Objective: This study assesses whether parenthood influences repartnering for women and men and explores how repartnering is associated with parental status of the prospective partners. Background: Previous research has not demonstrated whether gender differences in repartnering are conditional on the presence of children. This study aims to better disentangle the specific gender differentials in repartnering probabilities conditional on parenthood and child custody status. Method: The analytical sample consists of 5,372 women and 3,375 men who reported at least one partnership dissolution in the British Understanding Society survey. Multilevel event history models with Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulations are used to estimate the probabilities of (a) finding a new partner and (b) finding a new childless partner or a new partner who has children. Results: The results suggest that mothers, and to a lesser extent fathers, are less likely to repartner than their childless counterparts. Among parents who have child custody, there emerges a distinct gender gap because mothers exhibit a significantly lower rate of repartnering than fathers. Finally, coresident single parents are relatively less likely to repartner with childless individuals, and single fathers more frequently form two‐parent stepfamilies than do mothers. Conclusion: This suggests the presence of a gender divide in repartnering that is especially apparent when child custody is taken into account. The presence of children also reduces the possibility of forming unions with childless individuals.

Objective This article examines how unemployment affects the separation risk of heterosexual coresiding couples, depending on couples' household income and whether men or women become unemployed. Background Unemployment may decrease the separation risk as a drop in resources makes separation more costly—or it may increase the separation risk if unemployment creates stress and reduces the quality of couple relations. Moreover, unemployment may be more detrimental for couples if men rather than women, or low‐earners rather than high‐earners, become unemployed. Method This article adopts a couple perspective and assesses heterogeneous effects of unemployment on separation based on longitudinal data—large household panels from Germany and the UK using discrete‐time event history models. Results For both countries, results show that the annual separation rate almost doubles after an unemployment spell: It increases from 0.9% to 1.6% per year. This effect does not vary when men or women lose their job. The separation risk after unemployment is somewhat higher for low‐income couples than high‐income couples in the UK, but overall differences are small. Conclusion Findings show that unemployment does not strengthen unions, but makes them more vulnerable—regardless of which partner becomes unemployed and regardless of a household's economic resources.

Unemployment is a critical life event that may affect the income trajectories of displaced workers very unequally. It may lead to cumulative disadvantage and hit vulnerable groups hardest. Alternatively, it may level the playing field because higher classes have more to lose. We analyse heterogeneous effects of unemployment on income for the United Kingdom and Switzerland, using two household panels—Understanding Society 2009–2017 and the Swiss Household Panel 1999–2017—and distinguishing two sources of income: from the labour market and welfare state, at the level of individuals and households. We use a difference-in-differences design by matching unemployed to employed workers and estimating fixed-effects regressions. Results show that individual labour income drops in the 2 years after an unemployment spell by 20 and 25 per cent in Switzerland and by 25 and 55 per cent in the United Kingdom. Welfare state transfers reduce these losses by half in Switzerland, but have only a marginal impact in the United Kingdom. In both countries, income losses do not differ much across social classes. If anything, they are smaller in the working class. We thus find no evidence for cumulative disadvantage. The middle classes face a lower risk of becoming unemployed, but are not less vulnerable to its consequences.