Today, the crisis of the family is described as the result of lost values, selfishness and people’s unwillingness to accept responsibility. But these explanations do not answer the main question: why do families continue to break down, why are birth rates falling, and why are increasing numbers of women and men who would like to have children consciously avoiding marriage and long-term relationships? We are raising this issue because the problem is not that the family is disappearing, but that its previous form no longer corresponds to the length and conditions of modern human life.
Family in 2050: people are living longer, but marriage remains designed for a short life
In England and Wales in 1841, life expectancy at birth was 40 years for men and 42 years for women. Today, people live almost twice as long. High infant mortality significantly reduced nineteenth-century figures, so not every adult died at the age of forty. But people did form families earlier, generations succeeded one another more quickly, and illness and the early death of one spouse were ordinary parts of life.
The traditional family model developed in a society where a woman became a mother at an early age, became a grandmother a few decades later, and marriage was rarely expected to withstand fifty, sixty or seventy years of life together. Over such a period, a modern person may change their profession, place of residence, financial circumstances, interests and their own view of the future. Life expectancy has changed, but the idea of what marriage should be has remained the same.
Historical data on changes in life expectancy and its relationship with retirement age are provided by the UK Office for National Statistics.
This contradiction first became visible in the pension system. State pensions were created for a society in which a smaller proportion of the population lived to retirement age and payments continued for a comparatively short period. Today, a person may live for another twenty, thirty or more years after finishing work. The old structure was not designed for the new life expectancy.
MediaIEU has already examined the consequences of this change in the article “Personality and Pensions: A 19th-Century Mistake That the 21st Century Is Still Paying For”. But the pension system is only one of the institutions created for a short human life.
Now the same conflict has emerged within the family.
Why the traditional family model stopped working
The traditional family existed not only because of love, morality or religious values. For centuries, it was the principal economic and social system within which people divided work, obtained the means to live, raised children, cared for the sick and provided for their own old age.
Leaving a marriage could mean losing housing, income, social status and the ability to support children independently. Women remained particularly dependent because their access to education, property and paid work was restricted. The absence of state pensions and social protection made the family virtually the only system capable of supporting a person in the event of illness, incapacity for work or old age.
The stability of the traditional family therefore cannot be explained simply by claiming that previous generations were more moral or responsible. The family was held together by specific conditions:
- the economic dependence of family members on one another;
- women’s limited ability to support themselves and their children independently;
- the absence of pensions and accessible social protection;
- social and religious condemnation of divorce;
- limited personal mobility;
- a significantly shorter period of married life.
In modern Europe, most of these conditions have disappeared or weakened considerably. Women have gained access to education, independent income, property rights and social rights. The state has assumed some of the functions that previously could only be performed by the family. People can live, work, relocate and provide for their old age independently. Divorce no longer automatically means losing the ability to live outside the family.
At the same time, life expectancy has almost doubled. A marriage that might previously have lasted twenty or thirty years may now potentially last fifty, sixty or seventy years. During that time, people themselves change, as do their interests, opportunities, professions, incomes and views of the future.
The traditional family model stopped working not because people became worse. The conditions that made this model compulsory disappeared.
Society has changed the economic, legal and social foundations of human life, but it continues to demand the same stability from the family. It is impossible to remove the system that held the old form of marriage together and then preserve its result through moral appeals alone.
During a long life, a person changes several times
Increased life expectancy means more than simply additional years. During a single lifetime, a person may obtain a new education, change profession several times, move to another country, change their income, social circle, interests and view of their own future.
The Personality at the age of twenty-five and the same Personality at the age of fifty are not necessarily the same person with the same goals and needs. Over the intervening decades, life experience, financial opportunities, health, and attitudes towards work, family and raising children all change.
Nevertheless, marriage is still entered into as though both people will remain unchanged for the rest of their lives. They are expected to assume that a decision made in youth will automatically remain valid thirty, fifty or seventy years later, even though almost every other condition of their lives may have changed during that time.
Love may be the reason for starting a family, but it does not determine how responsibilities will be divided. It does not establish who will care for the child, who will temporarily reduce their working hours, how lost income will be compensated, how joint expenses will be paid or what will happen if the relationship ends.
Love creates a relationship between people. A family creates long-term obligations between them.
As long as the relationship continues, the absence of precise agreements may remain unnoticed. Conflict begins when it becomes clear that each person understood their own responsibilities, the contribution of the other participant and the consequences of their joint decision differently. The longer the marriage lasts, the higher the price of this uncertainty becomes.
People are not rejecting children; they are rejecting an unpredictable system
Many women and men would like to have children but postpone having them or completely reject the idea of starting a family. The reason is not an absence of the desire to become parents, but the inability to assess the legal, financial and personal consequences of this decision in advance.
A woman risks temporarily giving up work and losing income, career opportunities, pension savings and economic independence. If the relationship ends, compensation for these losses will only be determined after the conflict has already begun.
A man faces a different risk. After separation, he may lose daily contact with the child and the ability to use the family home while retaining the obligation to pay child maintenance, contribute towards additional expenses and, in some cases, support his former wife. Some men are therefore rejecting not fatherhood, but a system in which their ability to raise their child may be restricted while their financial obligations continue for many years.
Italy is only one example of this European problem. According to ISTAT data for 2024, 50.7% of men and 54.6% of women are concerned about the economic consequences of having a child. According to detailed ISTAT data for 2015, even with the widespread use of shared custody, fathers paid child maintenance in 94.1% of cases, while the family home was assigned to the wife in 60% of cases.
The problem is not the obligation to support a child itself. Child maintenance belongs to the child, and both parents must bear responsibility for supporting them. The problem arises when the amount of the payments, the division of time, the child’s place of residence and the level of each parent’s involvement are determined not before the child is born, but after the relationship has broken down.
Before starting a family, people do not know:
- who will provide the child’s daily care;
- who will reduce their working hours or temporarily give up their career;
- how lost income and pension savings will be compensated;
- what proportion of the expenses each parent will be required to pay;
- where the child will live after separation;
- how much time the child will spend with each parent;
- who will retain the right to use the family home;
- under what conditions maintenance of a former partner will arise;
- who will make decisions about the child’s education, medical treatment and relocation;
- which obligations will remain in force ten or twenty years later.
The modern system asks people first to form an emotional relationship, have a child and accept responsibility for several decades. The actual rules become clear much later—often only after separation, when the state is forced to determine arrangements for the child, housing, money and obligations between parties already in conflict.
For a woman, such a family may mean losing her career and economic independence. For a man, it may mean losing daily contact with his child and the family home while retaining long-term financial obligations. As a result, the existing model simultaneously reduces women’s willingness to become mothers and men’s willingness to become fathers.
Low birth rates in Europe are not only a demographic problem. They are the reaction of the Personality to a form of family that demands enormous responsibility but does not allow its conditions to be defined in advance.
The family of 2050 may become a contractual system
We assume that by 2050 the civil family will increasingly be created as a contractual system. This does not mean the disappearance of love or a compulsory transition by everyone to a single form of relationship. It is a possible direction for the development of the family if life expectancy, personal economic independence and the diversity of family models continue to increase.
In such a system, feelings will remain the personal basis of the relationship, while legal, economic and parental obligations will be defined separately. People will be able to agree in advance not only on the arrangements for living together, but also on the consequences of changes in their interests, incomes, health or relationship.
The proposed family agreement may establish:
- the family’s property regime;
- the division of current expenses;
- the rules for creating joint savings;
- the financial obligations of each participant;
- compensation for temporarily or permanently giving up a career;
- the procedure for changing and reviewing the agreement;
- the conditions for ending the family union.
However, when a child is born, an agreement between the partners alone will not be sufficient.
We assume that a separate part of this system may be a compulsory supplement to the family agreement—a parental responsibility agreement defining the obligations of adults towards the child regardless of whether their personal relationship continues.
Childcare work must be given a monetary value
If one parent reduces their working hours for several years or gives up work completely, they lose more than their current salary. Their professional experience, career opportunities, future income, pension savings and economic independence are also reduced.
Today, these losses are often described as a personal sacrifice for the family and are not recognised as an economic contribution. In the event of separation, a person may be left with the consequences of a decision made jointly but without income, savings or fair compensation.
In the proposed contractual family, childcare must be regarded as economically significant work. If the parents agree that one of them will temporarily assume the main share of childcare, family expenditure cannot be limited to paying for housing, food and the child’s needs. The agreement must take account of the long-term losses suffered by the parent who reduces their professional activity.
Compensation may include:
- regular payments into the parent’s personal account;
- pension and social security contributions;
- health and life insurance;
- the creation of separate personal capital;
- a share of the property created during the period of childcare;
- payment for education and the restoration of professional qualifications;
- payments for an agreed period after returning to work or after the relationship ends.
The amount of compensation must be determined in advance, taking account of previous income, the duration of care and actual career losses. These rules must apply equally to women and men.
Equality does not mean dividing every responsibility equally. It means valuing the time, responsibility and economic losses of each parent equally.
Parental roles will be determined by agreement, not by sex
In the proposed family of 2050, the state should no longer assume that the woman is the child’s main carer and the man is the main source of money. The law will define parental responsibility but will not assign family roles according to sex.
The mother or the father will be able to assume the main share of daily care. Parents will be able to divide responsibilities equally or establish a different proportion based on each person’s work, income, health and individual abilities. What matters will not be the person’s sex, but the obligation they voluntarily accept and record in the agreement.
Equality will not mean that each parent must perform half of every task. It will mean an equal right to participate in decision-making, choose a role and receive fair compensation for time spent, work performed and economic losses incurred.
If responsibilities continue to be divided without a prior agreement, the family will reproduce the traditional model: the woman will care for the child and lose some of her career opportunities, while the man will assume the main financial responsibility. After separation, the consequences of this unspoken division will turn into mutual claims and conflict between the parents, creating stress and instability for the child.
The agreement will make the division of responsibilities visible. It will specify who provides daily care, who works and for how many hours, how expenses are divided, how losses are compensated and what will change after the relationship ends.
However, an agreement cannot eliminate an existing incompatibility between people. Before accepting long-term obligations, it will be necessary to assess not only feelings, but also behaviour, expectations, attitudes towards money, raising children and the division of responsibility.
For an initial assessment, MediaIEU provides a free test of readiness for family life and parental responsibility. It helps determine whether the partners have discussed the division of childcare, family expenses, possible loss of income, compensation for lost career opportunities, the child’s place of residence and the parents’ obligations after separation. The result shows which decisions have already been agreed, which questions remain open and where the risk of future conflict exists.
For a more detailed assessment of the relationship, MediaIEU provides the Test: Assessment of Your Choice of Life Partner. It helps assess the compatibility of behaviour, expectations, life goals and views of family before long-term obligations are accepted.
If the relationship already exists and disagreements regularly arise between the partners, the Test: Relationship Conflict Diagnosis Between Two People helps identify sources of tension, differences in expectations and the causes of recurring conflicts. This preliminary assessment will not replace an agreement, but it will help people understand whether they are capable of jointly defining and fulfilling obligations towards a future child.
Same-sex families show that parental roles are not determined by sex
Same-sex families already demonstrate that responsibilities within a family cannot automatically be divided according to the participants’ sex. In a family consisting of two women, it is impossible to determine in advance who will perform the main childcare work; in a family consisting of two men, it is impossible to determine who must be restricted to the role of providing money.
Parental functions in such families are inevitably divided through agreement. The partners determine who provides daily care, who continues working, how expenses are divided and how decisions concerning the child are made.
At the same time, the distinction between biological, legal and actual parenthood becomes clear. The biological parent, the person who has legally accepted responsibility and the person who raises the child every day may be different people. This situation arises not only in same-sex families, but also in adoption, the use of reproductive technologies and the creation of new families after divorce.
The traditional system first attempts to determine which composition of a family is acceptable and then divides responsibilities between a man and a woman. The proposed contractual system will operate differently: the child’s needs will be determined first, followed by the obligations of specific people to meet them.
The child’s basic needs will be established by law. They will include safety, housing, food, medical care, education, emotional stability and maintaining relationships with both parents, provided that this does not pose a threat to the child.
Individual needs will be determined jointly by the parents, taking account of the child’s age, health, developmental characteristics, the child’s own opinion and the conclusions of doctors, teachers or psychologists. The agreement will establish not an unchangeable list of needs for the whole of childhood, but the procedure for determining, financing and regularly reviewing them.
If the parents are unable to agree, neither of them should receive the right to determine the child’s interests unilaterally. The child’s position will be represented by an independent specialist, and the final decision will be made by a court.
Once the child’s needs have been established, the contractual system will legally assign obligations to the people who have voluntarily accepted parental responsibility. Sex, biological relationship or living together will not in themselves release a person from accepted obligations or automatically give them an advantage over another parent.
A parent will be defined not as the person to whom tradition has assigned the role, but as the person who has accepted and fulfils a long-term obligation towards the child.
The child is not the property of the family, but a primary Personality
One of the main changes to family law under the proposed contractual system should be the recognition of the child as an independent Personality. The child will not belong to the mother, the father or the family and cannot be treated as part of the property to be divided after the relationship ends.
Today, the child often becomes the subject of a dispute between adults. Parents argue about whom the child will remain with, who will receive the right to make decisions, who will determine the child’s place of residence and how much time the other parent will be allowed to spend with them. The rights and demands of adults become the centre of such a conflict, while the child’s needs are pushed into the background.
In the contractual system, the sequence will be reversed. The child’s safety, development, health, education and emotional stability will be determined first. Only then will the responsibilities required to meet those needs be divided between the adults.
The agreement will not divide the child between the parents. It will divide the parents’ time, money and responsibility towards the child. The end of the relationship between the adults should not alter the extent of the obligations they have already accepted.
This approach follows from the Fundamental Law of Political Economy:
Personality → Behaviour → Choice → Demand → Money
Money → Form of the System
Form of the System → Demand → Choice → Behaviour → Personality
If the child is recognised as a primary Personality, their needs will become the starting point for the formation of the family system. The behaviour and choices of the parents will determine demand for education, healthcare, housing, care and other conditions required for the child’s development. Money directed towards those needs will create the Form of the System in which the child will grow.
The reverse influence of this system will be particularly important because the child does not choose the family into which they are born. The division of parental time, constant conflicts, financial instability, restrictions on contact with one parent and the use of the child as a means of pressure will influence the child’s Choice, Behaviour and the formation of their Personality.
The family system must therefore protect not the right of adults to possess a child, but the child’s right to safety, development and relationships with the people who have accepted responsibility towards them.
The parental responsibility agreement will be concluded before the child is born
Under the proposed contractual family model, the obligations of adults will be defined before the birth of the child, rather than after separation and the emergence of conflict. Parents must understand in advance which responsibilities each of them accepts and which obligations will remain in force regardless of their subsequent personal relationship.
The parental responsibility agreement will be concluded after the decision to have a child has been made, during pregnancy, before adoption or before the use of reproductive technologies. It will enter into force from the moment the child is born or placed with the family.
Such an agreement will define not the rights of adults over the child, but the obligations of adults towards the child. The child cannot be treated as the parents’ property, an asset to be divided or a means of pressure after the relationship ends.
Before the child is born, the parents will have to establish:
- who will provide daily care;
- how each parent’s time will be divided;
- how much each parent will contribute towards the child’s maintenance;
- how housing, food, education, healthcare and additional needs will be financed;
- who will reduce their working hours or temporarily give up work;
- how lost income and career opportunities will be compensated;
- how pension, social security and insurance contributions will be paid for the parent performing the main childcare work;
- who will use the family home after separation and under what conditions;
- where the child will live and how much time they will spend with each parent;
- how decisions about the child’s medical treatment, education and relocation will be made;
- how responsibilities will be divided in the event of illness or disability affecting the child or either parent;
- who will assume the obligations if one parent dies;
- how the involvement of both parents will be maintained after their personal relationship ends.
The agreement will not be able to determine in advance every need of a child who has not yet been born. It will establish the parents’ basic obligations, the decision-making procedure, sources of funding and a mechanism for subsequently reviewing the terms.
The child’s minimum needs will be established by law. They will include safety, housing, food, medical care, education, emotional stability and maintaining relationships with both parents, provided that this does not pose a threat to the child.
Individual needs will be determined jointly by the parents, taking account of the child’s age, health, developmental characteristics, the child’s own opinion and the conclusions of doctors, teachers or psychologists. As the child grows older, they will gain increasing opportunities to participate in decisions that directly affect their life.
If the parents are unable to agree, neither of them should receive the right to determine the child’s interests unilaterally. The child’s position will be represented by an independent specialist, and the final decision will be made by a court.
The agreement will separately regulate the child’s relocation to another country. Neither parent will be able to unilaterally change the country of the child’s permanent residence. International relocation will require the consent of the other parent or a court decision. Moving to another country will not cancel previously established obligations or the child’s right to maintain relationships with both parents.
The terms of the agreement will be reviewed periodically because the needs of a five-year-old child will differ from those of a teenager. The amounts, living arrangements, expenses and division of daily responsibilities may change, but the parents’ fundamental responsibility will not depend on whether their feelings for each other continue.
Parents may cease to be a couple, but they cannot cease to be parties to an obligation towards their child.
Traditional and contractual families will be able to exist in parallel
In this forecast, 2050 is not a fixed date for the transition to a new family system. The contractual model may become widespread earlier, later or may never become the principal form of family. We are considering one possible direction for the development of society, rather than claiming that humanity will necessarily choose it.
Contracts themselves have long been part of family relationships. Prenuptial and marriage agreements defining spouses’ property and financial obligations already exist. Parents may conclude separate agreements after separation. In countries where surrogacy is permitted, contracts regulate the participants’ obligations even before the child is born.
However, the modern family system has no single compulsory parental responsibility agreement concluded before the birth of a child that defines childcare, money, career losses, pension contributions, housing, relocation and the consequences of separation in advance. Existing agreements usually regulate only individual issues or are concluded after a conflict has already arisen.
The proposed system will not be a contract “for a child”. A child cannot be the subject of a transaction. It will be an agreement between adults concerning their responsibility towards a future child.
The traditional family will not have to be prohibited. Religious and contractual models will be able to exist at the same time:
- the traditional family will be based on religion, cultural norms and predetermined family roles;
- the civil contractual family will be based on an individual agreement, equality and legally defined responsibility.
These models will not necessarily exclude one another. People will be able to enter into a religious marriage while simultaneously signing a civil agreement concerning money, property and parental responsibility. The Church will retain its own understanding of family, while the state will provide legal protection for people who choose a different model.
A person who accepts the traditional form of marriage will be able to choose its rules voluntarily. A person who does not accept religious norms or predetermined roles for men and women will receive a complete civil system in which obligations are defined by agreement.
The state will not need to determine which model is morally superior. Its task will be to ensure freedom of choice, protect the child and enforce the obligations accepted by adults.
If the contractual model becomes widespread, this will not mark the end of the traditional family, but the end of its monopoly. Both systems will be able to continue existing, and their future will be determined by their results: the stability of relationships, the safety of children, people’s willingness to become parents and the family’s ability to develop the Personality.
Society may reach such a system before 2050, considerably later or choose a different direction. The final choice will be made by future generations through their Behaviour and the form of family they create.
Why the contractual family may increase birth rates in Europe
In 2024, approximately 3.55 million children were born in the European Union, while the total fertility rate fell to 1.34 children per woman. This is the lowest figure since comparable EU-wide data began in 2001. Birth rates in every European Union country also remain below the population replacement level.
Birth rates cannot be increased through benefits alone. A one-off or monthly payment helps cover current expenses but does not eliminate the long-term uncertainty associated with having a child.
The decision to become a parent is not made for a single year. The principal legal and financial obligations continue for at least two decades, while a lost career, reduced pension savings and the consequences of family conflict may affect the rest of a person’s life.
A woman may fear losing income, professional development and economic independence. A man may fear that, after separation, he will lose daily contact with his child and the family home but retain long-term financial obligations. As a result, both may want a child but refuse to enter a system with consequences that cannot be known in advance.
If the contractual model becomes widespread, it may reduce these risks:
- the principal financial obligations will be defined before the child is born;
- childcare work will receive an economic valuation;
- lost income and career opportunities will be compensated;
- the pension and insurance contributions of the parent caring for the child will be accounted for separately;
- the child’s place of residence and each parent’s involvement after separation will be agreed in advance;
- the child will not be relocated internationally by the unilateral decision of one parent;
- the amount of child maintenance will be linked to income, time spent providing care and the actual involvement of each parent;
- responsibility will not disappear when the relationship between the adults ends;
- the child’s needs will be protected regardless of the parents’ sex or the form of family.
A contractual family cannot by itself guarantee an increase in birth rates. Income, housing, employment, access to healthcare and the ability to combine work with raising a child will continue to influence the decision to have a child. But an agreement may remove another serious obstacle—the inability to understand the consequences of parenthood in advance.
Predictability will not make the family cold. It will allow adults to separate their feelings towards one another from their obligations towards the child and prevent the consequences of a joint decision from being transferred entirely to one parent after separation.
The clearer the responsibilities, expenses and consequences of separation are, the fewer people will reject having a child because of fear of the family system.
The future of the family will be determined by its results
Humanity has learnt to live considerably longer, but family rules remain designed for the previous life expectancy. People are expected to keep relationships, roles and obligations unchanged for decades, even though the people themselves, their interests and the surrounding system change during that time.
2050 is not a fixed date for the transition to a new form of family. The contractual model may become widespread earlier, later or may never become the principal model. But society will still have to answer the main question: can the family change together with the individual, or will it continue to lose the trust of future generations?
Traditional and contractual families will be able to exist in parallel. Some people will retain the religious model and predetermined roles. Others will choose a civil agreement, equality and an individual division of responsibilities. These systems will not necessarily exclude one another: a religious marriage may simultaneously be accompanied by a civil agreement concerning money, property and parental responsibility.
Neither the Church, the state nor lawmakers will be able to determine in advance which form of family will become the principal one. Both models will be judged by their results: the stability of relationships, people’s willingness to become parents, the safety of children and the family’s ability to develop the Personality.
The child’s position will become the main criterion. Adults will be able to choose the form of their relationship, but the child must not be made to pay for the consequences of that choice. Parental responsibility will be defined before the child is born and will continue regardless of love, living arrangements or the duration of the relationship between the adults.
An agreement will not replace love and cannot guarantee that feelings will last for life. It will define what will happen to the child, money, housing, careers and parental responsibilities if the relationship changes. Love may end, but responsibility for the consequences of a joint decision cannot.
If the traditional family continues to provide stability, protect children and encourage people to accept long-term obligations, it will survive. If the contractual system proves clearer, safer and fairer, demand for it will grow. The final choice will be made not by statements from politicians or religious organisations, but by millions of decisions made by people themselves.
The family of the future will be the system that people are not afraid to trust with their own lives, the birth of a child and responsibility for that child’s future.
Iv.Spolan
Author of the model “Basic Law of Political Economy”
