A practical response would be a more accurate representation of the picture we have been able to learn so far.
The outcomes for children living with both their parents include those children being negatively impacted by high levels of parental conflict or low quality parenting. The latter group experience outcomes that are worse than bereaved children and children with separated parents. Their inclusion pulls down the average outcomes for children in “intact families”. We just don’t know if it is to a significant extent, because not all children in high conflict homes are known to social services or other agencies.
But that’s the baseline for children’s outcomes that we have.
Bereaved children have either similar, or slightly worse outcomes in some areas, than children in “intact families”. The data for bereaved children includes those who have lost a parent due to risky behaviour and suicide as well as those who have lost a parent due to accident or illness.
Children with separated parents have worse outcomes than both the above groups. This group includes children suffering both the impact of being kept far too long in a high conflict home AND the impact of parental separation. It also includes the children who were unaware of conflict/unhappiness in the parental relationship and taken by surprise when the split occurred.
I don’t think there is much dispute that children are more harmed by being in an “intact”, but high conflict home than children in any other group.
Nor do I believe many would presume that the death of a parent is no biggie in terms of impact on child’s emotional well being.
While support , intervention, guidance and oversight fall well below adequate levels for children in those groups, there is at least some level of understanding in the general public that these children have experienced an impactful and potentially life altering event, or series of events. Precious few (I hope) would tell a bereaved child they are better off without their deceased parent cos the unalive one was a waste of space and they are gone because they didn’t really love their child enough anyway.
Adults may think it, but on the whole there is an understanding that no matter how poor a parent the deceased might have been, the child has sustained a significant loss and their emotional response to that may not be confined to the short term.
For the last thirty years (at least) the general public has received a somewhat different message about the children of separated parents. There is an understanding that the initial change in the family set up can be distressing for the children. However beyond that initial stage the message is one of children being resilient, and if one or both parents deemed family life unsustainable the children are de facto better off out of their “intact” family. That it is/was for their own good and their grief for the former life and parental bonds that they had can eased by reminding them of that.
Where the separation has led to little to no contact with one parent there is more inclination to undervalue the child’s grief for their loss. There is more inclination from the general public to muse that the children are mourning a mirage. That parent was a waste of space and didn’t really love them anyway.
A willingness as individuals to consider if maybe that’s not the best way to help children cope is a good place to start.
As per your second point. I disagree.
As a child of a single mother in the 80s I was not exclusively impacted by the experience of living in a home headed by a single mother.
I also experienced the shame and devaluation pushed upon me at a time where “single mother” was a euphemism for “feckless parent who doesn’t give a crap about their kid(s)”. I experienced the impotent fury of having my mother reduced to a cartoon villain, in a black and white comic strip with no room for the nuance of reality. I experienced the sense that if this is who I come from I am not made of the right stuff, so what is the point of trying. If I could not be loveable enough for a parent then why should I expect more than exploitation and abuse from the less savoury people in the general public. My sense of worth was deeply and negatively impacted by the social soup I was in.
The stigma was not mine alone. Thankfully there was recognition later on that demonising a group of parents like they were all a carbon copy lump of useless might not be fair on the adults, let alone helpful to the children.
Efforts were made to remind the public that their tone was too one-note. That if they couldn’t curb their distain for the parent, at least recognise the children on the sharp end were being hindered as a result and maybe moderate the opining for the kids’ sake.
The stigma hasn’t been eradicated. But over time the volume turned down on the single note. More chords have been allowed into the song. Perfect it is not. But it is better than it once was.
You cannot convince parents to recognise and prioritise their children’s needs if you distract them into full-time, self-defence mode.
We tried that. It didn’t work. It made things worse.