Breakdown in family unit is the reason for a fractured society

pumpkincat210

Well-known member
my mom left my dad when he was working in another state. He paid the house and everything, but my mom moved in with her new boyfriend and left me and my little sister to basically fend for ourselves. I was 15 and my sister was 8. It was the beginning of many problems for us. I got into drugs and eventually my sister dropped out of school. I was a horrible parent to her just because i had no authority over her and was immature myself. My mom could have gone about it in a totally different way and we wouldn't have turned out so helpless. I still feel low self esteem at times and worthlessness. My sister didn't graduate from high school and is now 21. she can't get a job and is now too lazy to get her ged. families are so important because you have people that love you and can guide you in the right direction. I still have a lot of bitter feelings for my mother.
 

SparklingWaves

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by V15U4L_3RR0R
Could not have put it better myself. That pile of shite is not even good enough to wipe my arse with.

Daily Mail - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia - that is the greatest thing I have ever read about the Daily Heil.



Since you are very knowledgeable with this paper and it's past, it may not hurt to write to them directly about your feelings & concerns.

Please feel free to add a link or source that applies to the topic with in which you approve within this thread. I would love to review it. If you so desire, we can discuss those links or sources instead. Thank you very much for your comments.
 

SparklingWaves

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by pumpkincat210
my mom left my dad when he was working in another state. He paid the house and everything, but my mom moved in with her new boyfriend and left me and my little sister to basically fend for ourselves. I was 15 and my sister was 8. It was the beginning of many problems for us. I got into drugs and eventually my sister dropped out of school. I was a horrible parent to her just because i had no authority over her and was immature myself. My mom could have gone about it in a totally different way and we wouldn't have turned out so helpless. I still feel low self esteem at times and worthlessness. My sister didn't graduate from high school and is now 21. she can't get a job and is now too lazy to get her ged. families are so important because you have people that love you and can guide you in the right direction. I still have a lot of bitter feelings for my mother.

I call it = Every person for themselves syndrome. When a family breaks up like this, we all just fend for ourselves the best as we can. It's like the ship tipped over and all you have is the life raft. No one gave you the instructions or tools to no how to survive & you do the best you can.

Many times, the adults are out there trying to earn paychecks and fill that empty hole of their broken relationship. In the mean time, their kids are needed a solid rock to hold on too. Why? Because, they are still developing mentally & physically. They need to be learning things to carry them throughout their life.

Your sister's lack of motivation may be a symptom of depression.
 

Beauty Mark

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SparklingWaves
This thread has me thinking about several examples of families. Here was another.

I remember as a kid there was a boy that had so many toys that his parents put on rooms to their house for them. His front teeth rotted out at four from eating candy and not brushing his teeth. He was the sweetest kid to other children. His mother didn't want me or any children to play with him.

She kept feeding him sweets and buying him toys every week. She wanted him all to herself. She ran off any friends he tried to have. I always wondered what happed to him, because he was such a nice kid.

He didn't act like a God. He could have, because his mother always kept asking him what did he want everyday. She would fix whatever he thought of even if it weren't healthy. One day, he ate chocolate cake for breakfast, lunch, & dinner. The thought of it made me sick.

I wasn't much older than he and I picked up something was really wrong at his house. He seemed lonely and his mother gave me & other children mean looks. His teeth were all full of holes and black. She kept asking him, "What do you want Bobby?"

He was always sick & admitted to the hospital for serious life threatening conditions. Today, I know this was a result of his extremely poor nutrition and from other things that I saw this woman do to her son.

I wouldn't doubt that he died from a result of how she treated him.

There are some really twisted parents out there.


WTH kind of parenting is that? If she didn't do anything about his teeth, he may be dead from that. I know we've gotten into this on the other threads, but someone should have interfered with her so-called parenting. If they can't prove some kind of mental abuse, surely not attempting to get him proper care or not feed him so much bad food would've had him taken in.
 

V15U4L_3RR0R

Well-known member
Ok aside from the mud slinging at the Daily Heil, I do disagree with this article somewhat.

I agree with others who have said it's down to the parent and their attitude. When I did Youthwork for a while, quite a lot of the disruptive kids came from your average 2.4 family. Their problem was, they were spoiled and bored which I think is more of the problem. I also think that we are creating our own self fulfilling prophecy. If you try and put someone into a box or tell them that's what they are, then eventually they will become exactly that. We're not giving these kids a chance to be anything else in some cases. I've known kids who come from well off backgrounds who have drink problems because they have nothing else to do. So I don't think this is just a family thing. This is a parent thing and a not catering for what our young people need.

I came from a broken home and moved out at 16 and have fended for myself ever since and I can't say I've ever wanted to hang out on street corners drinking White Lightning untill silly in the morning. Lol I don't like drinking that much and I don't do the whole weekend of clubbing thing. So not everyone turns out like that.
 

ratmist

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SparklingWaves
Since you are very knowledgeable with this paper and it's past, it may not hurt to write to them directly about your feelings & concerns.

Please feel free to add a link or source that applies to the topic with in which you approve within this thread. I would love to review it. If you so desire, we can discuss those links or sources instead. Thank you very much for your comments.


I realise this was directed to V15U4L_3RR0R, but as her comment was in reply to mine, I thought I'd reply. A source that I would tentatively offer is the BBC: BBC NEWS | UK | Families in meltdown, judge says

My main problem with the Daily Mail version of this story is that single parent homes are pointed out as a source of the UK's "fractured society". The last sentence is particularly jarring in contrast to the tone and structure of the judge's actual report. This is because the Daily Mail panders to a crowd of readers that are prone to knee-jerk reactions, and it's always fun to pick out and blame the most vulnerable in society, right?

In contrast, the BBC version of this story points out Mr Justice Coleridge "did not criticise single parents directly". Furthermore, the BBC points out the government response to the report. The Daily Mail, a noted critic of the Labour government, does not bother to report this response, probably because it contains a lot of useful information that diffuses the overly dramatic sentiment of the judge's statement (i.e. the statement that the breakdown of the family unit is as destructive as global warming).

This information includes:
A spokeswoman for the Department for Children, Families and Schools said: "Most children and young people in England today are safe, healthy, and achieve well."

She added: "We do not agree that there has been a breakdown in the family - 70% of families are headed by a married couple.

"And a recent BBC poll suggests that three-quarters of people in Britain are optimistic about the future of their families, 24% higher than when the same question was asked in 1964."

The spokeswoman said the Children's Plan put children and families at the centre of everything the government did.

Meanwhile, more than £250m was being spent developing local services for parents in England, focusing on those in "challenging circumstances".

David Laws, the Liberal Democrat spokesman for children, schools and families, said the judge was highlighting trends dating back at least 20 years.

"This government is not the source of the family breakdown problem but policies such as the operation of tax credits have made it more difficult for some families to bring up children in stable, two-parent households," he said.

I am due to have a baby with my husband in October. He is just above the earning bracket to qualify for most of the tax credits. In particular, we don't qualify for childcare benefits, which could've paid up to 75% of the cost of childcare for us. The tax credit system only considers income after taxes, not the cost of a mortgage, the cost of living, etc. As a result, we both need to get employment to pay for the cost of childcare. We cannot afford for me to stay at home to save on the cost of childcare because I have to pay back student loans.

If we split up, I would qualify as a single parent to a British child, and be able to be a stay-at-home mom off the back of the UK taxpayer. Many single parents find that it they can earn more money through child tax credits and unemployment benefits than by going to work. So you find that these single parent households start a cycle of unemployment, government-approved you might say.

This system is supposed to protect single parents, but in doing so, it actively discourages any favouritism towards two-parent households. Am I bitter? A bit, because I think the system has been subject to abuse.

But is the Daily Mail going to point this out? No. That would be adequate reporting, which this piece of shit rag does not do.

I think this judge's comments are more indicative of his class than anything else. Yet again we have a highly priveleged aristocratic high senior judge, whose most famous case involved some of the richest families in the UK (Paul McCartney vs Heather Mills) telling the poor masses what's wrong with them, using it as an opportunity to land himself in the papers with badly phrased criticisms of the incumbent government. Fuck off.
 

SparklingWaves

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beauty Mark
WTH kind of parenting is that? If she didn't do anything about his teeth, he may be dead from that. I know we've gotten into this on the other threads, but someone should have interfered with her so-called parenting. If they can't prove some kind of mental abuse, surely not attempting to get him proper care or not feed him so much bad food would've had him taken in.


It was so creepy to me as a kid. The house was super clean and smelled like bleach all the time. They lights were kept off in this expensive home all the time.

His mother would make him sit at the table and eat bowls and bowls full of ice cream with fudge. Instead of going outside with the rest of us. Then, he would would get sick. She would blame us and send us way. I stopped going over there. Some kids kept going and would go only when they saw his mother was gone shopping for more toys for him.

The toys were everywhere. It was insane. There was a garage full, toy boxes in every room of the house and rooms added on with toys in it.

A few times, I actually carpooled with his him and his mother. Everyday after school, she would buy him huge sweet drinks and several candy bars and had new toys in the car for him. Like I said, he was always sick with some serious stomach problem. His bedroom looked like a hospital bed and she wanted to give him enemas everyday. I saw these huge homemade plastic tubes in the bathrooms. He showed them to me. He wasn't allowed to show them to anyone. YIKES! It really scared me.

I told my mother that she tried to hit me with the door of the car on many occasions. I couldn't shut the door to the car myself. She had weird extreme rules. I could only sit in one seat. It was the one where she could stare at me in her rear view mirror. She would be constantly giving me these mean looks. Bobby could sit anywhere without a seatbelt, but I had to have a seatbelt. It was so bizarre. He would be eating candy bars every time that I saw him. He would offer them to me and she would get very angry.

It was his diet that was making him so sick. She would give him what he wanted. If he said he wanted chili, he got a pot of it. It was so gross to me as a kid.

When you are a kid, you don't realize what you are seeing. It's child abuse. The adults felt sorry for Bobby's mom, because she had several miscarriages before she had him. They thought that's why she treated (spoiled) him like this. She was actually abusing him & she was trying to hide it. The adults didn't know what all the kids knew. That's why she was sending the kids away. She didn't want us to see what all she was doing to him. Those toys were to make it look like she loved him. I think she was very twisted in the head. The kids on the block didn't fully understand what she was doing to him. We just knew she was a weirdo.
 

SparklingWaves

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by V15U4L_3RR0R
Ok aside from the mud slinging at the Daily Heil, I do disagree with this article somewhat.

I agree with others who have said it's down to the parent and their attitude. When I did Youthwork for a while, quite a lot of the disruptive kids came from your average 2.4 family. Their problem was, they were spoiled and bored which I think is more of the problem. I also think that we are creating our own self fulfilling prophecy. If you try and put someone into a box or tell them that's what they are, then eventually they will become exactly that. We're not giving these kids a chance to be anything else in some cases. I've known kids who come from well off backgrounds who have drink problems because they have nothing else to do. So I don't think this is just a family thing. This is a parent thing and a not catering for what our young people need.

I came from a broken home and moved out at 16 and have fended for myself ever since and I can't say I've ever wanted to hang out on street corners drinking White Lightning untill silly in the morning. Lol I don't like drinking that much and I don't do the whole weekend of clubbing thing. So not everyone turns out like that.


This maybe a bit off topic, but I thought it applied in a way. I don't have the study in hand, but there was an article that was about children's attention & how it has changed from the 1960's. They put three year olds in a circle holding hands & five year olds in a circle holding hands. They did this to see how long they could stay in the circle own their own.

Today, the children can stay in the circle barely as long as the three year olds in the 1960s.

I think this may also be a factor in some of the problems we are seeing today.
 

SparklingWaves

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratmist
I realise this was directed to V15U4L_3RR0R, but as her comment was in reply to mine, I thought I'd reply. A source that I would tentatively offer is the BBC: BBC NEWS | UK | Families in meltdown, judge says

My main problem with the Daily Mail version of this story is that single parent homes are pointed out as a source of the UK's "fractured society". The last sentence is particularly jarring in contrast to the tone and structure of the judge's actual report. This is because the Daily Mail panders to a crowd of readers that are prone to knee-jerk reactions, and it's always fun to pick out and blame the most vulnerable in society, right?

In contrast, the BBC version of this story points out Mr Justice Coleridge "did not criticise single parents directly". Furthermore, the BBC points out the government response to the report. The Daily Mail, a noted critic of the Labour government, does not bother to report this response, probably because it contains a lot of useful information that diffuses the overly dramatic sentiment of the judge's statement (i.e. the statement that the breakdown of the family unit is as destructive as global warming).

This information includes:

A spokeswoman for the Department for Children, Families and Schools said: "Most children and young people in England today are safe, healthy, and achieve well."

She added: "We do not agree that there has been a breakdown in the family - 70% of families are headed by a married couple.

"And a recent BBC poll suggests that three-quarters of people in Britain are optimistic about the future of their families, 24% higher than when the same question was asked in 1964."

The spokeswoman said the Children's Plan put children and families at the centre of everything the government did.

Meanwhile, more than £250m was being spent developing local services for parents in England, focusing on those in "challenging circumstances".

David Laws, the Liberal Democrat spokesman for children, schools and families, said the judge was highlighting trends dating back at least 20 years.

"This government is not the source of the family breakdown problem but policies such as the operation of tax credits have made it more difficult for some families to bring up children in stable, two-parent households," he said.

I am due to have a baby with my husband in October. He is just above the earning bracket to qualify for most of the tax credits. In particular, we don't qualify for childcare benefits, which could've paid up to 75% of the cost of childcare for us. The tax credit system only considers income after taxes, not the cost of a mortgage, the cost of living, etc. As a result, we both need to get employment to pay for the cost of childcare. We cannot afford for me to stay at home to save on the cost of childcare because I have to pay back student loans.

If we split up, I would qualify as a single parent to a British child, and be able to be a stay-at-home mom off the back of the UK taxpayer. Many single parents find that it they can earn more money through child tax credits and unemployment benefits than by going to work. So you find that these single parent households start a cycle of unemployment, government-approved you might say.

This system is supposed to protect single parents, but in doing so, it actively discourages any favouritism towards two-parent households. Am I bitter? A bit, because I think the system has been subject to abuse.

But is the Daily Mail going to point this out? No. That would be adequate reporting, which this piece of shit rag does not do.

I think this judge's comments are more indicative of his class than anything else. Yet again we have a highly priveleged aristocratic high senior judge, whose most famous case involved some of the richest families in the UK (Paul McCartney vs Heather Mills) telling the poor masses what's wrong with them, using it as an opportunity to land himself in the papers with badly phrased criticisms of the incumbent government. Fuck off.



Thank you for the link. The comments from the Judge captured my interest. I have been looking into many sites for data on the topic to see if his statements were valid.
 

ratmist

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SparklingWaves
Thank you for the link. The comments from the Judge captured my interest. I have been looking into many sites for data on the topic to see if his statements were valid.

Topics like this are immensely complex. This is the other reason why the judge can kiss my ass. Every statement feels like a gross generalisation on a topic that deserves far more attention to detail and less emphasis on statements clearly crafted as sound-bites.

If you want solid, peer-reviewed research on this, don't go for anything in the media, and for godsake avoid the British tabloids! Look for abstracts on academic journals, if you don't have access to the full journal article, and use Google Scholar.
 

ratmist

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SparklingWaves
This maybe a bit off topic, but I thought it applied in a way. I don't have the study in hand, but there was an article that was about children's attention & how it has changed from the 1960's. They put three year olds in a circle holding hands & five year olds in a circle holding hands. They did this to see how long they could stay in the circle own their own.

Today, the children can stay in the circle barely as long as the three year olds in the 1960s.

I think this may also be a factor in some of the problems we are seeing today.


I'm sorry, do you mean the ability of children to hold hands for a period of time, or the link between a perceived lack of attention spans and the ability to hold hands?

Either way, I don't buy it.
th_dunno.gif
 

SparklingWaves

Well-known member
Comment: This is for those that like statistics. (non-media)
thmbup.gif


Teen Birth Rate Rises for First Time in 15 Years
For Immediate Release: December 5, 2007
Contact: CDC National Center for Health Statistics Office of Communication (301) 458-4800
E-mail: [email protected]
Births: Preliminary Data for 2006. NVSR Volume 56, Number 7. 18 pp. (PHS) 2008-1120. 
State-specific detailed tables for 2006 
Hoja Informativa (Fact Sheet in Spanish)

STATCAST: "Teen, Unmarried Births on the Rise" (Dec. 5, 2007, Stephanie Ventura)
The teen birth rate in the United States rose in 2006 for the first time since 1991, and unmarried childbearing also rose significantly, according to preliminary birth statistics released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The statistics are featured in a new report, "Births: Preliminary Data for 2006," prepared by CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, and are based on data from over 99 percent of all births for the United States in 2006. A final report to follow will have more detailed data.

The report shows that between 2005 and 2006, the birth rate for teenagers 15-19 years rose 3 percent, from 40.5 live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19 years in 2005 to 41.9 births per 1,000 in 2006. This follows a 14-year downward trend in which the teen birth rate fell by 34 percent from its recent peak of 61.8 births per 1,000 in 1991.

"It’s way too early to know if this is the start of a new trend," said Stephanie Ventura, head of the Reproductive Statistics Branch at CDC. "But given the long-term progress we’ve witnessed, this change is notable."
The largest increases were reported for non-Hispanic black teens, whose overall rate rose 5 percent in 2006. The rate rose 2 percent for Hispanic teens, 3 percent for non-Hispanic white teens, and 4 percent for American Indian or Alaska Native teens.
The birth rate for the youngest teens aged 10-14 declined from 0.7 to 0.6 per 1,000, and the number of births to this age group fell 5 percent to 6,405. The birth rate for older teens aged 18-19 is 73 births per 1,000 population –- more than three times higher than the rate for teens aged 15-17 (22 per 1,000). Between 2005 and 2006, the birth rate rose 3 percent for teens aged 15-17 and 4 percent for teens aged 18-19.

The study also shows unmarried childbearing reached a new record high in 2006. The total number of births to unmarried mothers rose nearly 8 percent to 1,641,700 in 2006. This represents a 20 percent increase from 2002, when the recent upswing in nonmarital births began. The biggest jump was among unmarried women aged 25-29, among whom there was a 10 percent increase between 2005 and 2006.
In addition, the nonmarital birth rate also rose sharply, from 47.5 births per 1,000 unmarried females in 2005 to 50.6 per 1,000 in 2006 -- a 7-percent 1-year increase and a 16 percent increase since 2002.

The study also revealed that the percentage of all U.S. births to unmarried mothers increased to 38.5 percent, up from 36.9 percent in 2005.
The report contains other significant findings:

The preliminary estimate of total births in the U.S. for 2006 was 4,265,996, a 3 percent increase -- or 127,647 more births than in 2005.

Birth rates increased for women in their twenties, thirties and early forties between 2005 and 2006, as well as for teenagers.

The cesarean delivery rate rose again in 2006, to 31.1 percent of all births, a 3 percent increase from 2005 and a new record high. The percentage of all births delivered by cesarean has climbed 50 percent over the last decade.

The preterm birth rate rose slightly between 2005 and 2006, from 12.7 percent to 12.8 percent of all births. The percentage of births delivered before 37 weeks of gestation has risen 21 percent since 1990.

The low birthweight rate also rose slightly in 2006, from 8.2 percent in 2005 to 8.3 percent in 2006, a 19 percent jump since 1990.

As a result of the increases in the birth rates for women aged 15-44, the total fertility rate –- an estimate of the average number of births that a group of women would have over their lifetimes –- increased 2 percent in 2006 to 2,101 births per 1,000 women. This is the highest rate since 1971 and the first time since then that the rate was above replacement -– the level at which a given generation can replace itself.
 

SparklingWaves

Well-known member
Comment: Some journal requested information. (non-media)
th_DANCE.gif


I have a lot more to offer in support of this Judge's comments. However, I didn't find that coming from broken homes was indicative of significant advantages to children in non-media literature. Personally, I think that's commonsense.

I just don't know how much people want to read.
smiles.gif


We all come from families and can see with our own eyes what is going on in society. We know if our families are fragmented are not. Now, how much a person is willing to acknowledge that impact and the level of that impact is very individual. We don't need all this literature to back it up.

I feel the Judge was telling what he is seeing & it's not sounding Politically Correct. Society tends to not want to hear any criticism or take on any accountability for it's own ills.

Now, if you want chop up what he said or criticize who quoted him, that's alright. (BTW- I have a list of newspapers that covered this exact story now & found them all different).

Irregardless, the family is the backbone of society. If that is eroding, the society is as well.

I agree with the Judge's comments and have found much data in agreement with his comments.


Disentangling the Link between Disrupted Families and Delinquency
Sociodemography, Ethnicity and Risk Behaviours

Heather Juby and David P. Farrington*
Heather Juby, GRIP, University of Montreal, Canada; David P. Farrington, University of Cambridge, Institute of Criminology, England. The data collection on which this paper is based was funded by the Home Office and directed by Donald J. West. We are very grateful to Bernard Gallagher for assistance with data extraction.

The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development is a prospective longitudinal survey of 411 South London males from age 8 to age 46. Delinquency rates were higher among 75 boys who were living in permanently disrupted families on their fifteenth birthday, compared to boys living in intact families. Results were very similar whether juvenile convictions, juvenile self-reported delinquency or adult convictions were studied. Delinquency rates were similar in disrupted families and in intact high conflict families. Boys who lost their mothers were more likely to be delinquent than boys who lost their fathers, and disruptions caused by parental disharmony were more damaging than disruptions caused by parental death. Boys from disrupted families who continued living with their mothers had similar delinquency rates to boys from intact harmonious families. These results are more concordant with life course theories rather than with trauma theories or selection theories of the effects of family disruption.

The British Journal of Criminology 41:22-40 (2001)
© 2001 Centre for Crime & Justice Studies (formerly ISTD)




Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?
Bruce J. Ellis11University of Canterbury,
John E. Bates22Indiana University,
Kenneth A. Dodge33Duke University,
David M. Fergusson44Christchurch School of Medicine,
L. John Horwood44Christchurch School of Medicine,
Gregory S. Pettit55Auburn University, and
Lianne Woodward


The impact of father absence on early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy was investigated in longitudinal studies in the United States (N = 242) and New Zealand (N = 520), in which community samples of girls were followed prospectively from early in life (5 years) to approximately age 18. Greater exposure to father absence was strongly associated with elevated risk for early sexual activity and adolescent pregnancy. This elevated risk was either not explained (in the U.S. study) or only partly explained (in the New Zealand study) by familial, ecological, and personal disadvantages associated with father absence. After controlling for covariates, there was stronger and more consistent evidence of effects of father absence on early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy than on other behavioral or mental health problems or academic achievement. Effects of father absence are discussed in terms of life-course adversity, evolutionary psychology, social learning, and behavior genetic models.


Children’s Economic Well-Being in Married and Cohabiting Parent Families
Wendy D. Manning 1 1 Bowling Green State University Department of Sociology & Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403 ([email protected]). and
Susan Brown 1


Increasingly, children are living with cohabiting parents. Prior work on the material well-being of children living in cohabiting families is extended by including the biological relationship of children to adults, examining the racial and ethnic variations, and investigating the multiple indicators of material well-being. We draw on the 1999 National Survey of America’s Families (N =34,509). Our findings suggest that children can potentially benefit from living with a cohabiting partner whose resources are shared with family members. Although children living with married rather than cohabiting parents fare better in terms of material well-being, this advantage is accounted for by race and ethnic group and parents’ education. Marriage appears to provide more material advantages to White children than to Black or Latino children.


Additional comments: I didn't want to overload the thread with information. It was note worthy that there was a Journal that discussed the topic of fathers that were very extremely abusive. In those cases, the child or children were shown to do better in a home away from them.

So, each case is very individual. There are some situations where the children defiantly need protection from a parent or parents. I had mentioned my friend, Bobby, earlier in this thread. He defiantly needed protection from his mother. Some cases of abuse are not so obvious to outsiders.
 

ratmist

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SparklingWaves
We all come from families and can see with our own eyes what is going on in society. We know if our families are fragmented are not. Now, how much a person is willing to acknowledge that impact and the level of that impact is very individual. We don't need all this literature to back it up.

I feel the Judge was telling what he is seeing & it's not sounding Politically Correct. Society tends to not want to hear any criticism or take on any accountability for it's own ills.

Irregardless, the family is the backbone of society. If that is eroding, the society is as well.


I disagree with practically all of this on the grounds of social theory as much as anything else. And I don't believe society (whoever that is) is incapable of reflexivity. Individuals and their families react differently to different situations. The topic of "broken" families is immensely complex because of how human beings react to stress, change and conflict.

I disagree with the judge. Not every dysfunctional child comes from a broken home, and there are many well-adjusted children from broken homes. I'm one of them, and so are all of my friends who are from broken homes. We all have scars - who doesn't? - but they've made us stronger. There's no perfect childhood. Our bad childhoods, while awful to live through, have actually given us the ability to say what we will and will not have in our own lives, to break through the cycles of abuse and neglect. Equally, some people repeat the cycle. The only common "cure" touted in all of the studies about broken homes and the ills of society is education. It really is the only way out.

The notion of 'family' has had a radical change in the last century, especially in Western society. This has caused anxiety in how the West views itself. I don't agree that society is 'eroding'. Society is still here, it's just always changing, and we've never been more aware of change in society than we are in the hyper-reality of the 21st century. Some people weather the changes well. Others do not. That's also nothing new.

I don't believe problems in these journal articles and the problems seen by the judge are something new in society. However, the West has never before been so good at documenting and displaying itself. It's information overload. That's not to say that the problems of families aren't real, but they're not necessarily brand new.

I assume his actual report is more carefully written than the media reports about his report. But from what I've read of his statements, and the fact that judges in the family courts in the UK almost never speak to the press, it smacks of egotistic aristocratic wank. Usually, judges in the UK simply let their opinions be known through their Judgements, which may or may not be published (usually they aren't, for privacy laws, etc). They do not engage with the press. This guy wants visibility as the "expert" on the ills of society because he's been involved in family court for 8 years. I call bullshit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SparklingWaves
Additional comments: I didn't want to overload the thread with information.

Hah. I probably ought to worry about that more than I do.
winks.gif
 

ratmist

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SparklingWaves
As a result of the increases in the birth rates for women aged 15-44, the total fertility rate –- an estimate of the average number of births that a group of women would have over their lifetimes –- increased 2 percent in 2006 to 2,101 births per 1,000 women. This is the highest rate since 1971 and the first time since then that the rate was above replacement -– the level at which a given generation can replace itself.

Technically, this just means we're great at surviving as a species.

The article you quote doesn't seem to tie-in "broken families" with teen pregnancy. I fail to see how this supports the judge.

On the other hand, we all know how to deal with teen pregnancy. Educate boys and girls about sex! Emphasise contraception! Pass out condoms in schools and show teens how to use them! Stop the government from providing funds only for abstinence-only education!

I directly blame the rise in teen pregnancy on the government for reducing or eliminating funding for Family Planning and contraception education in the schools in favour of abstinence-only (faith-based) "education".
 

SparklingWaves

Well-known member
Hah. I probably ought to worry about that more than I do.
winks.gif
[/quote]

I really appreciate you taking the time to reply. Thank you very much. I am enjoying the discussion
smiles.gif
 

SparklingWaves

Well-known member
Not every dysfunctional child comes from a broken home, and there are many well-adjusted children from broken homes.

I agree with you there & that we are surviving well as a species. We are doing very well indeed.
smiles.gif


I think we are taking what the Judge said in two different ways. But, it's good to have the different points come up.


I was mentioning this article to someone and they told me about some other stat in the news recently. I am going to try and find it. (I am thinking out loud).

BTW-I love to read journals and stats. If you have them, please add them to the thread as you wish. Thanks.
 

SparklingWaves

Well-known member
Comment: I found the article that my friend suggested. It was about the high rates of certain type of abuse today. I am not going to get into that at all. That's off on another highway.

Here's another article on the topic. I thought this one covered a lot of ground. I especially thought the side box information was interesting. (This will probably be my last article in this thread. Unless, someone requests more data. I seriously doubt that.
smiles.gif
)

Family Structure and Children's Educational Outcomes

Research Brief No. 1, November 2005 | Center for Marriage and Families



Executive Summary

A comprehensive review of recent academic research shows that family structure — whether a child’s parents are married, divorced, single, remarried, or cohabiting — is a significant influence on children’s educational performance. Family structure affects preschool readiness. It affects educational achievement at the elementary, secondary, and college levels. Family structure influences these outcomes in part because family structure affects a range of child behaviors that can bear directly on educational success, such as school misbehavior, drug and alcohol consumption, sexual activity and teen pregnancy, and psychological distress. There is a solid research basis for the proposition that strengthening U.S. family structure — increasing the proportion of children growing up with their own, two married parents — would significantly improve the educational achievements of U.S. children.



Introduction
About this Research Brief

About the Center for Marriage and Families

Download PDF (50kb, 6 pages) Over the past 35 years, the proportion of U.S. children being raised in two-parent homes has dropped significantly — from about 85 percent in 1968 to 70 percent in 2003 — while the proportion of children living in single-parent homes has nearly doubled. Before they reach the age of 18, a majority of all U.S. children are likely to spend at least a significant portion of their childhoods in a one-parent home.
This sharp increase in the proportion of U.S. children who do not live with their own two married parents makes it important to understand how changes in family structure influence important areas of children’s lives. One such area is educational outcomes.

Methodological Questions
There are important problems in studying the impact of family structure on outcomes for children. First, studies define family structure inconsistently. Some do not differentiate between stepparents and biological parents. Some do not make distinctions between a married stepparent and someone who is cohabiting with the biological parent. Second, there can be related problems with the data. For example, some data sets have very small numbers of unmarried cohabiting parents. Some contain data for only one point in time. Yet despite these limitations, a systematic review of a large body of research clearly suggests that family structure significantly affects children’s academic and social development.
In addition, an important issue in this research is what scholars call “selection effects.” Do children living with their own two married parents do better educationally because their parents got and stayed married? Or alternatively, do they do better because those persons who get and stay married (persons who “select” into marriage) also tend to be people who, even prior to getting married, have more resources and better social and parenting skills? The answer is: Both. Selection effects do exist. And they do explain some of the greater educational gains experienced by children living in married-couple, two-parent homes. But they do not explain all of them. When it comes to educational achievement, even after selection effects are taken into account, children living with their own married parents do significantly better than other children.

Preschool Readiness
As early as age three, children’s ability to adapt to classroom routines appears to be influenced by their parents’ marital status. For instance, three- and four-year-old children growing up with their own married parents (or in an “intact” family) are three times less likely than those in any other family structure to experience emotional or behavioral problems such as attention deficit disorder. Overall, children living with their own married parents have fewer behavioral problems compared to children whose parents are living together but not married. In terms of physical health, young children in single-parent families are less healthy overall than are children in all other family types.

Children living with their own married parents are more likely to be involved in literacy activities (such as being read to or learning to recognize letters) than are children from single-parent homes. Not growing up with their own married parents appears particularly damaging for young children, because the cognitive and social behaviors developed early on persist throughout childhood, affecting the course of their entire education.

Elementary Education
In the primary grades, the ability of children to perform in basic subject areas and at their grade level is weaker for those children not living with their own married parents. Fourth grade students with married parents score higher on reading comprehension, compared to students living in stepfamilies, with single mothers, and in other types of families. Living in a single-parent family is linked with decreases in children’s math scores. Lack of income or other resources explains some, but not all, of the worse outcomes experienced by children from non-married parent families. Marriage itself also has a measurable impact on these educational outcomes.

High School Achievement and Completion
The effects of family structure on academic success continue through high school. Children growing up with non-intact families engage in more adolescent misbehavior, which harms grades and test scores. Family structure substantially influences outcomes such as high school dropout rates, high school graduation rates, and age at first pregnancy. For example, young people from non-intact families are significantly more likely to drop out of school, compared to students living in intact families.

Studies comparing the effects of family structure on educational attainment in the U.S. and Sweden yield fascinating results. In both countries, children living in non-intact families do worse educationally, such that each additional year a Swedish or an American child spends with a single mother or stepparent reduces that child’s overall educational attainment by approximately one-half year. These similarities between U.S. and Swedish children in non-intact families are particularly striking in light of these two nations’ dramatic differences in both family policy and in areas such as income inequality.

College Attendance
The effect of family structure on children’s college attendance has received considerable attention. For young people, growing up without their own married parents is linked with lower college attendance rates and acceptance at less selective institutions.

Young people, especially women, who grow up with their own married parents tend to marry later. Research has shown a link between delayed marriage and higher educational attainment among young women.

Misbehavior at School
Marital breakup is associated with a higher incidence of antisocial behavior in the classroom for boys. Children from homes headed by their own married parents have the fewest incidences of misbehavior at school.

Family structure affects teenagers’ school attendance and tardiness. Students from non-intact families miss school, are tardy, and cut class about 30 percent more often than do students from intact homes. These differences exist in part because parents in non-intact family homes appear less able to supervise and monitor their children. Children in families with high levels of marital conflict are more likely to have behavioral problems than are children in families with low levels of conflict. Children whose parents have high-conflict marriages often have even higher scores on measures of behavioral problems than children whose parents divorce. However, today in the United States, the majority of divorces occur in cases of low-conflict marriages.

Smoking, Illegal Drugs, and Alcohol Consumption
Teenagers from non-intact families are more likely to smoke, use drugs, and consume alcohol, even when controlling for important factors such as age, sex, race, and parent education.

One study found that family structure had a significant relationship to family attachment (with intact families reporting higher levels of attachment), and in turn, family attachment had a direct and deterrent effect on adolescent cigarette smoking and illicit drug use.

Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy
Teenagers from non-intact families are more likely to be sexually active. There appear to be no significant differences in sexual behavior between adolescents from stepfamilies and those from single-parent families. The similarity of sexual behavior among these two groups of adolescents suggests that remarriage presents some risks with regard to monitoring adolescent behaviors effectively and transmitting values that deter early sexual relationships.

Teenagers from divorced single-mother homes are significantly more likely than teens in never-married single-mother homes to become pregnant. However, while parental remarriage seems to offer little protection regarding teen sexual activity, a recent study on remarriage’s effect on teen pregnancy points in a different direction. It found that young women whose parents remarry after divorce have lower rates of teen pregnancy than do young women in single-parent homes — rates that are similar to those of young women raised by their own married parents. This study suggests that remarriage, as well as marriage, might act as a demonstrative or socializing tool in preventing teen pregnancy. However, the effects of remarriage on teen pregnancy remain inconclusive, with earlier studies showing no such protective effect.

Illegal Activities
Being in a stepparent or single-parent family at age 10 more than doubles the odds of a child being arrested by age 14. One study found that male adolescents in all types of families without a biological father (mother only, mother and stepfather, and other) were more likely to be incarcerated than teens from intact-family homes. Young people who have never lived with their biological fathers have the highest odds of being arrested.

Psychological Problems
For children, growing up without their own married parents is linked with higher rates of stress, depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem during the teenage years — problems that can significantly reduce their ability to focus and achieve in school. Research consistently shows that parental divorce has lasting negative emotional effects throughout childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.

Policy Implications[/B]
Family structure clearly influences educational outcomes for U.S. children. The weakening of U.S. family structure in recent decades, driven primarily by high and rising rates of unwed childbearing and divorce, has almost certainly weakened the educational prospects and achievements of U.S. children. Put more positively, there is a solid research basis for the proposition that strengthening U.S. family structure in the future — increasing the proportion of children growing up with their own, two married parents — would significantly improve the educational achievements of U.S. children.
Policymakers and leaders of civil society who are concerned about this issue can take action on two levels.
First, given that many U.S. children now grow up in non-intact families, programs and policies should help families offset as best they can the negative effects linked to these family structures.
For example, all parents should be encouraged to have high expectations of their children’s school performance. Research shows that parent expectations are important predictors of children’s educational outcomes. Parental involvement in children’s educational and social life should be encouraged. When parents do not spend significant time with their children, or when they are not involved in their children’s activities, they are far less able to transmit important values and behaviors.

Lower levels of income account for some of the differences in educational outcomes between children living with their own married parents and those in other family structures. For this reason, improving the economic circumstances of one-parent families would probably improve children’s educational outcomes in those families.
At the same time, stepfamilies, which have significantly greater economic resources than do single-parent families, nevertheless have educational outcomes for children that look more like those of children in single-parent homes than those of children in intact families. Income matters, but income alone does not explain the better educational outcomes experienced by children in intact families.
The second level of action is more systemic. These findings about family structure and children’s educational outcomes clearly suggest that education policy and family policy logically go hand in hand.
It should be clear that policymakers and others who want better educations for our children should also want to strengthen U.S. family structure, because the former is at least partly dependent on the latter. In short, for those who care about education, strengthening marriage is a legitimate and important goal of public policy.
It is vital to support the conditions in which the greatest numbers of children can grow up to be educated and socially competent. Accordingly, these findings about family structure and children’s educational outcomes should encourage policy makers and social leaders to think creatively about supporting marriage in ways that will allow more of our youngest citizens to succeed educationally and flourish socially.

Sidebox: If U.S. Family Structure Was as Strong Today as It Was in 1970:
  • 643,000 fewer children each year would fail a grade at school
  • 1,040,000 fewer children each year would be suspended from school
  • 531,000 fewer children each year would need psychotherapy
  • 453,000 fewer children each year would be involved in violence
  • 515,000 fewer children each year would be cigarette smokers
  • 179,000 fewer children each year would consider suicide
  • 71,000 fewer children each year would attempt suicide
Source: Paul R. Amato, “The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social,
and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation,” The Future of Children, Fall 2005


About this Research Brief
This research brief summarizes the findings of a comprehensive literature review by a team of researchers led by Professor Barbara Schneider at the University of Chicago. The full review, including a bibliography, is published as Barbara Schneider, Allison Atteberry, and Ann Owens, Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes (Birmingham: Alabama Policy Institute, June 2005). A downloadable pdf of the paper is available free of charge at Alabama Policy Institute. The views expressed in this brief regarding policy implications are those of the Center for Marriage and Families.

About the Center for Marriage and Families
The Center for Marriage and Families, based at the Institute for American Values, issues research briefs, fact sheets, and other material related to marriage, families, and children. The Center is directed by Elizabeth Marquardt. Its Scholarly Advisory Board includes William Doherty of the University of Minnesota, Norval Glenn of the University of Texas, Linda Waite of the University of Chicago, W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia, and James Q. Wilson of UCLA (Emeritus). We are grateful to Arthur and Joann Rasmussen for their generous financial support. To learn more about the Center, and to obtain other research briefs and publications, please visit Institute for American Values, where you can sign up for our newsletter and for electronic or print mailings of future publications.

Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values
1841 Broadway, Suite 211, New York, NY 10023
Phone: 212.246.3942 Fax: 212.541.6665.
Email: [email protected]
Website: Institute for American Values






[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-2]Institute for American Values
1841 Broadway, Suite 211
New York, NY 10023
Tel: (212) 246-3942
Fax: (212) 541-6665
[/SIZE][/FONT]​
 
Top