely to 

be divorced than other couples, while couples who 

marry when comparatively few marriages occur 

‘have an above-average likelihood of divorce. 

‘These differences may be due to the seasonal variation of certain groups “of marriages with a comparatively high likelihood of divorce~For example, 

marriage” data for the years 1960 through 1963 

indicate that percentages of remarriages occurring in Januar-y, February, and March were 

higher and of those occurring in June lower 

than comparable percentages of all marriages. 

It has been shown that the likelihood of divorce 

seem-s to be high for remarriages. The same 

may apply to elopments, forced marriages, and 

so forth. The pattern of the distribution of divorces 

by, month of marriage is similar in all registration 

23

-------- ---------------- ------

----------------------------------

--------------------------------- ------------------------------------

------------------------------------

-------------------------------------

------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -------------------------------- ----------------------------------

---------------------------------

---------------------------------

Table P. Percent distribution of divorces (1963) by month couple married and of marriages (1959-63) by month of occurrence: total of 22 registration States 

[By place of CWwmm.e.Figures for 1960-63 based on wmples; those for earlier years based on total counts] 

Divorced Marriages 

Month of marriage couples 

Total 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May--------------------------------------

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

States, but thepercentages foragiven month vary 

greatly. Thus the percentage of divorced couples 

who were married in January varied from 5.7 

in Nebraska to 8.3 in Georgia; those married in 

February from 5.7 in Ohio to 8,3 in Hawaii, 

South Dakota, and Wyoming; for June the range 

was between 9.4 percent in Alaska and 12.0 in 

Michigan and Utah. Similar variations can be 

observed for other months. 

DURATION OF MARRIAGE 

Reporting and Definition 

The duration of marriage attime of decree 

was computed by subtracting month and yearof 

marriage from month and year of divorce. When 

only the year of marriage was given on the 

divorce record, it was assumed that the marriage occurred at the midpoint of the year. Information about the time ofmarriage is required 

in all registration States and is almost always 

reported. For the DRA informationaboutduration 

of marriage was available for 97.1 percent of 

L963 1963 1962 I 1961 1960 I 1959 

Percent distri.buti.on 

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

n 

7.3 

7.1 

1::: 

8.8 

9.6 

9.0 

8.1 

8.5 

9.1 1 

divorces granted in1963, and this percentagewas 

below 85 in two States only. 

The time that elapses between marriage and 

divorce comprises three distinct periods: (l)the 

period between marriage and final separationof 

the couple (there may h~ve been earlier separations followed by reconciliations, but the importantdate is that when husband and wifeceased 

for the last time to live in the same household); 

(2) the time between separation and filing the 

petition for divorce, and.(3) the time between 

filing the petition and the decree. The family 

functions as a social unit only ,during the first 

period, and, therefore, the date of the last separation is of great interest for the study of family 

disruption. At present, this information is CO1-’, 

lected in only a few States, but for the combined 

years 1887 through 1906, statisticsontheduration 

of marriage to separation and on the durationof 

separationto divorce are available for the entire 

continental United States as well as for each 

State and territory. 8 

The duration of the second period, that between the separation and the filing of the divorce 

24 
petition, depends partly on the decision of the 

parties to start divorce proceedings and partly on 

laws that specify the time that must elapse in 

order for a certain legal ground for divorce to 

arise, e.g., desertion, voluntary separation, or 

insanity. The duration of the third period depends 

almost exclusively on laws. Thus it can be seen 

that the three periods into which the duration of 

marriage to decree is divided have different characteristics, and their length is caused by different factors. AH of these factors affect the 

duration of marriage to decree. 

Distribution of bivorces by “Duration . . 

of Marriage 

Data for the divorce-registration area indicated that the modal number of divorces occurred 

when the marriage had lasted more than 1 year 

but less than 2 years. Almost the same proportion 

of divorces took place when the marriage had 

lasted between 1 and 3 years, 8.6 and 8.4 percent, 

respectively (table 5). The number of divorces 

declined consistently with each additional year 

of duration (fig. 7); and when the marriage had 

lasted 9 years (the last single year of duration 

for which data are available) the proportion had, 

declined to 3.7 percent. 

The modal year of duration for individual 

States was 1 year in 13 States, 2 years in 5 States, 

3 years in 1 State, 4 years in 1 State, 6 years in 

1 State, and 1 State had no single modal year of 

duration. 

The group of divorces that had a very short 

duration, less than 1 year, included 5.2 percent 

of all decrees granted in the DRA. As this duration included the time the case was pending in 

court, the divorced couples had an extremely 

short period of married life before separation. 

The percentages of divorces after less than 1 

year of married life showed very marked variation from Stat e to State—from 0.4 percent in 

Virginia to 10.5 in Idaho. The regional factor is 

pronounced: all registration States in the Northeast Region, in the northeastern part of the South 

Region, and in the East North Central Division of 

the North Central Region had low proportions of 

divorces granted within less than 1 year—the 

highest percent being 4.3 in C)hio-while States in 

the remaining part of the country (including the 

West, the remainder of the North Central Region, 

0, 1111111111111111111111 [111 1111 

<1246 8 101214161820222426 283030+ 

YEARS OF DURATION 

Figure 7. Percent of d i vorces and annulments, by 

duration of marriaae to time of decree: divorceregi strati on area, - 1963. 

and the remainder of the South) had much higher 

percentages—the lowest being 6.0 percent in 

Hawaii. Thus all seven States in the first area had 

percentages lower than that for the DRA, and all 

States in the second area had higher percentages. 

At the other extreme, 3.0 percent of divorced 

couples had a duration of marriage of 30 years 

or more, and this percentage ranged from 1.2 in 

Alaska to 4.9 in Alabama. Altogether 6.5 percent 

of the divorced couples had reached their silver 

wedding anniversary. Many of the States that had 

very low percentages of divorces after marriages 

with durations of less than 1 year had comparatively high percentages of those divorces ofter 

marriages with durations of 25 years or more and 

vice versa; the range was between 3.6 in Utah 

and 8.9 in Virginia. The regional distribution 

was also pronounced, with high percentages found 

in the Northeast and in the South (between 6.3 and : 

25 
------------

-------------

-------------

--------------

------------- -----------

-----------

-----------

------------

----------- --------------- --------------------

-------

------- ---------- --------------- -----------

---------- ------------

8.9 percent), median percentages in the North 

Central (between 5.1 and 6.7), and low percentages in the West (between 3.8 and 5.2). 

Median Duratian 

The median duration of marriage at divorce 

was 7.5 years for the registration States combined; 

the figures for individual States ranged from 5.0 

in Idaho to 10.3 in Maryland. The regional distribution of the median was the same as the distribution of divorces after marriages with less 

than 1 year of duration: States in the Northeast 

Region, East North Central States of the North 

Central Region, and the States in the northeast part 

of the South Region had medians above the DRA 

average, while all other States had medians 

lower than or identical with that average. In the 

two States with the highest medians (Maryland and 

Virginia) the comparatively long duration of marriage may be partly due to the legal grounds used 

for most divorce decrees—voluntary separation 

in Maryland and desertion in Virginia—because 

the time prescribed by law must elapse for these 

legal grounds to arise, and, hence, the duration 

of marriage after separation necessarily includes 

a minimum period. However, this consideration 

does not hold for most States with high medians 

of duration, where the great majority of decrees 

are granted on the ground of cruelty (Michigan, 

Rhode Island, and Wisconsin) or indignities (Pennsylvania). 

Table Q shows the median and quartile duration of marriage for all registration States —i.e., 

the number of years since marriage when 25, 50, 

and 75 percent of divorces took place. In the DRA 

25 percent of the divorces were granted after 

marriage durations of 3.4 years or less, 50 percent after 7,5 years or less, and 75 percent after 

14.9 years or less. In the remaining 25 percent 

of the cases, marriage had lasted more than 14.9. 

years. The interquartile range, embracing 50 percent of all marriages lasting longer than the first 

quartile but shorter than the third, covered an 

interval of 11.5 years—from: 3.4 to 14.9 years of 

duration. As the number of divorces declined 

with each added year of duration, the time interval between marriage and the first quartile 

was the shortest (3.4 years), the interval between 

the first quartile and the median was longer (4. 1 

Table Q. Median and quartile duration of 

marriage to decree: divorce-registration 

area and each registration State, 1963 

[By place of oc.wmm.e. B~sed cm sample data] 

Duration of marriage 

State 

DRA----------

Alabama€

Alaska€

Georgia ------------€

Hawaii€

Idaho€

~owa-.-...-.-------


Kansas 

Maryland 

Michigan 

MLssouri 

Montana


Nebraska€

Ohio€

Oregon€

Pennsylvania€

Rhode Island€

South Dakota€

Tennessee€

Utah€

Virginia€

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

Third 

Median qua:-

3.4 7.5 14.9 

3.1 15.5 

2.8 12.9 

2.6 13.8 

3.5 13.8 

2.1 11.7 

2.8 13.5 

13.9 

;:; .17.3 

4.0 15.6 

2.7 14.2 

2.6 12.9 

2.9 14.0 

3.7 14.8 

13.2 

::; 16.6 

4.6 16.6 

2.8 14.1 

2.6 14.4 

11.5 

M 16.8 

4.0 15.5 

2.2 12.6 

years), that between the median and the third 

quartile still longer (7.4 years), and that between 

thethird quartile and the divorce with thelongest 

duration was longer than the other three intervals 

combined. In 3.Opercent of cases marriages had 

lasted more than 30 years; therefore, the length 

of the fourth interval was more than 15.1 years. 

Thequartiles of duration forindividual States 

varied considerably: the first quartiles from 2.1 

to 5.7 years andthe third quartiles from 11.5to 

17.3. As a rule, thehigher themedian, the higher 

are the two quartiles likely to be. However, this 

association is not perfect, as it is shownin figure 

8, where States arelisted according tothemagni26 
Flr 

1 DRA r-’”” 

I 

MARYLAND 

VIRGINIA 

RHODE ISLAND BPENNSYLVANIA

l==­

MICHIGAN 

OHIO FALABAMA i HAWAII 

MISSOURI 

ALASKA 

NEBRASKA 

TENNESSEE 

GEORGIA 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

IOWA F

MONTANA I E

k%+ 

WYOMING 

UTAH 

IDAHO I 

d 

[8 

YEARS OF DURATION 

— 

Figure 8, Medians and quartiles of duration of marriage to time of decree: divorce-registration area


and each registration State, 1963,


tudeof the median. Theinterquartile rangevaried 

less than medians and quartiles: the shortest 

range was 9.3 years observed for Utah, and the 

longest was 12.4 years for Pennsylvania. 

The median duration of marriage. at decree 

depends in part on the distribution of divorces 

by marriage order ofhusband andof wife.Though 

data for 1963 are not available, information CO1. 

.lected for earlier years indicates that theduration is longer for first marriages than for remarriages for all age categories. In 1959 for the 

10 reporting States ,combined,themedian duration 

of first marriages was 7.7 years for husbands 

and 7.8 for wives, while for remarriages this 

duration was 4.6 for both. In 1958 these values 

were, respectively, 6.4, 6.6, 4.3, and4.2 for six 

reporting States.g 

. . . 

Trend in the Duration of Marriage 

Tables R and S show the changes in the median 

duration of marriage during thedecade 1954-63. 

Intable Rtheavailable amudme&ans are given 

for all registration States. From these medians 

27 
-------------------

--------------------

---------------------

---------------------- -------------------- ------------------

------------------

------------------

-------------------

------------------

--------------------

--------------

-------------- ---------- -----------------

------------------

-----------------

---

---

---

---

---

----

----

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

----

----

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Table R. Median duration of marriage to decree: each registration State; 1954-63


[By place of occurrence. Figures for1960-63 based ensample data; those for 1954-59 based on total counts] 

Area 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 

‘Median duration in years 

Alabama------------------- 7.5 7.1 7.3 7.3 7.6, 7.4 17.1 6.7 6.5 6.3 ‘ 

Alaska-------------------- 6*8 6.2 6.3 6.0 

Georgia 6.3 5.9 6.6 ::: 6.1 5.9 16.1 1600 15.6 16.7 

Hawaii 7.2 

Idaho 5.0 u ::? ::: 4.2 4.6 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.7 

Iowa “6.1 5.5 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.3 5.1 5.0 5.0 

Kansas H 6.3 6.2 6.1 5.7 5.7 

Maryland 1::: 9.4 ::: .2:; 

Michigan 8.0 

Missouri, 6.9 

8.0 

6.1 

7.6 

.6.6 1::; 7.4 

15.9 

17.2 

15.9 

17.1 

15.9 

Montana 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.4 5.2 4.8 5.1 

Nebraska H 2:: 6.5 6.3 6.0 5.9 6.1 d:; 5.6 5.5 

Ohio---------------------- 7.7 6.7 6.5 6.4 

Oregon ;:: 6.5 6.4 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.7 5.6 5.1 H 

Pennsylvania 8.7 9.6 8.6 9.2 9.1 

Rhode Island 9.0 

South Dakota----’ 6.3 

Tennessee 6.6 

6.6 

6.4 

6.3 

6.1 ::; 

6.2 

6.1 1;:; 

5.9 

5.5 

5.1 

5.6 

5.7 

5.6 

5.7 

5.5 

Utah---------------------- 5.1 5.5 5.2 4.7 5.4 

Virginia 9.2 8.6 8.6 8.3 2:! 8.5 ?3:: 8.1 7.9 7.7 

Wisconsin 8.1 7.2 8.4 8.2 7.4 

Wyoming------------------- 5.3 5.3 4.8 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.0 15.4 4.7 1“5.1 

lData incomplete.


2Data include 16 decrees of separate maintenance.


itcan be seenthatthereisa slight
endencyfor


the duration toincrease.
Comparisonsbetweena


givenmedian and a median fortheimmediately


precedingyearindicate
thatoutof144 suchpairs


of medians,84 (58.3percent) represented
an in­


crease;38 (26.4percent) a decline,
and22 (15.3


percent)were the same. This patterncouldbe


even betterobservedwhen 3-yearmoving aver-


agesofthemedianswerecomputedforeachState.


Inthismanner,minor fluctuations disappeared
and


the underlyingpatternstoodoutmore distinctly.


There were 95 possiblecomparisons.,of
 these


averages;of these,67 showedan increase,
21 a


decline,and 7 showed no observablechange.


Elevenof the Stateslistedin tableR have


reporteddataon durationof marriage foreach


year of the decade 1954-63.In 1963 a totalof


61,947divorceswere grantedinthesellStates


combined.Medians and quartiles
of durationof


marriage were computed for each year of the


decadefor thisgroup of States(table
S).These


figuresalsoindicate
thattherewas acompara­


tively smallbutconstant
increaseintheduration


at decree.The firstquartile
changedverylittle


if at all. Duringthe decade,the 25 percentof


couplesthathad the shortestdurationwere’di-


vorced within3 years or lessaftermarriage.


Themedian, or secondquartile,
 increasedslight­


ly—from 6.1 in 1954 and 5.9in 1955 to6.7in


1962and 6.8in1963;therangebetweenthe
 median


andthefirstquartile
increasedfrom 3.4yearsin


1954t03.9in 1963.Thus thesecond25 percentof


divorcedcouplescovereda slightly
 wider time \


interval in1963thanadecadeearlier.
 ’l%elargest


28

Table S. Median and quartile duration of 

marriageto decree: total of 11 selected 

States, 1954-63 

“[The followirrg States are included and reported duration of 

marriage for each year: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, 

Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, 

ginia, and Wyoming] 

Duration 

year decree 

granted First 

quartile 

1963------- 2.9 

&----- 3.0 -----.- 3.0 

1960------- 2.9 

1959------- 2.9 

1958------- 2.8 

1957------- 2.8 

1956------- 2.7 

1955------- 2.6 

1954------- 2.7 

) 

South Dakota, Tennessee, Virof marriage I 

lnterquarThird tile 

Median T quar- range 

tile 

-* 

T

14.4 

R 14.0 

6.6 13.6 

6.7 13.3 

6.6 13.4 

6.5 13.2 

13.0 

2:? 12.5 

5.9 11.8 

6.1 11.8 

11.5 6 

11.0 Med!ans 

10.6 

10.4 

10.5 4“


10.4


1:.;. 1--


2 First quartiles 

;:? t 

t0 I I I I I I I I I 1 

1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 

1955 I 957 1959 1961 19s3 

increase 

gr,ew from 

occurred 

11.8 years 

in”the 

of duration 

third quartile 

to14.4 years, 

which 

YEAR OF DECREE !“

and the range between the median and the third 

quartile increased from5.7yearsto 7.6years(fig. 

9). The interquartile range between the first and 

the third quartiles increased from 9.1 years to 

11.5. Finally, changes occurred tothe25 percent 

of couples with the longest duration ofmarriage. 

In 1954 this group included all couples with more 

than 11.8 years of duration, but in 1963 only 

those with more than 14.4 years were included 

in this category. 

Likelihood of Divorce by Duration. 

.of Marriage 

Figure 9. Trend of the median and quartile duration of marriage at decree: total of 11 States, 

195!-63. 

Although exact values could not recomputed, 

a matrix of’ approximations of duration-specific 

rates was prepared in order torevealthe existing “’ 

interrelationships (table 6). Methods for computing the approximations are discussed in the appendix. 

In table 6therowsrefer tothe divorce year 

shown in the stub. For all years includedin the 

computations, the rates are highest 1 or 2 years 

after marriage, reaching in”afewcasesmorethan 

Duration-specific divorce rates cannot be : 25 divorces per 1,000 couples. Afterwards the 

computed because national divorce data bydura- rates decline, anda rate for alonger durationof 

tion of marriage are available only for 1960and marriages, almost without exception, lowerthan 

for some of the years prior to1933. Dataon the that for the adjacent shorter duration. Also~e 

total married population classified by durationof rates can be classified accordingto the time the 

marriage are available only for 1948 and, with couple was married. They refer not to calendar 

some qualifications, for 1952~0 years butto 12-month periods from July lofone 

. . 

29 
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ----

--------------------- ------------------

----------------------------------------

------- ------- ------- ------- -------- ----

---------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

------- ------- -------------- ------- ----

year to June 30 of the subsequent year, both years 

shown in the stub of the table. Divorces of couples 

married during the same 12-month period take 

place during various calendar years. For example, 

for the group married in 1952-53, the divorce rate 

for couples married less than 1 year is found in 

‘the row for decrees granted in 1953, that for couples married for 1 year in the row for 1954 divorces, and so forth. Thus, upward slanting diagonals comprise rates for the same marriage cohort. 

These rates present the same pattern as rates 

arranged by year of decree: with very few exceptions they are highest after 1 or 2 years of marriage and decline with increasing duration. Rates 

for a duration of less than 1 year are always lower 

than those for 1 year of duration, but the two 

rates are not quite comparable, as couples that 

divorced within 1 year after marriage had a very 

shori period of time to quarrel, separate, decide 

to file a divorce petition, and wait for the decree 

to be granted. 

The findings based on the approximations of 

the divorce rates by duration of marriage closely 

correspond to the available information about the 

likelihood of divorce by age of husband and of 

wife—the longer the duration and the older the 

age, the lower the likelihood of divorce. 

DIVORCE’ CASES 

Number of Children Involved 

i. 

It is estimated that the couples divorced’ in 

the United States during 1963 had a total of 583,000 

children, or 1.36 children per” divorce,. arid that 

8.5 children were involved in divorce per’1 ,000 

children under 18 in the Nation. Estimates of the 

number of children of divorced couples are available for 11 years, beginning with 1953. At that 

time, 330,000 children were involved in divorce 

cases, or 0.85 per divorce, and the involvement 

rate was 6.4 (table T). 

Between 1953 and 1963, the number of divorce 

decrees granted annually increased by 9.7 percent, 

but the number of children involved increased by 

76.7 percent; from 1962 to 1963 these increases 

were 3.6 and 8.6 percent, respectively. The trends 

in the numbers of decrees and of children are 

shown in figure 10. 

Some factors that contributed to the growth of 

the number of children involved in divorce cases ( 

are shown in table U. The proportion of divorces 

with children involved increased in the reporting 

States from 45.5 to 61.6 percent, while the number 

Table T. Estirnated number of children involved in divorces and annulments: United 

States, 1953-63 

rRefers onlv to events occurrintz within the United States. Figures for 1960-63 estimated from frequencies based on sample; those 1. 

for o~her years estimating from h~l counts. For method of estimating, see appendix] 

Year 

1963


1962


1961


1960


1959


1958


1957


1956


1955


1954---------------------------------------


1953---------------------------------------


., Aver age 

All Estimated number Rate per 

divorces number of of 1,000 

and children children children 

annulments involved per under 18 

decree 

428,000 583,000 1.36 8.5 

413,000 537,000 1.30 8.0 

414,000 501,000 1.21 7.6 

393,000 463,000 1.18 7.2 

395,000 468,000 1.18 

368,000 398,000 1.08 R 

381,000 379,000 0.99 

382,000 361,000 0.95 :::, 

377,000 347,000 0.92 6.3 

379,000 341,000 0.90 6.4 

390,000 330,000 0.85 6.4 

30 
600,000


I


500,000


400,000


300,000


}


ol~ 1963 

Figure 10, Number of divorces and number ofchil­


dren reported in divorce and annulment cases:


United States, 1953-63.


Table U. Proportion of divorces and annulments with children involved: total reporting States, 1953-63 

[Figures for 1960-63 based cm sample data; those for 1953-59 

based on total counts 1 

Percent Ratio 

of of 

decrees children 

with per 

children decree 

with involved children 

1963------ 22 61.6 2.16 

1962------ 21 60.2 2.14 

1961------ 60.3 2.06 

1960------ % 56.7 2.08 

1959------ 16 59.1 2.00 

1958------ 55.1 1.96 

1957------ X 50.9 1.95 

1956------ 22 48.9 1.93 

1955------ 22 48.1 1.92 

1954------ 22 47.8 1.88 

“1953------ 22 45.5 1.86 

of children per divorce with children involvedincreased from 1.86 to 2.16. The increase inthe 

proportion of divorced couples reporting children 

‘(or, conversely, the decline in the proportionof 

childless couples in divorce courts)was 35.4percent, while the increase of the ratio ofchiklren 

per divorce with children was16.1 percent. This 

indicates that the declineinlthe proportionof coupies who reported no children contributed mostto 

the increasein the number of children involvedin 

divorce. 

In the registration States combined, 202,800 

children were involved in divorce cases during 

1963, yielding a child-divorce ratio of 1.33, 

approximately the same as was estimated for 

the entire Nation. Datafor the DRAand for each 

registration State are shown in table V. The 

number of children involved is by and large 

associated with the number of decrees granted, 

but some variation can be observed, e.g., the 

highest mean number of children per decree was 

l.85in Hawaii and the lowest, l.15 in Tennessee. 

On the average, then, two couples divorced in 

Hawaii reported more khildren than three couples 

divorced in Tennessee (3.70 and 3.45). 

Children’s involvement rates fortheregistration States were computed for the first time 

from 1963 data (table V). In the DRA 7.8 children 

per 1,000 children under 18 were reported in divorce cases; for the individual States this rate 

varied from 5.0 per 1,000 (in Wisconsin) to 13.6 

(in Wyoming). 

There are two measures of the impact of the 

divorce upon children: the mean number of children per divorce and the involvement rate per 

1,000 population under 18 years of age. No association can be observed between these measures 

because high rates are found in States with low 

averages (e.g., 11.6 and’ 1.24 in Oregon); some 

States with low rates have high averages (e.g., 

5.0 and 1.59 in Wisconsin), others have low 

averages (e.g., 6.0 and 1.18 in Virginia). 

Distribution of Divorces 

by Number of Children Reported 

Almost two-thirds of all couples divorced in 

1963 reported children, and only 38.4 percent had 

no children under 18 (table W). The latter included 

31

------------------------------------

------------------------------------

------------------------------------

------------------------------------

-----------------------------------

------------------------------------- -------------------------------

------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------

----------------------------------

...- Table V. Number of children involved in divorces and annulments: divorce-registration
 area and each registration State, 1963


[By — place of occurrence. Refers to children under 18 years of age except as noted. Estimated from frequencies based OIISarrIDle.

For method of estimating, see appendix] 

Average


All Estimated number Rate per


divorces number of or 1,000
 Area and children children children


annulments involved 1 per
 under 18


decree


Divorce-registrationarea------------ 152,594 202,800 1.33 7.8


Alabama------------------------------------
 Alaska’


Georgia


HawaLi2------------------------------------


Idaho3-------------------------------------


Iowa--z


Kansas


Maryland-----------------------------------
 Michigan


Missouri-----------------------------------


Montana-------------------------------------
 Nebraska3-----------------------------------


Ohio---------------------------------------
 Oregon


Pennsylvania


Rhode island


South Dakota-----------------------------
 TennesseeS


Utah---------------------------------------
 Virginia~----------------------------------


Wisconsin


Wyoming-----------------------------------­


—


‘LNurnber
 of children under 21 affected.
 ~


Number of minor children.


3

Number of children affected by decree.


4Number of children.


12,410 16,400 1.32 12.4 

929 1>200 1.29 1;.; 

10,605 13,000 1.23 

1,514 2,800 1.85 10:3 

2,702 3,500 1.30 12.8 

4,992 7,800 1.56 7.8 

5,428 7,900 1.46 9.9 

6,230 7,600 1.22 6.1 

17,450 22,600 1.30 7.3 

12,030 14,400 1.20 9.5 

1,915 2,600 1.36 9.5 

2,444 3,200 1.31 6.o ( 

23,740 31,600 1.33 

6,215 7,700 1.24 1!:2 

14,770 22,200 1.50 .5.7 

1,054 1,600 1.52 5.3 

957 1,400 1.46 ;.;” 

10,235 11,800 1“. X5 . 2,658 4,400 1.66 

8,110 9,600 1.18 

4,844 7,700 1.59 

1,362 1,800 1.32 

5 Number of children under 18 of this marriage. 

‘Number of minor children affected.


couplesthathad no childrenbecausetheywere


onlyrecentlymarried,couplestowhomnochil­


drenhave beenbornirrespective
 ofthelengthof


marriage,andcouplesthathad beenmarriedfoti


many years and had grownup children.
Because


ofthecompositecharacterofthechildless
 group,


therearemany factorsthatmay haveaffectedits


declineduringthelastdecade.lle proportion
of


couplesreportingnochildrenvariedconsiderably


among theStates, from lessthanone-fourth(24.
 5“


percentinRhode Island) toalmostone-half
(45.2


percentinMissouri).Inno Statedidthedivorces

of childlesscouplescomprise more thanone-


halfof alldivorces.In 1956 and earlier
years,


however, in the reportingStatescombinedthis


proportionwas more than50 percent,
Thisindi­


catesa rapiddeclineoftheproportion
ofchild­


lessdivorcedcouples.


32

--------------------------------

---------------------------------

-----------------------------------

------------------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------

------------------------------

--------------------------------- ---------------------------

---------------------------

-----------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

Table W. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by number of children re-


ported: divorce-registrationarea and each registration State, 1963


[By place of occurrence. Based on sample data. Refers to children under 18 years of age except as noted. Computed on totals 

excluding figures of number of children not stated] 

Number of children reported


Area


Total None 1 2 3 4 5 6+


Percent distribution


Di,vorce-registrationarea-------- 100.0 38.4 23.9 18.7 10.7 5.0 2.0 1.4


Alabama-------------------------------- 100.0 37.0 26.3 17.8 10.6 5.1 1.8 

AlaskaI 100.0 41.8 20.3 18.8 10.1 5.4 2.5 ::? 

Georgi~-------------------------------- 100.0 38.4 26.5 19.6 3.7 0.9 

Hawaii”-------------------------------- 100.0 28.6 20.6 20.8 1;:: 8.5 ;:; 3.6 

Idaho3 100.0 39.2 23.7 17.7 11.5 3.8 2.4 1.6 

Iowa 100.0 33.2 23.5 18.8 12.6 3.0 2.2 

Kansas4-------------------------------- 100.0 36.4 22.6 18.8 12.0 ;:: 

Maryland 100.0 38.5 24.8 21.3 9.7 4.1 ::: ::: 

Michigan 100.0 40.0 21.0 19.7 11.9 4.7 1.6 

Missouri --.---- 100.0 45.2 21.2 15.9 9.7 5.0 1.7 R 

Montana-------------------------------- 100.0 38.7 22.9 18.7 10.2 3.1 1.4


Nebraska3 100.0 40.4 22.0 17.5 1;.; ::+ 2.1


Ohio----------------------------------- 100.0 39.3 23.0 18.7 M


Oregon 100.0 41.2 22.6 18.3 10:0 ;:2 ::; 0.8


Pennsylvania 100.0 26.5 31.7 20.4 13.3 5.0 1.4 1*7


--------------------------Abode Island
 100.0 24.5 33.3 23.7 1:.; 4.6 2.6 0.9 

South Dakota--------------------------- 100.0 36.1 21.3 22.2 � 5.7 2.1 2.6 

TennesseeS 100.0 43.8 24.7 15.7 3.8 1.5 

Utah----------------------------------- 100.0 30.7 24.4 18.4 1::; ;:?


VirginiaC 100.0 42.2 23.4 18.5 9.2 ;:: 2.1 :::


Wisconsin 100.0 33.2 22.7 19.7 12.2 3.2 3.0


Wyoming-------------------------------- 100.0 39.6 22.6 20.0 9.9 ::: 1.3 1.4


lNumber of children under 21 affected. ‘Number of minor children, 

‘Number of children affected by decree. 4Number of children. 

5Number of children under 18 of this marriage. cN~ber of minor children affected. 

Among divorcedcoupleswho reportedchil­


dren,themodal numberwasone childinallregis
 -


trationStates,exceptHawaii and SouthDakota,


where itwas two children. The proportion
ofdi-


vorces withhighernumbers ofchildren
declined


considerably witheach additional
 child,untilit


reached2 percentforcoupleswithfivechildren


(fig. 11). The remaininggroup(with sixchildren
or


more) included1.4percentofthetotaldivorces,


varyingfrom 0.6percentinMarylandto3.6per-


centinHawaii.The 1,967couplesincluded
inthat


categoryhad the following
numbers ofchildren:


1,207coupleshad6 children


416 coupleshad 7 children


191coupleshad8 children


92coupleshad9 children


24 coupleshad 10 children


14 coupleshad 11 children


20coupleshad12 children


lcouplehad13 children


lcouplehad14 children


lcouplehad18 children


33

-----------------------------------

-------- -------- -------- --

-------------------------------------

------------------------------------- - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - --

----------------------------------- -----------------------------

60 L


I


50


40


20


10 

0 

Number of Children Reported and Duration 

of Marriage 

The number of children reported dependsin 

part on the””duration of marriage of the divorced 

couple. If the duration is very short, the couple 

usually doesnothavemanychildren; iftheduration 

is very long, allor some children tendto be over 

lsyears ofageandnotincluded inthese statistics., 

The relationship between number of children 

and duration is not perfect. Childrenfromearlier 

marriages, when living with the couple, and 

adopted children are reported inmost States together with children born to the divorced couple. 

Therefore, asmall percentageofcouples divorced 

less than 1 year after marriage reported three 

children or more (table X). On the other hand, 

some couples remain childless throughout their 

married life, andone in four reportednochildren 

inthemarriage- duration category wher’e theproportion of the childless was the lowest (lOthrough 

No 

children 

Children 

reported 

I 2 3 4 5 6+ 

Table X also indicates that there is no linear NUMBER OF CHILOREN PER OIVORCE 

association between duration and number of children reported. The percentage of divorces with no 

14 years). 

Figure Il. Percent of divorces and annulments, by children reported declined from 84.8 when the number of children reported: divorce-registration area, 1963. duration is less than a year to 24.4 when the duTable	 X. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by number of children re -

ported according to duration of marriage: divorce-registration area, 1963 

[By place of occurrence. Iked on sample data] 

All di- Number of children reported 

vorces 

Duration of marriage and 

annu 1- None 1 2 3+ rnents 

Percent distribution 

Total 100.0 38.4 23.9 18.7 19.0 

Under 1 year --, ------ 100.0 84.8 11.2 1.7 2.3 

1-2 years 100.0 57.5 34.6 

3-4 years 100.0 38.5 35.5 2$; H 

5-9 years ----,- 100.0 28.7 22.0 25.9 23.5 

10-14” years 100.0 24.4 15.9 23.2 36.5 

15 years and over 100.0 34.5 19.2 19.5 26.8 

34 
---------

-----------

------------ ---------- --------

--------

--------

--------

---

--

-------

--------

-------

ration is 10-14 year:,butthenitincreasedto34.5


in the group withthelongestduration.
 DivorcesI 

withone childincreasedfrom a minimum of11.2 

percentforthosemarriedlessthanayearto35.5’ 

percent, thendeclined
to15.9percentwhen mar-.


riageshad lasted10-14 years, and increased


againin the categorywiththe longestduration.


Divorceswithtwo andwiththreechildren
ormore


increasedfrom very low percentageswhen the


durationwas ,shortto a highpointof 25.9and


36.5 percent,respectively,
 and declinedafter-”,


wards.


LEGAL GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE 

Reporting and Tabulation 

Legalgroundsforwhichdivorcedegreeswere


grantedare inallcasesknown,or easilyascer­


tainable,
 to the clerksof courtinchargeofthe


divorcerecords.Still,
 in a smallpercentageof


cases legalgroundsarenotstated.
For theDRA


thisitem was 96.9percentcomplete,butfortwo


Statesthe levelof completenesswas below 85


percent. InfourStates(iiawaii,
 Kansas,Ohio,and


Rhode Island)
thecompletenesswas 100percent.


Typically,a
divorcedecreeisgrantedonone


legalground,butoccasionally
 twogroundsormore


arementioned.For 1963datalegalgroundswere


tabulated
withmore detailthanfor any earlier


year. First,a provisional
listof 29 specific


groundswas preparedandalllegalgroundsmen­


tionedon the recordswere tabulated.
For 1962


and precedingyears only four legalgrounds


were used—adultery, cruelty(including
 indigni­


ties),desertion(including
abandonment),and


nonsupport—while all remaining decreeswere


groupedunder “othergrounds;”onlyoneground


per decreewas coded.


The provisional detailed tabulation
 of legal


groundswas examined and consolidated
 into11


categories—10 specific
grounds,eachmentioned


on at least900 divorcedecrees,andthe“other”


category.In threecases relatedgroundswere


combined bigamy andfraud;desertion
andaban­


donment;failure toprovide, grossneglect,
 neglect


of duty,and nonsupport.About13percentofthe


decreeswere grantedon two groundsor more,


thusmaking thenumber oflegalgroundslarger


thanthenumber ofdecrees(table
Y).


The differencebetween the two figuresis


smallinmost States,
butintwo(KansasandOhio)


it is pronmnced. This is due to a verylarge


number of decreesgrantedon a particular
 com­


binationofgrounds:inKansas 3,230decreesand


in Ohio 8,3~0 decreeswere grantedforcruelty


andgrossneglect. \


Table Y. Decrees and legs% grounds: divorce-registrationarea and each registration


State, 1963-


[By place of oc.c.mmce. Based cmsampledata] 

State Decrees Legal Ratio State Decrees Legal Ratio
 grounds grounds


DRA------- 152,594 L72,81O 1.13 Montana--------- 1,915 1,926 2..01 

Nebraska 2,444 2,718 1.11 

Alabama--------- 12,410 12,540 1.01 Ohio------------- 23,740 32,920 1.39 

Alaska---------- 929 977 1.05 Oregon---------- 6,215 6,300 1.01 

Georgia 10,605 10,785 1.02 Pennsylvania- 14,770 16,320 1.10 

Rhode Island--
 Hawaii----------- 1,514 1,542 1.02 South Dakota----

1,054 1,120 1.06


957 1,014 1.06
 Idaho 2,702 2,774 1.03 Tennessee 10,235 11,660 1.14
 Iowa 4,992 5,090 :.;; Utah------------ 2,658 2,704 1.02
 Kansas 5,428 8,874 Virginia
 Maryland 6,230 6,470 1:04 Wisconsin 

8,110 9,100 1.12


4,844 4,972 1.03
 Michi.gan 17,450 18,900 1.08 Wyoming--------- 1,362 1,504 1.10
 Mi.ssouri 12,030 12,600 1.05


35.-

Legal Grounds and True Causes 

Legal grounds for decree must be distinguished from the true causes of family disruption. 

In divorce cases the selection of the legal grounds 

depends on the laws of the State where the case is 

tried. The legal ground may or may not correspond 

to the true reason for the divorce. Grounds that 

are easy to prove in court proceedings and least 

unpleasant to make public are very often used. 

This is the case of cruelty, particularly in States 

where mental cruelty is sufficient for obtaining 

divorce, and of indignities in the few States where 

this ground exists. 

The true cause of marital discord that leads 

to divorce is not given on the divorce records. 

Research in the field of causes of family disrup: 

tion was conducted by several investigators, 11,1~ 

and their findings show that the causes of disruption are often very different from the legal 

grounds alleged in court. According to the authors, 

adultery atid drunkenness are among the major 

causes of family disruption. 

Distribution of Divorces by Legal Grounds 

The 10 legal grounds listed in table 7 cc :er 

more than 99 percent of decrees granted in the 

DRA, and in only one State is this percentage less 

than 95. About three-fourths of all divorces in the 

registration States were granted on three legal 

grounds: desertion or abandonment, neglect or 

nonsupport, and cruelty. In many States, one 

particular ground was reported on 90 percent or 

more of divorce decrees. This is the case of 

cruelty in Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin; of incompatibility in 

Alaska; of desertion in Virginia; and of indignities in Wyoming. Small numbers of divorces were 

granted on all remaining grounds. On the ground 

of adultery, a sizable proportion of divorces (16 

percent) was granted in one State only (Maryland). 

For bigamy and fraud the highest percentage was 

6.4 in Montana; for conviction of crime, 2.1 percent 

in Iowa; for drunkenness, 2.5 percent in Georgia. 

T’here are three grounds for which divorces cannot be obtained in most States but which are mentioned in a high percentage of cases of a few States: 

separation was mentioned in 43 percent of divorces 

granted in Maryland, incompatibility in 96 percent 

of decrees from Alaska, and indignities in over 80 

percent of decrees granted in Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. 

Multiple Legal Grounds 

Most decrees are granted on one legal ground, 

but in a small proportion of cases two or three 

grounds are alleged. Almost 90 percent of decrees 

with more than one ground were granted in 6 of 

the 22 registration States: Kansas, Michigan, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia. The 

combinations of grounds that are most widely 

used are shown in table Z. 

The figures in table Z were prepared irrespective of the order in which the grounds were 

mentioned; thus, “nonsupport and cruelty” was 

added to “cruelty and nonsupport. ” Both nonsupport and desertion include related grounds called 

by different names, as discussed in the section 

“Reporting and Tabulation. ” Cruelty is not among 

legal grounds of divorce listed in the laws of 

Virginia,but courts use this term to desi~ate 

certain types of desertion. 

Grounds included in the four most widely 

used combinations are in most cases very broad 

and unspecific. One may wonder what does 

“cruelty and indignities” mean as compared with 

“cruelty” and with “indignities” taken separately 

or what “cruelty” adds to the grounds of nonsupport and of desertion. On the other hand, the combination of desertion with nonsupport may indicate 

that the deserting spouse is often unwilling to support the deserted family. 

Legal Grounds and Duration of Marriage 

There is an association between the duration 

of marriage at divorce and the ground for which 

the decree was granted. This is due in part to 

periods of time prescribed by law as necessary’ 

for some legal grounds to arise. A given number 

of months or years must elapse for desertion, 

nonsupport, and several other causes to become 

legal grounds for divorce as defined by the statutes. In part, the differences in median duration 

also may be due to different types of marital 

strain occurring in various phases of married 

life. 

36 
--------------------

---------------------- -------------- -----------------

------------------ ------------------ ---

Table Z. Multiple legal 

Area 

DRA------------------

Kansas 

Michigan ------------------ Ohio 

Pennsylvania 

Tennessee 

:;;:y 

grounds of	 divorce: divorce-registration area and selected 

States, 1963 

[By place of occurrence.Based cmsampledata] 

All Cruelty Desertion Desertion Cruelty 

multiple and and and Other 

non - non - and indig­ ‘grounds support support cruelty nities 

20,216 13,160 1,494 1,250 1,138 3,174 

3,446 3,230 102 

1,450 980 3% 1!: 

9,180 8,360., ,, 5:: 240 

1,550 1,016 520 

1,425 235 70; 3:: 155 

990 5 ~260 

2,175 3:: 67 261 12; 1,;:: 

lCruelty is not a legal ground provided by the statutes of Virginia, but the courts 

designate by this term certain types of desertion. 

For 1963 data on legal grounds were not 

tabulated by duration ofmarriage,but unpublished 

statistics for 1961 may serve to illustrate differences in duration for different grounds (table 

AA). Median duration ofmarriagefor couples divorcedon selectedlegalgroundsmaybecompared 

with medians for all divorces, irrespective of 

the Iegal grounds. As medians for individual 

legal-ground categories were computed from 

grouped data, the State medians were, for the 

sake of comparability, recomputed using the 

same grouped data and may differ slightly from 

medians published elsewhere, which were cornputed from data by single years of duration. 

Table AA indicates that, asarule,themedian 

duration ofmarriageis comparativelyshortwhen 

the decree is granted for adultery, cruelty, and 

“other grounds,” and comparatively long when 

desertion or drunkenness are alleged. No clearcut pattern couldbe detected fordivorces granted 

for nonsupport and related grounds. 

Because of the small number of divorces 

granted onthe groundofadultery ,medianduration 

could be computed for five States only. All five 

medians were considerably below the respective 

State.ave~ages. 

W’hencruelty or indignities were thegrounds 

for decree, t.hemedian duration ofmarriage was 

shorter than the corresponding State medians in 

13 out of 17 cases. However, inmost cases (12 . . 

out of 17) the difference between the two medians 

was quite small, 0.2 points or less, and this was -’ 

true irrespective of the direction of this differ- .-.‘ 

ence. The similarity of the two medians is associated with the high percentage of divorces granted 

on the ground of cruelty or indignities in the 

majority of the reporting States. 

The ground of desertion, including abandonment, was associated with medians that were 

higher, often muchhigher, thanthe State averages. 

This wastrue in170utof19 States, andthelargest difference between the two medians was over 

10 years (in Iowa). Thetwo States withexceptionally low medians for desertion (Kansas and Mentana) hadunexpectedIy high medians for divorces 

granted for cruelty. 

When divorces were granted on the ground of 

drunkenness, median duration of marriage at time 

of decree was much higher than the comparable 

State medians. However, the number of divorces 

granted for drunkenness was small inmost States, 

37 
-------------------

-------------------

---------------------

----------------------

------------------

------------------

------------------

------------------ --------------------

--------------

--------------

-----------------

-----------------

-----------------

and median durationcouldbe computed fortwo


Statesonly(AlabamaandGeorgia).


There is a great deal of variation
in the


medianduration
ofmarriagewhen divorceswere


grantedfornonsupportor related grounds:
sixout


of eightsuch medians were lowerthantheState


averagesandtwo were higher.


In most Statesthemedianduration
ofmar­


riagewas quiteshortwhen decreeswere granted


on grounds other thanthosealreadydiscussed.


In MichiganandMontanaitwas lessthan1 year.


This may be duetotheinclusion
 inthiscategory


ofannulmentsandofdivorcesgrantedforcauses


thatarose beforemarriage.Intwo Statesa high


proportion
ofdecreesgrantedon “othergrounds”


were renderedfora specific individual
 ground,


impcrtantinthegivenStates
butnotfoundinmany


otherStates:incompatibility
 in Alaska (711de­


creesoutof843grantedfor“othergrounds”)
and


a periodofvoluntary separation
inMaryland(540


out of 1;000).Because of thepopularity
of in­


compatibility
 as a legalground,themediandu­


rationof marriage in Alaska forthe“other­


grounds”categorywas verysimilartotheoverall


median fortheState.
InMarylandthemedianfor


the“other-grounds” categorywas veryhigh(11.
1

years),whichcannotbe explained by thelegal
re­


quirementsfor decrees grantedfor voluntary


separation, asseparation
 becomes a legalground


aftera duration
ofonly18months.


THE PLAINTIFF AND PARTY TO 

WHOM DECREE GRANTED 

The two relateditems of informationwho


was theplaintiff
 inthedivorcesuitandtowhom


the decreewas grantedarereportedwitha high


degreeofcompletenessby allregistration
 States


Table U. Median duration of marriage, by legal ground of divorce: each registration


State, 1961


[T3y place of occurrence. Based m szmpledata.1


All Deser- Drunk- Non-
 State decrees Adultery Cruelty tion ennesss support Other


Alabama 7.5 4.0 6.4 9.3 9.0 * 1.4 

Alaska-------------------- 6.6 * * * 

Georgia 6.9 * 6.; 15.; H 

Hawaii-------------------- Idaho ::: 

* 

* ::: 

1?:: 

‘6.3 * 

16.; 

* 

14.7 

15.7 

Kansas-------------------- 7.0 5.0 * 6.; 1?:: 

Maryland 

Michigan 

Missouri 

R 

8.2 

6.7 

7.; 

* 

* 

* 

::; 

9.8 

15+ 

8.5 

* 

* 

8.; 

5.4 

11.1 

0.9 

5.0 

Montana------------------- 5.2 * 6.o 

Nebraska 6.9 * 7.3 ;:; * 5.: 1;:: 

Oregon 6.5 6.5 12.5 * * 

Pennsylvania 

South Dakota 

8.7 

6.6 

7.; 

* 

7.8 

6.5 

12.9 

19.4 * * 

;:; 

* 

Iowa 5.6 * 5.5 15+ 9e 

Tennessee 

Utah---------------------- 6.3 

5.3 

4.0 5.8 

5.5 R * y.; 

. 4.: 

Virginia2 8.8 6.; 8.9 8.6 

Wisconsin 8.6 + 1,6. j 10.4 

Wyoming------------------- 4.8 7’< 4.7 

8.; 1;:; * 9< * 

lLess than 100 cases.


2Cruelty is not a legal ground provided by the statutes of Virginia, but the courts


designate by this term certain types of desertion.


38

except Nebraska, where information on the party 

to whom the decree was granted is not collected 

on the divorce records. The question concerning 

‘the plaintiff was filled out on 97.9 percent of all 

divorce records from the registration States combined. The comparable percentage for the party 

to whom the decree was granted was 95.4, and, 

when data from Nebraska are omitted, this percentage increased to 96.9. 

In the overwhelming majority of the divorce 

cases the plaintiff is the wife. Even in cases where 

the true reason for divorce arose because of the 

wif e‘s fault, she is often permitted to file the 

application for divorce. In almost three-fourths 

of divorce cases in 1963, the plaintiff was the 

wife (table AB). 

fie number of divorce cases where the plaintiff was neither husband nor wife is very small: 

in 1963 there were 14 such cases in the entire 

DRA, about 1 per 10,000 divorces. Here the plaintiff usually is a parent or guardian who files the 

petition for an annulment of marriage of minors. 

There is no indication of association between 

the plaintiff and the duration of marriage since 

median durations of marriage are practically 

identical for plaintiff husbands and plaintiff wives, 

7.80 and 7.86 years, respectively. 

In 93.2 percent of cases the decrees were 

granted to the plaintiffs. Of the remaining decrees 

some were granted to husband and wife together; 

they constitute 2.8 percent of the totaI, and the 

Table AB. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by plaintiff according to party to whom decree was 

granted: divorce-registration area, 1963 

~ [By place of occurrence. %.ed ou”s.ample data] 

I Party to whom decree granted 

‘laint:fFT=FT

great majority of these divorces occurred in 

Alabama and Georgia. The remaining 4.0 percent 

were granted to the defendants (table AB). 

In 86.9 percent of divorces initiated by the 

husband the decree was granted to the husband, 

while for wives the comparable percentage is 95.6. 

In 10.1 of divorce cases where the husband is 

the plaintiff, the decree is granted to the wife, 

and in 1.7 percent of cases where the wife is the 

plaintiff, decrees are granted to the husband. Thus, 

plaintiff husbands are six times more likely than 

wives to lose the case and to have the decrees 

awarded to their spouses. 

39 
REFERENCES 

lPopulatioa bases given in table 1 of U.S. Bureau of the 

Census, “Marital Status and Family Status, March 1964 and 

1963, ” Cument Population Reporv!s, Series P-20, No. 135, 

Washington, D. C., Apr. 1965. 

2Willcox, Walter F.: The Divorce Pro bZem. New York. 

Columbia University, 1897, pp. 37-38 and 47. 

3National Center for Health Statistics: Divorce statistics analysis. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 

1000-Series 2:1-No. 7. Public Health Service. Washington, 

D.C. Government Printing Office, Dec. 1965. 

4U .S. Bureau of the Censue: Crwent Population Reports, 

~ Series P-20, Nos. 96, 105, 114, 122, and 135. 

5

Because estimates of State populations by color were 

not prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, population 

bases were taken from tbe Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Statistical Bulletin, Vol. 46, Apr. 1965. 

6U S Bureau of the Census: u.S. Census if Poprdatio 

1960. V;;. I, (7haracte~istics of the Population, Part L f Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 196? table 176. . . 

7National Center for Health Statistics: Op cit., pp. 15-16. 

8U.S. Bureau of the Census: Marriage and Dioorce, 1867-

1906, Part 11, Washingtirr. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

1908. tables 11 and 12. 

9Table 2-AC in National Office of Vital &ati StiCS, Vital 

Statistics of the United States, Vol. I. for 1958 and 1959, 

Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960 and 1961. 

10U, S, Bureau of the Census: (kwent Popuz@tion Reports! 

Series P-20, Nos. 23 and 150. 

llHamsworth, H. C., and Minnis, M. S.: Nonstatutory 

causes of divorce: the lawyer’s point of view. Marriage and 

Farni2y Lioing XVII(4) :316:21. 

12Thoma~, J. L.: Catholic family disorganization. Contributions to Urban Sociology. Chicago. The University of 

Chicago Press, 1964. pp. 527-40. 

13National office of Vital Statistic: Mortality from se­

.	 lected causes by marital status: United States, 1949-51. Vital 

Statistics-SpeciaJ Reports, Vol. 39, No. 7. Fublic Health 

Service. Washington, D. C., May 1956. 

000 

40 
Table 1.


2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

DETAILED TABLES 

Number and rate of divorces and annulments: United States and each region. divi­


sion, and State, l959-63--------------------------------------------------------


Percent distribution of divorces and annulment~by age of husband and of wife at


time of decree: six selected States, 1963---------------------------------------


Percent distribution of divorces and amulments, by race of husband and of wife: 

eight selected States, l963-----------------------------------------------------

Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by number of this marriage of


husband and of wife: six selected Staees, 1963----------------------------------


Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by duration of marriage to time


of decree: divorce-registration area and each registration State, 1963----------


Approximations of divorce rates, by duration of marriage: United State~ 1953-63--


P~rcent distribution of divorces and annulments, by legal grounds for decree:


divorce-registration area and each registration State, 1963---------------------


Page


42 

44 

45 

45 

46 

48 

49 
------------

----------------

---- ----

------

---------------

--------

--------

---------

----------

-------------

---------

-----------------

-------------

------------

Table 1. Number and rate of divorces and	 annulments: United States and each region, division, and


State, 1959-63


[3Yplaceof occ.rre..o. Data are counts of dccrwsgrnnwl supplied by States C?XCWLM notsd. lk!ms per 1,000 population in each area, en.mora~ed LIS 

of .April 1 for 156(J and cstimakd w of July I for all other yrarsl 

Region, division,


and State


United Statesl~2--


Regions:


Northeast


North Centra12 -------


South


West’ --.-----


Northeast:


New England ----------


Middle Atlantic


North Central:


East North Central---


West North Central---


South :


South Atlantic -------


East South Central---


West South Central---


West:


Mountain


Pacific] -----------


New England:


Maine ----------------


Few Hampshire


Vermont --------------


Massachusetts


Rhode Island


Connecticut


Middle Atlantic:


New York


New Jersey -----------


Pennsylvania


East North Central:


Ohio


Indiana --------------


Illinois -------------


Michigan


Wisconsin


Number Rate


1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959


428,000 413,000 4L4,00C 393,000 395,00( 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2


41,000 38,000 339,000 39,00( 0.9 0.9 0.8 30.9 0.9 

114,000 108, 00C 2.1 

~l12,000 -102,000 396,0(30 295,00( 23.6 ‘3.6 23.5 33.4 23.4 

14,421 14,156 13,349 312,842 12,917 1.3 31.2 

26,215 26,190 25,124 26,255 26,028 0.7 ::; ;:; 0.8 M 

982,038 279,566 284,162 2773639 374,408 22.2 92.2 22.3 22.1 

31,801 30,533 329,647 228,533 28,755 2.0 2.0 31.9 31.9 l.~ 

63,429 

35,502 

60,802 

34,532 g;:;fj 3:; : ;;: 355,237

336,176 

2.3 

2.8 

2.2 

2.8 3::; 2.1 

* 

32.2 

* 

60,907 258,411 257,659 355,000 ‘258,039 * ‘k * * * 

937,059 ;35 ,851 232,402 328,846 231,275 24.9 :4.8 24.5 34.z 

274,851 72,289 369,494 66,395 63,601 23.2 “3.2 33.2 3.1 3.; ‘ 

2,207 2,092 2,027 2,168 1,977 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.1 

1,373 1,363 1,126 1,119 1,049 2.1 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.8 

501 

6,066 

1,055 

452 

6,312 

921 

487 

5,836 

1,040 

35,% 

954 

487 

5,458 

1,049 

1.2 

1.1 

1.2 

1.2 

1.2 

1.0 

::? 

1.2 

.?;:; 

1.1 

R 

3,219 3,016 2,833 2,546 2,897 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 ::: 

161,000 :%$’:: %$% 2153,00( 2:; $:+ 2;:; 2;:; 22.8 

6,312 6,555 6,394 7,235 7,691 0.4 0.4


5,114 5,319 5,124 4,591 4,446 0.8 ;:; 0.8 ::: ::?


14,789 14,316 13,606 14,429 13,891 1.3 . 1.2 1.3 1.2


22,655 2.3
 & ;::; 3:::; %; ;;; %:%: 88,228 ~;:j 2$: 2;:; H 

20,765 18,820 25,973 21,809 322,700 2.0 2.2 32.; 

17,479 17,500 16,219 16,416 16,168 2.2 ;:; 2:0 2.1 

4,918 4,547 4,300 3,660 4,657 1.2 1.1 1.1 ::; 1.2


See footnotes at end of table.


42

------------ ----------------- ------------- ---------

------------- ---------------

-------------

-------------

-------------

--------

-------

------- --------------

--------------

-------------

------------

----------

-------------

------------

----------------

-------------- ----------------

-------------

--------------

---------------

----------- --------------- ----------- ---------------

---------------

Table 1. Number and rate of divorces and annulments: United States and each region, division, and


<tate, 1959-63—Con.


rBvdaceo Foccurrence. Datame counts ofdecrees wanted sUpplied bySh(esexcept= noled.
 Rates perl,OOOpopulation ineacharea, enumeratcdas 

of .4pril 1 for 1960 and estimated as of July 1 for all other years 1 

Region, division,


and State


West North Central:


Minnesota


Iowa


Missouri


North Dakota


South Dakota---------
 Nebraska


Kansas


South Atlantic:


Delaware


Maryland


District of Columbia-


Virginia


West Virginia


North Carolina


South Carolina


Georgia


Florida


East South Central:


Kentucky


Tennessee


Alabama--------------
 Mississippi


West South Central:


Arkansas


Louisiana


Oklahoma------------?


Texas


Mountain:


Montana


Idaho


Wyoming--------------


Colorado


New Mexico-----------
 Arizona


Utah-----------------
 Nevada


Pacific:


Washington


Oregon


California


Alaska


Hawaii


Number Rate


1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959


4,636 4,536 4,227 4,139 3,820 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 

12,652 12,069 ~ll,;;: 31;;:;; 11,824 2.9 ;:; 3;:; 3;:; 2.8 

689 631 596 :;: 1.0 1.0 1.0 

953 871 854 794 ;:: 1.2 1.2 1:2 1.1 

2,436 2,357 2,373 2,151 2,201 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 

5,432 5,330 5,150 4,810 4,963 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 R 

621 555 593 693 617 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.4 

‘6,402 6,022 5,296 5,140 5,319 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 

1,214 1,174 1,140 1,142 1,230 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 

8>101 

3,769 

7,674 

3,814 

7,559 

3,837 

7,368 

:,;;; 3;;:;; 1.9 

2.1 

1.8 

2.1 

1.8 

2.1 

1.9 

1.9 3::; 

7,308 6,863 6,440 6,369 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.4 

2,535 2,681 3,178 3;068 3>034 1.1 ;:: 1.3 

10,569 9,841 9,539 8,940 8,609 ;:; 2.3 ;:; 

22,910 22,178 21,682 19,554 19,550 4.1 ::: 4:1 3.9 4.1 

7,139 7,243 87,467 37,528 36,888 2.3 2.3 32.4 * * 

10,345 9,522 9,323 9,053 9,205 2.8 2.6 

12,566 12,300 17,715 L7,320 14,975 3.7 3.7 ;:: H ::; 5,452 5,467 5,213 5,237 5,108 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 

3$;;; 

11,790 

3::;~; 

‘211,194 

35,872 

35,142 

211,305 

35,377 

?4,~42 

10,749 

35,617 

33,666 

213,133 

3.4 

4.: 

3.4 

24.: 

33.3 

24.; 

* 

4.: 

33.2 

*5.; 

39,219 36,918 335,340 34,732 35,623 3.8 3.6 33.6 3.6 3.8 

5,003 4,739 4,777 4,594 2: 1.7 

1,932 2,034 2,006 2,062 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 

5;:;:; 2,547 2,685 2,592 2,652 ::: 3.9 4.0 

~1,344 1,308 2:: j:; 4.0 ~3.8 

33,470 33,220 32,811 32 093 33.5 3.7 33.3 3$; * 

8,482 7:788 6,973 ;,:&3: ~;:::; 5.6 5.2 4.9 3.7 25.2 

2,659 2,480 2,360 1.5 

9,682 9,415 8,223 8;455 3:509 2::; 2::: 2;:; 2$2 34.1 

29,953 29,829 39,355 9,341 :,;3; 23.4 2;.; 33.2 3.3 3.3 

6,180 6,074 6,023 5,720 3.3 3.4 3.2 

56,274 54,011 51,644 49,;:: 47;:& 3.2 3:2 3.1 $: 

929 904 916 3.8 3.7 3.9 ::; 1,515 1,471 1,556 1,270 1,378 2.2 2.1 2.4 2.0 2:2 

2::;:: “:,;:; 2;;;:; 4,728 2~;::: 2::: 23.5 -3.0 -3.5 

lHa~aii included beginning 1960.


~Data are estimated.


3Data are incomplete.


~Includes 102 decrees of l~ted divorce.


‘Includes101 decrees granted in 1962.


43

---------------

-------------

---------

------------

------------

---------------

-------------

---------

------------

------------

Table 2. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by age of husband and of wife at time of decree:


six selected States, 1963


[B)I PI,c, Of occurrence. Based o. ample data. states jncl”ded in this bble peported age at d.some with e. level of completeness! of 85 p~~.~nt O, ~orG] 

II 

All di- Age at time of decree


vorces


State and T 65+
 annul- U;p 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64
years
 ments years years years years years years years years years years


Husband I II I I 

Total, 6 State s-- 100.0 14.9 13.6 12.3 8.3 T 6.3
 3.6 2.3 - 2.2 

Hawaii 

HL 

100.0 

=Ql=+==18.6 16.3 14.1 iy.; 5.5 3.3 1.7 1.4 Iowa----------------- 100.0 15.3 12.6 11.2 5.8 ;.: 1.3 2.0 

Missouri 100.0 14.2 12.9 13.0 7:7 6.9 2.9 2.7 

Shode Island 100.0 15.8 15.1 11.0 9.8 6.7 3:2 2.2 2,1 Tennessee 100.0 14.1 13.8 11.9 5.6 2.2 2.2 

Wisconsin 100.0 16.6 14.5 12.3 ;:2 6.9 2:; 2.1 1.7 

14.0 12.4 10.4 7.0 1.0 0.9 - - - _ -

Hawaii 100.0 18.8 18.6 17.7 16.1 11.5 7.5 2.0 0.4 0.2 Iowa----------------- 100.0 24.6 17.9 14.0 11.9 7.0 1.6 0.7 1.0 

Missouri 100.0 20.8 17.0 13.8 11.1 & 6.6 2.3 1$2 1.3 Hhode Island 100.0 20.6 19.5 13.5 14.2 8.1 1.4 Tennessee 

Wisconsin 

100.0 

100.0 23.9 

21.4 17.1 13.7 

18.8 14.1 

12.5 

14.0 1::: 

6.9 

8.1 ;:; 

2.7 

1.1 

1.1 ::; 

0.7 I —( 

44

------------------

--------------------------------- -----------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------------

-------------------------------

------------------------------

---------------- ------------------

-------------- ---------- -------------

-------------

Table 3. Percent distributionof divorces and annulments, by race of husband and of wife: eight


selected States, 1963


[By place of occurrence. Based cm sample date,. States included in this table reported race with alevel of completeness of 85 percent of morel 

Husband Wife


- State


All White Negro Other All White !7egro races races 

Total, 8 States 100.0 87.2 10.9 1.9. 100.0 87.0 10.8 2.2 

Hawaii 100.0 47.7 1.0 51.3 100.0 41.9 0.5 57.7 

Iowa 100.0 96.8 1::”$0.1 100.0 96.7 0.3 

Missouri 100.0 89.5 100.0 89.3 1$? 

Montana 100.0 95.7 3.i 100.0 95.9 3.; 

Rhode Island 100.0 95.0 M 0.2 100.0 95.4 %!? 0.1 

Tennessee 100.0 86.5 13.5 100.0 86.5 13.5 0.0 

Virginia 100.0 79;3 20.6 0.; 100.0 79.4 20..6, 0.1 

Wisconsin 100.0 94.2 5.4 0.4 100.0 94.2 5.1 0.7 

., 

Table 4. Percent distributionof divorces and annulments, by number of this marriage of husband


and of wife: six selected States, 1963


[By place of occurrence. Basedon sample date. States includedin this table reported thenumber ofthismmriage with alevelof comp1etene&s 

of 85 percent or more. Percen.t distributions exclude cases titb previous marital status notreported] 

Husband Wife


. Remarriages Remarriages


State All First All First


mar- mar- mar- mar-
 3d riages riage riages riage
 Total 2d or


more


Total, 6 States- 100.0 72.8 27.2 20.1 7.0 100.0 72.4 27.6 21.2 6.3 

+ 

Hawaii 

Iowa 

100.0 

100.0 

75.6 

69.3 

24.4 

30.7 

19.3 , 5.2 

22.0 8.7 

100.0 

100.0 

71.6 

69.4 

28.4 

30.6 

20.6 

22.2 

7.8 

Missouri 100.0 74.3 25.7 17.9 7.8 100.0 73.8 26.2 19;4 ‘% 

Rhode Island 100.0 83.1 16.9 14.0 3.0 100.0 80.8 19.2 16.0 3.2 

Tennessee 100.0 68.9 31.1 23.5 100.0 69.6 30.4 24.4 

Wisconsin 100.0 78.3 21.7 17.8 U 100.0 76.8 w23.2 19.1 :::

45

--------------

--------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

-------------------------------------

-------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

--------------------------- ---------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

---------------------------------

---------------------------------

---------------------------------

--------------

----------------

-------------------------------------

------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

Table 5. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments by duration of marriage to time of de­


cree: divorce-registration area and each registration State, 1963


[Byplace ofoco.mence. Based on sample data. Computed ontotals excluding figures for durationfmarriage notstated]


Duration of marriage 

Area Total


Percent distribution 

Divorce-registration area 100.0 5.2 31.2 8.6 8,4 7.5 6.8 

Alabama 100.0 6.6 29.8 8.5 9.1 6.7 5.5


Alaska 100.0 7.5 33.5 10.5 8.8 8.7 5.6


Georgia 100.0 8.3 35.0 10.7 10.0 7.8 6.7


Hawaii 100.0 6.0 31.4 8.4 6.9 7.8 8.3


Idaho 100.0 10.5 39.8 13.9 9.8 8.9 7.2


Iowa -
 100.0 6.8 37.1 10.1 9.7 9.9 7.4


Kansas 100.0 8.6 33.5 10.7 8.4 7.8 6.4


Maryland 100.0 1.0 19.6 1.9 5.4 6.4 6.0


Michigan 100.0 3.2 29.8 7.6 7.6 6.9 7.6


Missouri 100.0 7.9 33.2 11.4 8.2 6.5 7.1


Montana 100.0 6.9 37.3 12,2 9.9 8.2 7.0


Nebraska -
 100.0 6.8 34.7 10.7 8.7 8.0 7.3


Ohio - 100.0 4.3 29.8 7.4 8.1 7.1 7.2


Oregon 100.0 7.7 37.6 11.7 10.2 9.4 6.3


Pennsylvania 100.0 1.8 28.3 6.2 7.8 7.6 6.7


Rhode Island 100.0 0.5 27.8 4.8 6.9 7.8 8.2


South Dakota 100.0 8.4 33.5 7.9 11.3 7.9 6.4


Tennessee-- -.------------------ 100.0 8.4 33.1 10.5 9.7 7.7 5.1


Utah--------.-------.-------- 100.0 9.5 39.7 13.0 11.5 7.7 7.6


Virginia 100.0 0.4 27.5 6.6 6.0 8.6 6.4


Wisconsin 100.0 2.4 30.5 7.1 7.9 7.6 7.8


Wyoming 100.0 9.9 38.9 12.5 11.5 9.2 5.6


46

Table 5. Percent distributionof divorces and annulments by duration of marriage to time of de­ cree: divorce-registrationarea and each registration State, 1963-Con. 

[By placeof occurrence. Based on sample data.. Computed on tmtals excluding figures for duration of marriage not stated] 

5-9 years


Total 5 6 7


years years years


-.


Duration of marriage


10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30 years


8 9 years years years years and over


years years


Percent distribution


23.9 5.7 5.5 I 5.0 I 3.7 14.9 11.5 6.8 3.5 3.0 

I + 

23.3 5.5 5.8 5.0 . 3.0 14.2 11.9 7.3 2.0 4.9 

25.0 4.5 5.7 6.0 5.1 3.7 15.8 10.3 4.1 2.6 1.2 

21.7 5.3 5.1 4.3 3.4 3.5 13.1 9.7 5.9 3.5 2.8 

25.0 6.4 5.6 4.1 5.3 3.7 16.9 9.7 6.7 2.3 2.0 

20.9 5.2 4.5 5.1 2,9 3.3 11.5 8.5 4.2 2.6 2.0 

22.2 5.6 6.0 4.9 3.1 2.7 12.8 10.1 5.3 3.7 1.9 

22.9 5.5 5.2 4.6 3.9 3.6 12.9 9.9 7.2 2.4 2.7 

28.2 6.7 7.7 4.8 4.4 4.6 19.3 14.9 9.7 4.0 3.2 

25.8 6.4 5.8 4.8 4.7 4.0 15.0 12.1 7.6 3.7 3.0 

21.9 4.5 5.2 5.5 3.6 3.1 14.3 10.2 5.9 3.3 3.2 

22.4 6.7 3.8 6.1 3.1 2.7 14.7 9.3 5.0 2.8 1.6 

22.1 5.0 5.3 4.3 3.4 4.2 14.4 10.5 6.o 3.0 2.5 

25.0 6.3 5.8 5.2 4.0 3.8 16.7 11.3 6.8 3.7 2.4 

21.3 5.6 5.4 3.9 3.3 3.1 13.2. 10.1 5.0 3.0 2.2 

24.7 5.8 5.8 5.4 4.3 3.5 15.7 14.4 7.3 4.3 3.4 

25.8 Sj4 6.0 5.2 5.2 4.0 16.6 13.7 8.1 4.3 3.2 

22.9 7.0 4.1 4.6 3.5 3.7 12.4 11.8 6.3 2.6 2.1 

22.1 5.6 4.7 4.4 3.7 3.6 13.1 10.4 6.1 3.4 3.4 

22.4 5.8 3.9 5.7 4.2 2.8 11.6 8.3 4.8 2.3 1.3 

26.6 5.4 4.9 5.7 5.1 5.4 15.9 12.6 8.1 4.9 4.0 

24.8 5.6 6.5 4*7 3.8 4.2 16.1 11.9 8.0 4.1 2.3 

20.1 4.3 5.0 3.5 3.5 3.9 11.8 9.3 5.2 2.7 2.1 

47

Table 6. Approximations of divorce rates,by duration of’marriage: United States, 1953-63


[Rates ccmrp.tedper 1,000 estimated couples with a given length of marriage. Row represent data by year o’f divorce, upward slanted diagonals 

by duration of marriage. Figures for 1953-59 based on complete counts; those for 1960-63 on sample data] 

Duration of marriage


year of decree and 

of marriage Under 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 

year 

7ear years years years years years years years years 

Divorce 1963 

Marriage 1962-63---------- 13.9 23.9 24.9 23.4 .21,9 19.1 17.7 16.6 14.2 13.3 

Divorce 1962 

Marriage 1961-62---------- 13.4 23.9 24.3 22.9 20.8 21.1 15.9 16.4 15.0 12.7 

Divorce 1961 

Marriage 1960-61---------- 15.3 26.7 23.5 23.6 21.5 18.6 18.3 16.3 12.$ 

Divorce 1960 

Marriage 1959-60---------- 16.3 21.9 22,8 21.4 20.6 19.3 15.5 14.8 

Divorce 1959 

Marriage 1958-59---------- 15.8 22.6 24.1 22.8 20.9 18.1 15.9 

Divorce 1958 

Marriage 1957-58---------- 19.1 22.6 25.0 21.9 18.1 16.1 

Divorce 1957 

Marriage 1956-57---------- 14.9 24,4 24,7 22.0 19.2 

Divorce 1956 

Marriage 1955-56---------- 15.7 25.3 25.2 21.6 

Divorce 1955 

Marriage 195&-55---------- 15.9 24.9 25.2 

Divorce 1954 

Marriage 1953-54---------- 16.2 24.8 

Divorce 1953 

Marriage 1952-53---------- 17.3 

48

-----------------

--------------

-----------------

------------------

-------------------

--------------------

------------------

----------------

----------------

----------------

-----------------

----------------

--------------------

------------------

------------

------------

------------

---------------

------------------

----------------

---------------

-----------------

Table 7. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by legal grounds for decree: divorce-


registration area and each registration State, 1963


[BY@ace ofoscurrence. Basedonsampledata.!.lmut 13 Percent ofdircrces weregrmtd ontwozroundsrm more; therefore perccnts add Up to 

morethan100.01 -

Area


DRA---------------


Alabama


Alaska----,


Georgia


Hawaii


Idaho


Iowa


Kansas


Maryland


Michigan


Flissouri


Montana


Nebraska


Ohio


Oregon


Pennsylvania


Rhode Island


South Dakota


Tennessee


Utah-’


Virginia


Wisconsin


Wyoming


Legal grounds (see Note below)


All


divorces


and (1) (2)


annul­


ments
 m
 I I 

Percent distribution


100.0 1.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 18.7 53.7 2.6 

100.0 

100.0 

3.8 

0.2 M 0.1 ::: ::; 

54.9 

2.3 

0.4 

100.0 0.3 0.3 0.; 2.5 0.4 79.5 ;:: 100.0 0.4 1.3 0.3 5.2 84.4 0.9 

Tr 

100.0 0.2 0.9 0.7 0.6 92.4 2.0 

100.0 0.8 0.6 M 92.0 

100.0 0.3 0.8 ::; ;:; 79.9 74.4 

100.0 16..4 0.7 0.7 0.3 43.5 

100.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 6.4 95.4 

100.0 0.3 ;:: 0.7 1.9 0.; 

100.0 0.2 6.4 ::; 8;:; 

100.0 0.7 2.0 ::; 1.9 ::: 92.5 

100.0 0.6 0.2 1.2 0.1 34.8 44.7 

100.0 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.2 90.8 

100.0 0.6 0.4 ::: 100.0 0.3 0.4 O.ii 17.8 6;:; 6.; 

100.0 0.1 0.7 1.1 88.7 0.1 

100.0 1.1 R 0.8 0.5 1::? 76.9 

100.0 0.1 0.6 0.4 91.3 

100.0 3.6 ::: 1.6 %$? 14.0 9.; 

0.3 0.0 1.7 90.5
 ;:: 1.0 0.5 1.9 6.8


2.1


3.8


(lo) (11) 

0.7 15.8 008


0.6 

95.; 0.; 0.1 

0.2 0.2 

1.4 

M 

M 0.6 

2.0 

0.4


0.; 87.;


;:: 

0.; 0.2 2.5


0.2.


8!3:;	 :::


8.9


0.1


0.0 M 

0.6	 1.8


0.6


0.; 92.;


Lcruelty is not a legal ground.provided by the statutes of Virginia,


by this term certain types of desertion.


NOTE :	 (1) Adu-ltery (5) Desertion or abandonment


(2) Bi&amy or fraud - (6) Neglect or ntmsupport


(3) Conviction of crime (7) Cruelty


(4) Drunkenness (8) Separation or absence


but the courts designate


(9) Incompatibility


(10) Indignities


(11) Other


,.. 
APPENDIX 

SOURCES AND QUALITY OF DATA 

Sources of Data were estimated by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) from samples of transcripts of divorce 

The analysis of the 1963 divorce statistics is based and annulment records received from a limited number 

on frequencies published in Vital Statistics of the United of States that belong to the divorce-registration a~ea, 

States, 1963, Volume III, Section 2. Data for earlier but the annual divorce totals shown in table 1 were proyears used for comparison were taken from appropriate vided for all States by State and local officials with the 

annual issues of Vital Statistics of the United States. qualifications described in the footnotes to that table. 

Mortality data by marital status used in table A of In order to promote regular, timely, and complete 

this report are from the same publications, except for reporting, a divorce-registration area comparable to the 

1962 and 1963 figures, which are provisional and were registration areas developed for the collection of natalpublished in the Monthly Vital Statistics RepoYt, Volume ity, marriage, and mortality statistics was established 

11, Number 13 and Volume 12, Number 13. in 1958. The DRA is made up of States and independent 

A comparable analysis of divorce statistics for 1962 areas which meet the following criteria: 

was published in Vital and Health Statistics, Series 21, 1. They have established central files of divorce 

Number 7, and analyses for earlier years in Vital records. 

Statistics of the United States, Volume III, for 1960 2. They have adopted a statistical report form that 

and	 1961 and Volume I for 1959 and preceding years. includes the required items of information on 

‘No methods have been used for collecting final the Standard Record of Divorce or Annulment 

divorce statistics since 1960; most of these statistics (fig. I). 

DEPARTMENT OF PU8L I C liSALTii ,MM umovsn 

(s,.,., ,7,,, ,,,. 

mm-r no, UREA” 10, . ..nw7 

OF VITAL STATISTICS (-.A.)W 

*MUI w STANOAFSO RECORD W LOCALP,tt rw. 1 n DIWRCE em n ANNUJUWT 

HUSMIID , “A- . . {)y., ) b. (.,41., . (-.,> ,. ..,, P..*.) @.rJ W-J 0,

.,*7M 

,. “,”., “,s,0,”., . . (Clrr> ,. (.-.,,, . . ,s,.,.) ,. ..”,. (St... . . /.,.1,” ..””tr,)— or 

�0”711 

s.	 N*MR of . . Rmc 0“ cmol 7.. USUAL OCC”PAT am ,b. .,.0 or s“,, ”,,’ m I “own” 

,“,, w.,.., 

: Ml ,,, “,CR. .7”,, 

: � � � <.”. ii,>_ 

: 

. 

: WIFE 

. . m,.- “m, . . (?{,..1) t., (“,..,., ., (J...,, ,. ,? (Wc..th> <..7> (,..,) 

*, �,” 

z . . (c,,,, b. <co.”,, > . . (s,.,., t , . . . . . .. . ($t. t. .r to-d, ” . ..”*r.,— : ‘“. ‘W*L “’’0’””’ 

. �,”,” 

: 

w ,IM91” or ,,. COLm ., “A., *4.. US.AL wcuurocm ,.,. .!”. w ,“,,”,,, ., ,N.u,,w 

i ‘“ “-””- ml,,, “con. .,”s, 

~ � � � (.?E,oL 

% 

: 

~“ 

2 

: 

: ‘“ “~*- . . (....,, ) ,. (s,:,. ., f.,. id. . . . . ...) ,,. mm m (WC-,., (D.,, (r..r) 

“,””,,0, 

: ~,~-

: ~,, m : ~ , ,“.:,: ‘o. “’”’’” ,.. mx”m -All,,. m so. Lccu .Rcu” - mm mc”t. 

~ Wm. ,, Hu,roll. .,,, 

� 0 ““’r “K —— ~ O*1C or (.-,6> (D.,) (~-,) I hereby cerfify tfnt the mbm <“e.,,,> [-7 J <“..., ~ .RUXWU 4“.

pr.m. -,. divorced a!: 

. . : ,,911*7U”E OF U9u”r O,rlcou ,,IIC w cO””, OF, !CIAL 

~ 

: 

50 

Figure 1. Standard Record of Divorce or Annulment

3.	 They maintain a registration system based on 

regular and timely reporting by all local areas. 

4.	 They have agreed to carry out tests of divorce 

registration completeness and accuracy in cooperation with NCHS. 

By 1963, 22 States and the Virgin Islands were participating in the DRA (fig. II). As Rhode Island was included 

in the DRA as of January 1, 1963, DRA data for 1963 

cover a slightly larger area than those for earlier years. 

In 1960 a nationwide probability sample program 

was initiated for collecting divorce statistics; they had 

been compiled for earlier years from predesigned tables 

submitted by the States. The 1960 program was continued for 1961, 1962, and 1963, but it was limited to 

States in the DRA. Hence, national and regional statistics based on data from samples of records are not 

available for 1963, except for the national total number 

of children involved in divorce cases, which has been 

estimated by methods explained below. All other data 

are limited to the registration area and the individual 

registration States. Virgin Islands is excluded from the 

analysis; data for this area are published in Section 3, 

Volume III, Vital Staf,i.sties of the United States, 1963. 

Variables shown in the 1963 tabulations appear on 

the divorce or annulment record forms of all registration States with the following exceptions: Kansas secured 

no data on residence of husband and wife; Ohio, on race 

or CO1OC Nebraska, on the party to whom decree was 

grante& and Nebraska and Virginia, on the number of 

times parties to the divorce bad been married. The remaining variables required on all records were date 

and place where the decree was granted, age or date 

of birth of husband and of wife, date and place of 

marriage (date of marriage was used for computing 

duration of marriage to time of decree), number of 

children involved; legal grounds for the decree, and 

which party was the plaintiff. Several additional items 

of information are found on the divorce forms of a number of States. 

In 1963 total counts of divorces and annulments 

were received from State officials of the 50 States 

and the District of Columbia (table 1J data for some 

counties of Kentucky and of New Mexico and for some 

parishes of Louisiana were obtained from surveys of 

local officials conducted by NCHS. In 10 States which 

did not maintain central files of divorce records 

(Arizona, Colorade, Indiana, Minnesota, Nevada, New 

Figure I1. The divorce-registration area and other States maintaining central files of divorce and annulment records: United States, 1963. 

51

Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia), State officials conducted special surveys to obtain county totals. The annual divorce and annulment 

totals thus obtained cover 3,082 counties or equivalent 

local areas of the United States; no totals were obtained 

for 33 counties. 

The total number of divorces and annulments 

granted in the United States in 1963 was prepared 

from the State totals; estimates for the nonreporting 

parishes of Louisiana were included in the national 

figure. These estimates were based on the assumption that the divorce rate in the nonreporting areas 

of the State was identical with that for the reporting 

areas of the State. 

Data on Family Dissolution by Death 

The number of family dissolutions due to death 

may be slightly smaller than the number of deaths of 

persons reported as married, since, in cases of 

simultaneous deaths of both spouses, both may be 

incorrectly reported as married. Only the spouse who 

dies first should be reported as married and the other 

as widowed, but in cases of traffic accidents, fires, and 

so forth, it may be impossible to determine who died 

first. If the number of deaths of married persons is 

.	 inflated, the error is probably small. Data for the years 

1949-513 indicate that during this 3-year period, 11,251 

married women died in motor vehicle accidents. Even 

if all these women would have been erroneously reported 

as married, the error would be only 0.6 percent of 

all deaths of married persons occurring during those 

years (1,999,384). National data on deaths of married 

persons used in this report were tabulated only for a 

limited number of years: 1940, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1959, 

1960, 1961, 1962, and 1963; figures for 1962 and 1963 are 

based on provisional data. In addition, there is some 

information about a group of States for the combined 

years 1924-28, but these data were not used here. As 

information about dissolutions by death are obtained 

from mortality statistics, all available demographic 

information refers to the spouse who died, and the 

characteristics of the widowed spouse are unknown. 

Sample Design ; 

The probability sample from which detailed divorce 

statistics were estimated was limited to the 22 States 

included in the DRA (fig. II). The sample was drawn 

from the records of all decrees of absolute divorce, 

of annulments granted during the yearin21 registration 

States, and decrees that became final during the year 

in Utah. In States where interlocutory divorce decrees 

are granted, decrees granted during the latter part of 

1962 became final in 1963, and decrees which had been 

granted late in 1963 became final in 1964. It is possible 

that some interlocutory decrees never became final 

because of death or reconciliation; but it is believed 

that the number of such cases is very small. In most 

cases such decrees become final automatically after the 

lapse of a certain period of time. 

Information about the structure of the samples is 

shown in table I. The divorce sample was designed to 

yield estimates of divorces classified by various characteristics for the DRA and for each State in the registration area. Five different sampling rates were, 

designated in 1963 for the States in the divorce-registration area—all records, 1/2, 1/5, 1/10, and 1/20. While 

each State’s records were sampled independently, that 

is, with a randomly selected number designating the 

first record to be selected in. each State, in computing 

sampling errors each group of States with a uniform 

sampling rate was treated as a stratum. Sampling errors 

computed using these five groups as strata are likely to 

be somewhat larger than those that might have been 

computed using each State as a stratum hence the 

former very probably have an extra safety margin as 

estimates of variation in any statistic based on sample 

data. 

The sampling rates were changed in 1963 in order to 

secure samples of at least 1,000 records from each 

registration State. AH divorce records were included in 

the sample in States that had an annual divorce total of 

less than 2,000 decrees. Samples for the years 1960, 

1961, and 1962 were selected using rates that yielded 

samples of at least 400 records. The increased sample 

of 1963 made possible more detailed tabulations of 

divorce data, which could not be made for earlier years 

because of sampling variability. 

Estimating Procedures 

Before data were tabulated and statistics estimated, 

adjustments were made in order to reconcile totals 

estimated from samples received with pretabulated 

counts for each reporting area if the difference was 1.5 

percent or more of the annual area total. 

Frequency distributions were estimated in two 

steps: 

1.	 Each sample case was assigned a weight that 

was the reciprocal of the probability with which 

the case was selected. Thus if a divorce record 

was selected from a State with a probability of 

1/10, each item on that record carried a weight 

of 10, whereas if 100 percent of the records 

were processed from a State, each item on each 

record carried a weight of 1. The sampling 

rates, indicating the probability with which 

divorce records of every State were selected, 

are shown in table I. 

2. Frequencies were estimated by summing the” 

inflated number of cases. Thus each frequency 

distribution is a sum of the weighted sample . cases included. 

52 
------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------

------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------

Table 1. Divorce sampling rates and sample size: divorce-registrationarea and each registration


Szate, 1963


[By placeofoccurrence] 

Number
 Number Estimated


Area and stratum of primary Sampling of sample number
 sampling rate records of events
 units


Divorce-registrationarea--------------- 22 . . . - 34,397 152,594 

Stratum l--------------------------------- 6 All records 7,731 7,731 

Alaska 1 All records 929 929 

Hawaii 1 All records 1,514 1,514 

Montana 1 All records 1,915 1,915 

Rhode Island 1 All records 1,054 1,054 

South Dakota 1 All re~ords 957 957 

Wyoming 1 All records 1,362 1,362 r 

Stratum 2--------------------------------- 1/2 11,534 23,068 u Idaho I 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Nebraska 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1/2 

1/2 

1/2 

1-12 

1,351 

2,496 

2>714 

1,222 

2,702 

4,992 

5,428 

2.444 

Utah--------------------.*----------------------- 1 112 1,329 2;658 

Wisconsin 1 112 2,422 4,844 

Stratym 3---------------------------------

L 

5 1/5 8,279 41’>395 

Georgia-----------------------:----------------- 1 2,121 10,605 

Maryland 1>246 6,230 

Oregon ; 1,243 6,215 

Tenness=z 1 2,047 10,235 

Virginia 1 1,622 8,110 

Stratum 4--------------------------------- 4 1/10 5,666 56,660


Alabama 1,241 12,410


Michigan : 1,745 17,450


Missouri 1 1,203 12,030


Pennsylvania 1 1,477 14,770


Stratum 5---------------------------------I
 1 1/20 1,187 23,740 “


Ohio 1 l/20 1,187 23>740


Itshouldbe notedthattheweightsofallsample


recordsareidenticalwithineachregistrationarea
 State.


However,weightsfordivorcesample recordsforthe


DRAvaryfromlto 20.Variation
betweenrwoor more


equalsubtotals intherelative proportions
 ofcaseswith


variousweightsresults
ineachsuchsubtotalshavingits


distinctive samplingerror,as discussed
below.


Percentageswere computedusingdatawhichex-


cludedestimatednumbers of notstatedcases.Among


themedian ages of divorcedwivesatmarriage,some


fellintothelowerintervals ofunder20yearsof.
age;it


was assumed thatthelowerlimitofthis
 agegroupis14.


All ratesappearingin thetableswere based on


populations
 from theU.S.BureauoftheCensus.These


are populations
presentin thearea;thosefor 1960


were enumeratedas ofAprill,andthosefor
1961,1962,


and 1963were estimated
as ofJuly1.The populations
 .
 include” Armed For”cesstationed
in thearea but ex­


eludeArmed Forcesabroad.


Sampling . .
Errorsof Estimates


Estimates computed from the samples (except


statistics
 of Stateswhere the sampIe includesall


records)are subjectto samplingerror.Since all


cases in these samples were selectedwith known


probabilities,
 thesamplingerrorcanbe computedfor


each estimate.The samplingerrors for estimated


percentages
hownintableIIwerecomputedbydividing


the samplingerrorfortheestimatedfrequencyby&e


estimateof alldivorcesgrantedin thearea.These


samplingerrorsaretheamountswhich,when addedto


and subtracted
from theestimatedpercents,givethe


intervalswhich containthe actualquantities
 being


estimated‘inapproximately68 out of 100 similarly


selectedsamples.As an example of theprocedures


describedabove,suppose the percentageof couples


reportingthreechildrenin Kansas was 12percentof


53


-. 

“ i, 
------------------------

-------------------------

------------------------

-------------------------

--------------------------

---------------------------

.

-- - - - -- -- -- - - ---

-----------------------

-----------------------

------------------------

-----------------------

---------------------------

-------------------------

-------------------

-------------------

-------------------

---------------------- -- ----- - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - ----

-----------------------

----------------------

------------------------

Table II. Sampling error of estimated percentages: divorce-registration area and each registration 

State, 1963 

[Estimates for the entire divorce-registration area have distributions of sampling errors generated by changes in contribution of caies from each 

stratum; for the sampling errors in this table on the entire divorce-registration area, it is assumed that these contributions are proportionate tc 

stratum totals. Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and \$yominghave no sampling variability because all records are tabulated] 

Estimated Percentages 

All Area and year decrees 2 3 /+ 10 15 20 25 or or or or or ox or 50 

98 97 96 90 85 80 75 

DRA---------------------- 152,594 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 . . . 

Alabama 12,410 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 

Alaska 929 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . . ... . . . Georgia 10,605 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 

Hawaii 1,514 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . . Idaho 2,702 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 

Iowa 

Kansas . - -- . - . . “ 4,992 

5,428 

0.1 

0.1 

0.2 

0.2 ::; 0.2 

0.3 0.3 

0.3 

0.4 0.4 

0.4 H 

0.6 

0.5 

%: 

0.6 

::; 

0.7 

Maryland 6,230 0.3 0.4 ;s 0.5 ::: 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 

Michigan 17,450 0.2 0.3 ::; 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 ::: 1.0 1.1 

Missouri------------------------ 12,030 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 

Montana 1,915 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . . Nebraska 2,444 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 

Ohio 23,740 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 

Oregon 6,215 0.3 M 0.5 0.5 ;:: 1.0 1.4 1.3 

Pennsylvania 14,770 0.2 0.3 u 0.5 0.5 0.6 R ::; 1.0 1.1 1.2 

Ri]ode island 1,054 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . . South Dakota 957 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . . Te;yssee 10,235 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 

2,658 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 R 1.0 

Virginia 8,110 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

4,844 

1,362 

0.1 

... %; 

... 0.2 

... 0.3 

... 0.3 

... 0.4 

... 0.4 

... 0.5 

... R 

... 0.6 

... ::; 

. . . 

the total for the State. The error shown in table II for This value is more than 2, and therefore it is very unthis percentage isabout O.4. By adding and subtracting likely that such a difference could be attributed to 

0.4from 12 one secures the interval 11.6 to 12.4;the sampling error alone. Hence the observed differenceis 

chances are about68 outof 100 that the a&ual percent to a high probability a true difference. 

of couples with three children is in this interval. 

To determineif the difference between twopropor- Special Estimates 

tions is attributable to sampling variability or is a In addition to the estimation of divorce statistics


true difference ,divide the difference by thesquareroot directly from the data on the sample records, three


of the sum of the squares of their standard errors. If estimates of a different type are found in this report:


the quotient of this division is greater than 2, then the 1. Estimates of children involved in divorce cases
 probability tbat the differenceis due to sampling error


is less than 1 in 20. For example, the proportions of 2. Estimates of migratory divorce


divorces granted less than lyearafter marriage were 3. Estimates of the likelihood of divorce by dura-


10.5 percent in Idaho and 3.2 percent in Michigan, and tion of marriage
 the standard errors of these proportions were 0.6


percent and 0.4, respectively. Division of the difference These three estimating proceduresare describedbelow.


by the square root of the sum of the squares of the Estimating methods for tbenumber ofchfldren are the


standard errors results in the following equation: same as those used for 1961 and 1962 data. The other


two procedures were used in two short studies, not 

J 

(.1 - .03) published elsewhere, which were incorporated in the 

present report. 

=10.0 1. The number of children reported in divorce 

(.006)2+(.004)2” suits was estimated for each registration State, for the 

DRA, and for the United States. The distribution of

54 
------

--------------------

------------------------

------------------

------------------------

--------------------------

-------

-------------------------

-------

-------

----------

--------- ---------

divorce and annulments by the number of children 

reported was prepared for each reporting State. In order 

to obtain a State total, the category “children not stated” 

was first distributed proportionally over the distribution 

of divorces by number of children reported. Then the 

number of divorces in each category with a given number of children was multiplied by the number of children 

per divorce (that is, the number of divorces involving 

one child was multiplied by 1, the number involving 

two children was multiplied by 2, and so forth). The 

sum of the products is the estimate of the number of 

children reported in a given registration State, and the 

sum of State estimates for participating States is the 

estimate for the DRA. The naticmal estimate was obtained 

by multiplying by 5.40039 the combined estimates for 

14 States—Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, 

Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South 

Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

The factor 5.4003,9 is the ratio of the 1960 national 

estimate of children prepared from the nationwide 

sample to the comparable figure for the 14 States 

combined. 

2. The number of migratory divorces was estimated using the following methods. First, the’examina ­

tion of State laws and of services available for divorce 

seekers indicated that divorce mills are likely to function	 in seven States. The entire State of Nevada, with 

a divorce rate almost five times as high as the second 

highest State rate,, was included among the divorce-mill 

areas. Divorce rates were computed for all counties 

where more than 100 divorces were granted during the 

year in the remaining six States (Alabama, Arkansas, 

Florida, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming] 1960 data were 

used as county populations were nat available for later 

years. Counties that had a rate 1.5 times as high as the 

State rate or higher were considered likeIy to contain 

a divorce mill. An estimate of the State resident rate, 

excluding these counties, was computed, and counties 

that had a rate 1.5 times as high or higher than the 

resident rate were added to the group. This was repeated 

until no county had a rate 1.5 times as high as the latest 

estimate of the resident rate. The process of selecting 

counties” and computing resident rates is shown in 

table III. The factor 1.5 was obtained by analyzing the 

distribution of county divorce rates in States known not 

to possess divorce mills. The number of resident 

divorces was estimated by applying to the county 

populations the estimated resident State rates obtained 

in table III and the rate for the West Region was used 

for Nevada. No divoice mills were detected in two 

States originally included in the computation (Utah and 

Wyoming). The number of migratory divorces was estimated by subtracting the estimated resident divorces 

from all divorces granted in the divorce mill areas. 

3. In order to prepare the approximations of 

divorce rates by duration of marriage, numerators and 

Table 111. Estimation of the number of divorce-mill counties and of resident divorce rates: 

six selected States, 1960 

[Nevada was iriel.ded as a unit, and the divorce rate for the West Region was used as resident ratsl 

-..>- Selected States 

Variables 

Total Alabama Arkansas Florida Idaho Utah Wyoming 

Counties with over 100 divorces -4


Crude divorce rates


Maximum resident. county rates


(lst estimate) 

Divorce-mill counties 

State resident rates 

(Lst estimate) 

Maximum resident count y rates 

(2d estimate) 

Additional divorce-mill ccwnties 

State resident rates 

(2d esttiate)-------------------------

Maximum resident county rates 

(3d estimate) 

Additional divorce-mill counties 

State resident rates 

(3d estimate) ------.,------------------

Maximum resident county rates 

(4th estimate)------------------------

Additional divorce-mill counties 

Total divorce-mill counties 

State resident rates (final 

estimate) --------. 

86 4 

. . . 5? 3:2 3% 3.; 2.4 4.: 

. . . 8.0 5.1 5.9 5.9 3,6 6.0 

20 6 4 7 3 

. . . 2.8 2.9 3.6 3.2 

. . . 4.2 4.4 5.4 4.8 

5 2 3 

. . . 2.7 2.7 

. . . 4.1 4.1 

1 1 

. . . 2.7 

. . . 4.1 

26 8 8 7 3 

. . . 2.7 2.7 3.6 3.2 2.4 4.0 

55 
------

------------------------------

-------------------------------

------------------------------

-- - - - --- --- - - - -- ---

--------------------------------

----- -- - -- - -- --

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-- -- -- - - - - -- - - - -- ----

-----------------------------

---------------------------------

-- -- - - ---

-------------------------

-------------------------

-------------------------

----------------------------

---------------------------------

-----------------------------

----------------------------

------------------------------

Table IV. Percent completeness of reporting of statistical variables: divorce.registratiori area 

and each registratf.on State, 1963 

[Byplace of occurrence. Based onsampledata] 

I I 1 

All divorces 

and 

Area annulments 

Husband Wife Husband Wife Husband Wife ~ 

Percent of cases with information available 

Divorce-registration area 152,594 53.8 53.91 53.4 53.2 56.2 56.1 

Alabama 12,410 1.9 2.1’ 1.9 2.1 30.9 30.7 

Alaska 929 28.1 27.81 28,0 27.8 52.2 52.1 

Georgia 10,605 38.0 36.9 37.1 36.1 52.6 52.3 

Hawaii - - - - - - - - - - - . 1,514 97.1 96.71 97.1 96.4 98.8 98.2 

Idaho 2,702 74.3 74.3’ 73.6 73.3 81.5 84.8 

Iowa-..----..----.----.---“-----.---- 4,992 99.7 99.8 99.3 99.2 99.6 99.3 

Kansas . - - - . ,. . - . - . . . - - . 5,428 73.7 73.8 73.2 73.1 75.6 75.4 

Maryland 6,230 48.0 47.8 47.6 47.4 52.3 52.0 

Mi.chigan 17,450 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.2 9.3 9.5 

MLssouri 12,030 96.3 96.3 95.3 94.7 98.5 98.2 

Montana- - - - -m - - . 1,915 72.7 72.6 72.2 72.0 87.7 87.’5 

Nebraska 2,444 51.4 51.1 51.4 51.1 51.1 51.1 

Ohio 23,740 31.8 32.7 31.7 32.4 (1) (1) 

Oregon - . - -- - . . - . - -. - . .- - .- - . 6,215 73.2 72.2 72.4 71.2 76.0 75.8 

Pennsylvania 14,770 82.5 82.5 81.9 81,7 81.7 81.7 

Rhode Island 1,054 93.9 93.1 92.0 91.3 95.5 94.1 

South Dakota 957 9.0 8.3 8.8 8.3 34.1 33.,4 

Tennessee 10,235 96.7 96.2 95.6 94.3 99.0 98.8 

Utah 2,658 69.3 68.3 67.5 66.7 72.2 71.3 

Virginia 8,110 69.3 70.9 68.8 69.7 99.8 99.8 

Wisconsin 4,844 99.4 99.5 99.1 99.0 99.0 98.9 

Wyoming 1.362 6.9 7.0 6.9 6.9 23.5 ’23.5 

tltem not reportable 

denominators had to be estimated. Numerators were death rates of themarried population intheyears 1959-


prepared under the assumption that the national dis- 61 were used to estimate the number of deaths of


tribution of divorces by duration of marriage was marriage cohorts. Approximations of duration-specific


identical with that found in the reporting States com- divorce rates were computed from these data. These


bined. In order to compute the denominators, it was approximations form a matrix where rows give data


assumed that all divorces were granted in the midpoint by calendar year when decreewas grantedanddiagonals


of each calendar year, and marriages performed from show data by marriage cohorts.


July 1, year N-I, to June 30, year N, lasted less than


1 year, those performed between July 1, year N-2, Completeness of Data€

and June 30, year N-1, lasted 1 year, etcetera.


Marriages performed during these 12-month periods Completeness of reporting is one of the most im­


were computed or estimated from data for reporting portant factors in divorce statistics which produce


States for the time between Julyl, 1952, and June30, nonsampling errors. Table IV shows for the DRA and


1963. For each added duration year, the number of for the registration States the numbers of cases with


divorces and the number of marriage disruptions due various characteristics given. The lackof 100-percent


to deaths that occurred during the preceding year were completeness is due to incompletely filled out sample


subtracted from the married population. Age-specific records, to items not appearing on State record forms, :


56

Table IV. Percent completenessof reporting of statisticalvariables: divorce-registrationarea
 and each RegistrationState, 1963—Con.


[Byplace of occurrence. Based on sample data]’ 

. Ma~~e Residence of Dura- Place tion Month Number To
 defendant of of of of Legal Plain- whom
 mar- mar- chil- grounds tiff decree -
 mar­


!usband Wife Husband Wife riage riage riage dren granted


Percent of cases with informationavailable


52.6 52.8 88.5 76.9 90.0


4.9 4.8 71.1 55.9 48.7 

51.2 51.3 45.6 43.2 99.2 

38.2 38.3 60.8 53.5 50.3 

99.7 99.5 98.3 98.1 100.0 

73.6 74.7 84.1 82.4 95.5 

99.4 99.5 96.1 94.9 98.2 

73.9 74.0 (1) (1) 99.1 

49.6 49.2 94.8 96.5 99.1 

13.6 14.1 42.9 44.3 99.1 

98.3 98.8 94.8 95.8 97.8 

76.3 76.8 86.5 86.9 99.5 

(1) (1) 92.5 92.8 97.6 

41.6 42.0 92.6 92.7 94.1 

72.8 72.6 79.7 78.3 96.9 

79.2 79.6 97.2 97.4 99.3 

95.2 94.7 ‘91.5 93,6 94.9 

15.6 15.9 88.9 92.0 92.6 

97.4 97.3 93.2 91.2 98.4 

69.7 69.5 90.5 93.7 71.0 

(1) (1) 86.2 79.9 99.5 

95,9 96.7 93.6 94.3 99.2 

,8.5 9.1 40.5 40.5 97.6 

or to Statesnot sendingtotheNCHS alltheirdivorce 

records. 

For the DRA, the sample recordsnotreceived


represent0.5 of 1 percent of alldivorces.Inall


detailed
ivorcetablesthenumber ofnotstatedcases


was increased inordertobringthetotals
up tofigures


representing
 completesamples.


The principal sourceofincompleteness
 inthe1963


divorcestatistics arisesfrom failure
tosecureitems


ofpersonaland demographicdataintheStateswhere


theseitemsare on therecordforms (tableIV).The


proportion of recordsnotstating
 ageatdecreevaries


from lessthan1 to 98 percen~ forraceor colorthe


correspondingrange is from 0.2 to 91 percen~ for


marriageordertheanalogousrangeisfrom O.2t096


percen~forduration
ofmarriagetherangeisfrom0.2


97.1 96.7 91.3 96.9 97.9 95.4


98.1 94.7 79.5 99.4 99.5 99.5 

99.5 99.4 99.1 99.8 99.7 98.9 

80.1 78.8 75.9 80.8 95.6 90.3 

99.8 99.8 98.5 100.0 100.0 99.3 

96.2 96.8 97.0 94.6 98.7 99.3 

99.5 99.5 94.6 99.6 99.5 99.6 

99.1 99.0 99.6 100.0 99.7 99.8 

99.4 99.6 86.2 98.4 98.9 97.5 

99.7 99.3 99.0 99.3 94.8 99.5 

98.1 98.7 98.0 99.0 98.8 99.0 

99.3 99>4 99.6 99.9 99.7 99.1 

99.8 99.7 99.0 99.8 99.6 (1) 

99.6 99.2 “98.9 100.0 99.8 99.7 

98.8 98.9 94.6. 96.8 99.4 90.4 

98.5 98.6 71.4 95.7 97.5 95.3 

98.0 99.0 81.2 100.0 97.2 96.9 

95.8 95.7 99.2 98.4 98.7 95.3 

97.8 97.5 98.7 99.5 99.1 98.9 

71.4 71.7 65.4 61.3 69.7 45.1 

98.7 99.4 96.7 99.7 99.9 99.6 

99.5 99.8 96.5 97.4 99.4 99.6 

99.6 99.5 98.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 

to 29 percenq andfornumber ofchildren
therangeis


fromO.4 to35 percent.


The levelofcompleteness ofdetailed
 divorcedata


rose slightly
 in most Statesfrom 1962to1963.Mean


percentagesofcompleteness
were computedfrom data


in tableIV (omitting
percentsformonth ofmarriage,


which was not tabuIated
for 1962)and comparedwith


similarmeans for 1962.Usingthismethod,increases


in thelevelof completenesswere foundin 14 States


and declinesin 7, but3 ofthese7 Statesexperienced


pronounceddeclinesin completeness,
and theoverall


mean fortheDRA declinedfrom 74.3percentin1962


to 72.9in1963.Ifthevariable
“monthofmarriage”is


includedin the1963mean percentage
fortheDRA, the


value74.3is obtained,
thesame as the1962valueof


74.3.


57

OUTLINE ‘OF REPORT SERIES FOR VITAL AND HEALTH Statistics 

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000 

L?s 1, 

es 2. 

(?s 3. 

es 4. 

3s 19. 

:es 11. 

?s 12. 

2s 13. 

%s 20. 

?s 21. 

2s 22. 

Programs and collection pYocedures.— Reports which describe the general programs 6f the National 

Center for Health Statistics and its offices and ~visions, data collection methods used, definitions, 

and other material necessary for understanding the data. 

Data evaluation and methods research. —Studies of new statistical methodology including: experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical 

techniques, objective evaluations of reliabilig of collected data, contributions to statistical theory. 

A~lytical studies. -Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and health 

statistics, carrying the analysis further than the expository types of reports in the other series. 

Documents and committee veports. —Final reports of major committees concerned with vital and 

health statistics, and documents such as recommendedmodel vital registration laws and revised birth 

.and death certificates. 

Data j70m the Health Intewiew Survey. -Statistics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use of 

hospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other health-related topics, based on data collected 

in a continuing national household interview survey. 

Data from the Health Examination Survey. - Data “from direct examination, testing, ,and measurement of national samples of the population provide the basis for two types of reports: (1) estimates 

of the medically defined prevalence of specific diseases in the United States and the distributions of 

the population with respect to physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics; and (2) 

analysis of relationships among the various measurements without reference to an explicit finite 

universe of persons. 

Data j70m the Institutional Population Suvveys.— Statistics relating to the health characteristics of 

persons in institutions, and on medical, nursing, and personal care received, based on national 

samples of establishments providing these services and samples of the residents or patients. 

Data from the Hospital Dischavge Su?’vey.— Statistics relating to discharged patients in short-stay 

hospitals, based on a sample of patient records in a national SaI_@e of hospitals. 

Data on mortality .—Various statistics on mortali~ other than as included in annual or monthly 

reports—special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables, also geographic 

and time series analyses. 

Data on natality, mavm”age, anddivoyce. —Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce other 

than as included in annual or monthly reports— special analyses by demographic variables, also 

geographic and time series analyses, studies of fertility. 

Data from the National Natality awi MortaLity Surveys. —Statistics on characteristics of births and 

‘deaths not available from the vital records, based on sample surveys stemming from these records, 

including such topics as mortality by socioeconomic class, medical experience in the last year of 

life, characteristics of pregnancy, etc. 

,.. a list of titles of reports.publishedin these series, write to: Office of Information 

.	 National Center for Health Statistics 

U.S. Public Health Service 

Washington, D.c. 20201