Mum, Dad and the 2.3 kids?
Not any more!
The simplified and idealised "nuclear family" has well and truly been consigned to history.
Results from the Next Generation Study (a sub-study of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study) have provided a fascinating snapshot of how family composition has markedly changed in only a generation.
The Next Generation Study focuses on the 15-year-old offspring of the original study participants.
It examines the lifestyles, behaviours, attitudes and health of today’s teenagers, to see how they have changed from 1987-88, when the original study members were that age.
These intergenerational findings are adding a whole new layer of information to what is already an internationally renowned longitudinal study.
Some of the findings from the main study have been controversial as they have challenged contemporary social and scientific thinking, and often entrenched ideas around behaviour and background.
That is what makes much of the information so intriguing — and important.
It is obvious to anyone that family make-up has changed, and continues to evolve.
There are many more single-parent families, many more "blended" families, many more children living between two households in "shared care" arrangements, and more children being raised by same-sex parents.
What is astounding, as illustrated by these new study findings, is the extent to which the "traditional" family has changed in such a short space of time.
The researchers found most of the 209 teenagers surveyed had experienced up to eight changes in care arrangements by the time they were 15, and had lived at an average of eight different addresses.
Only a quarter had had the same parental care arrangement for all their lives.
By the age of 15, only a quarter were living with both their biological parents, and less than 7% had lived their whole lives in households made up of only their mother, father and siblings — the traditional "nuclear family".
The figures are confronting.
While change is inevitable, it is well understood that stability and consistency are important for children.
The reality, however, shows children’s experiences are in fact "dynamic, complex and diverse".
This raises questions, which are likely to be answered further down the line, about the impact on children.
The potential for negative outcomes if lives are lived in a constant state of upheaval could be significant but, as the main Dunedin study has shown before, there are many factors that can and do influence outcomes.
After all, some families are likely to manage change better than others.
Some children are likely to be more resilient and adaptable than others.
Many children will undoubtedly be better off not living in homes where a "traditional" relationship has broken down and is in fact a toxic and/or violent environment.
And, if the "new normal" is diverse, it is less likely children will feel socially excluded by their peers by virtue of their family structure.It will be some time before any such evidence emerges.
In the meantime, there is plenty for politicians to consider.
Next Generation Study manager Judith Sligo has co-authored a report that focuses on the implications of the research for policy makers, and argues official statistics and strategies are not keeping up with the realities, and that children and families may be missing out on much-needed support.
Given the issues this country is facing in terms of child poverty and child abuse, and as the Government undertakes a wholesale revamp of Child, Youth and Family, the research could not be more timely or important.
Once again, New Zealand and the world is fortunate to have the foresight of the Dunedin Study pioneers, the current researchers and the high number of participants who have already helped shape opinions, policies, practices, and lives.
