Research is a load of baloney...?

[Kmg]

I am very sceptical of any 'latest research project results', and even more so since Child of our Time. Last week there was a child who went through a dreadfully difficult first year - parents arguing, splitting up, being shunted from one to the other, moving around the place, and it was fairly easy to conclude that this would have an effect even on a young baby, and she was clearly 'deprived'. Winston then said there was a well-accepted test of a whether or not a baby is happy, and they did this thing where you observe the baby playing with toys through a one-way mirror, and observe the reaction when the mother leaves the room for a while, and then re-enters.

My son is part of a research project, and we underwent this 'test' too. His behaviour was almost identical to the child on the TV - which apparently 'proved' that she was desperately unhappy, had no bond with her mother, and was clearly damaged and deprived!

I could go on to explain why my son behaved the way he did, but I do not feel the need to justify myself or his behaviour. Many, many of the other aspects of the research project are equally suspect to me, and the visits often seem a waste of my time, and I cannot have any faith in the validity of any results they might come out with.

If as parents we claim to be vitally interested in the well-being of our children, we have to accept that our behaviour and values will affect them in both positive and negative ways. Of course not every nuclear family provides a perfect environment for a growing child. However, it is clear that even though the composition of families has altered a lot over the past 30 years, young people are still struggling with relationships, and those from unstable backgrounds tend to struggle more. This instability may be linked with poverty, but to deny that a child from an unstable background may not learn how to form long-term relationships is to deny the whole concept of parental influence in upbringing.

Mooma, are you suggesting that single parenthood and instability are linked?

What family provides the best environment for their children?, are we all perfect, I think not. We all have different ways of bringing up our children and no 2 families are the same. For any so called Qualified Person, to say that if a child comes from a less than average household is deprived is completely wrong. I am not a single parent myself but I do think that the "labels" that are attached to some single parents is terrible. There are still old farts out there who think that because a woman is on her own with child/ren that she has done something wrong or had them to get a house and other things as well. In many cases this is wrong, I have a friend who is a single mum and we have friends who are single fathers as well, some are divorced, some are widowed and some have been left literally holding the baby when one partner couldn't cope. In our local town these single parents expecially the mums are looked down upon, why I don't know there kids are like anyone elses, what do some people think that children who come from single parents families are like, a different variety from children with 2 parent families, really for goodness sake, some folk are so blinkered in their attitudes to life and it's not only the older generation the some of the younger are as bad. I really take my hat off to women and men who raise a child/children on their own.

Eulalia, I do agree with what you say about a childs first year of life, seems to be once they find their feet and that they can escape mother they discover they can do more on their own.

But Winnie, surely if research reveals something that we find unpalatable, it doesn't necessarily mean we should automatically dismiss it out of hand?. Of course there are many wonderfully happy and successful single parent families out there but this is hardly the first report of its type to report a suggested link between higher teenage pregnancies and single parent families (hardly revolutionary given that one the whole, single parent families tend to be less well off and teenage pregnancies are signicificantly more common among less well off families).

I am a full time working mother but certainly don't dismiss out of hand research / evidence which reports on the potential adverse impact of my choice on my child.

Is this anything new? I thought it was accepted that Britain having the highest rate of both teenage pregnancy in Europe and the highest divorce rate was not a coincidence.

Time is one thing that seems to get overlooked in the one-parent/two-parent, gay-parent/straight parent debate. There's 18 years from birth to, well, 18 years. Plenty of time for for two 'model' parents to divorce, meet a new partner,discover a new sexual orientation, whatever. And plenty of time for a very 'unmodel' parent do likewise. So when research states that one or the other family setup is best, my temptation is to ask exactly when and for how long? Wouldn't it make a great deal of difference to the children if, for instance, a single parent met a new partner and formed a happy relationship when her children were older? Or a reasonably happily married mother of young children became an even more happy divorcee later on? Or a happy, secure single mother 10 years along the line, met a Mr Wonderful who was anything but?

Many children have had periods family of stability and instability, happiness and unhappiness in the course of their childhood and teenage years. How can research figures reflect each child's unique family relationship history?

But isn't that the whole point of the study? It seems to suggest that in families where the parents remain married throughout the whole of their offspring's childhood, that there is a tendency for such children to grow up more secure in themselves and less likely to indulge in sexual activity at a young age.

I wonder about those teenages whose carer/ carers (biological or not) have moved from an 'unstable ' family set up, to a 'stable' one? I'd hate to think that, for instance, an early five years of instability would make a teenager so much more vulnerable to problems. I suppose I like to think that stability and happiness can cancel out some early sadness.

Croppy, just to clarify my position, I was making a general reference to relationship research. I do not know of this particular piece of research in any depth. From the little I do know, there is no reference to 'stable' families being those where the careres were contually together throughout the course of their offspring's childhood/teenage years. If this is so I stand corrected.

I'm not saying that children don't generally benefit from a 'stable' basckground. I'm just querying for how long that stablilty has to be in place before it can cancel out the effects of instability - and whether research usually recognises this. One could even argue that a mixture of both could make teenagers even more resiliant and worldy wise - not that I'm advocating this!

Winnie - No, I'm not suggesting that single parenthood and instability are linked. I'm suggesting that a child who watches his/her parent(s) embark on a series of short-term relationships, none of which leads to a permanent, settled 'family' experience for the child, may then find it difficult to form long-term relationships in adult life.
Children learn (partly) by example. That is all I'm saying and it is borne out by the research cited by Jbr.
Croppy - your 3:05 posting sums it up for me.

I think that a single parent (mother or father) is more likely to air their troubles to their children. I know of this by experience and the child can end up knowing a load of adult troubles long before they need to. Also the single parent has no-one to turn to if a child is being difficult - they have to do it all themselves. This is a lot for one person to cope with and it is inevitable that they are going to perhaps give in when they shouldn't. From the experince of my relative she said that there was a lot of inconsistency because her mother often just couldn't be bothered to enforce discipline so she would be allowed to get away with things. The next day she would snap at the littlest thing. From my own experience if my son is driving me mad at least I can turn round (in the evenings/weeknds of course) and ask my husband to deal with him.

Also I think that with two parents the child gets a more balanced view of life - not just one view - again this relative turned out to be rather brainwashed. Our son often hears us arguing (in an academic way I mean) so he understand the tools of dialogue, negotiation, arguing your case and so on. Not to mention that they see the parents being loving (hopefully) which must bring trust. I don't see how a parent with a series of boyfriends/girlfriends can do this - assuming even if they lucky enough to get to know them anyway. This is rather a crude example I know and I take someone's point made earlier that people do tend to move onto other stable relationships - but this just proves the point that generally speaking we don't want short-term relationships and do soon move onto a nuclear family set up once more.

I've heard reports suggesting that teenage single parent pregancies tend to run in families, ie it is likely that the mother was a young single mum herself.

These postings have infuriated me and taken me straight back to the seven years that I was a single parent and all of the prejudices and misconceptions that one has to face on a daily basis!

Croppy - I agree that to dismiss research simply because one doesn't agree with it isn't productive but equally accepting research because one likes it is problematic. One should always take into account where all research is coming from. I do object to the way this research has been presented and the level of judgement and inevitability that has come with it. Who were these 2000 families and in what area and at what point in family life?

Croppy the word 'choice' is objectionable. Despite the headlines most people in single-parent families are not there by choice. Family structures change but unless one can guarantee the actions of ones partner one can not know 100% that one's own relationship will last a lifetime. Most single parents are in the situation because of marital breakdown.

A further matter that I take issue with here is the idea that single parents have serial relationships! Most single parents have no time to themselves let alone the time and energy for multiple relationships. Yes we can probably all think of someone who fits the bill but equally we can all think of a family who - with mother and father living under the same roof - have affairs on the fringes!

Without going into great anecdotal evidence I have a wide experience of single parents. I met many single parents at university almost all were in the situation because of marital/relationship breakdown and I can only think of one who fits the discriptions here but she would have been a less than good parent in any circumstance. Most were juggling uni, a job and children. Their priorities were their children and most had positive male role models in the form of their own fathers or brothers or friends. Most had an extremely balanced viewpoint put across to their children because there were largely more than only two adults influence in their childrens lives. Eulalia you give your experience of single parents but it is only one experience. In previous jobs i have come across many people who deal with their children in inappropriate ways across all family structures. I have shared an office with Barnardos and yes a young parent is vulnerable but often, amazingly, these young parents are actually in relationships that they believe and want to last a lifetime. It is the circumstances surrounding the family that make those involved vulnerable not the family structure itself.

I didn't want to get into a 'this is my situation' scenario here but I can honestly say, as do the myriad of people who know me, that my daughter was a million times better off in the stable family unit I provided than the extremely unstable family unit that included her father. Furthermore, I will be highly surprised if any of the children from the single parent families I know go on to become young parents themselves partly because they know first hand the reality of the situation. I am far from against the nuclear family, I am a part of one myself now, but I did not have a series of one night flings to get here, neither did I jump on the first person who came along. One has to ask oneself what family structures this generation of single parents come from? Largely it has to be nuclear families. In the 70's I knew 1 single mother. Nuclear families can be abusive and violent and there are many, many people out there who would have been better off without them but who feel they must stick with it because - despite it being 2001 - the stigma attached is immense.

The report is apparently based on 2,350 teenagers aged between 13-15 across England. I don't disagree with anything you say Winnie on single parenthood on an individual basis. Do you not accept though that in an ideal world, the best outcome is for a child to be brought up in a happy family in which there are two parents who are in a content and stable relationship?. Obviously statistics can only say so much but isn't it just logic to suggest that people who are still married after 15 years wll tend, on the whole to enjoy a stronger relationship than those who have divorced or separated?.

I just get fed up these days when its considered wrong to praise the traditional model (which by the way is what the majority of us have) because it is taken as inherent criticism of the alternative. Isn't it better to accept that alternatives can potentially, in a minority of cases, lead to a proportiantely greater chance of difficulties so we can then ensure that single parents have the necessary degree of support and help to avoid such issues arising?.

Also, not sure what you mean by the choice thing - don't think I've referred to that in any of my messages.

IMO two people don't have to be married to be in a stable relationship. I know many umarried couples who are rock solid together - and brilliant parents. Legally you are in a more protected position if you are married, but you can always choose to draw up a private agreement/will etc with your partner if you choose to.

Well obviously you don't need to be married as such to be in a stable relationship. If you are looking at statsistics on a large scale however, it is simply a useful rough guide to the stability of individual relationships. Nothing more.

I'm sure everybody accepts that the nuclear family is by no means necessarily ideal and equallyI'm sure we all know abusive relationships where the participants would be better off separating. Nonetheless, on the whole, it hardly seems a rash assertion that people who have been together for 15 years or whatever will have gone through less upheaval and trauma than those who have separated.

Croppy, you do have support out here in cyberspace - I'm with you on this one.

Winnie, there's every possibility that I may split up with my husband at some point before we have finished raising our kids. At which point I hope I will still be a good mum. BUT I will in my heart still know that it would be better for my children to have 2 parents - to share both the stress and the good times. You shouldn't take it as a dig at you if the general consensus is that children need/want/ideally 2 parents of different sex!

Surely as parents we should acknowledge the needs of our children, rather than try and justify our own circumstances by saying its better for the kids, when it isn't?

Just like to throw another thought into this discussion regarding the preference for a two parent family.

A good friend of mine is a single mother and is making an excellent job of providing a stable and loving home for her daughter. Unlike us, she has close family living nearby. My sons have two parents to support them - but that is it. No grandparents for 300 miles. No aunts and uncles at all. On the other hand, my friend's child has weekly contact with her grandmother and grandfather who are closely involved in her life and very supportive. She also has an aunt and uncle in close contact, too.

So, by virtue of having an extended family, she has a wider circle of involved adults around her than my two sons.

This is not to say that single parenthood is ever easy, but I feel that an extended family can make a lot of difference regarding how stable or not any family arrangement is.

Lil, the point is that regardless of what the research says there are several very sweeping statements being made here about single parents. This effects everyone. It particularly effects the children in these households. Such prejudice is damaging. I know that friends of my daughters were not allowed to stay over at ours for precisely these type of misconceptions.

However, I have finally read an article on this research (I'd only previously heard radio news reports) and it is interesting that the Prof Martin Richards warned that the results should not be taken out of context and maintains that there are other matters to consider. Not surprisingly the media as a whole has largely taken it out of context and yes, I fell for it too. Perhaps this is why I am so against it. Used out of context it has fuelled a media hostile to single parents with the weaponary it needs to undermine - yet again - this particular family structure. I would be interested to know the proportion of children in the study who came from the various different family units. The survey also found that teenagers more likely to engage in underage sex were more likely to have a bad relationship with their parents particularly their mother. It is not suggested that this in itself relates to single parenthood.

Croppy, you are of course right. A child has the right to all that both parents can give them and a life where there has been no such turmoil is preferable. Unfortunately for many, many people life just isn't that simple. However, I don't assume that children automatically suffer from being in a single parent family. As to your point on choice you wrote but I am not quoting that you'd rather be armed with the facts before you make certain choices that will affect your children. This is fair enough but as I have said many single parents have no choice or the choice is hardly a choice at all.

Just out of interest when do people consider it an appropriate age for teenagers to be engaging in sex and has ones opinion changed about this since having children when did others first have sex? My daughter is only 11 and I hope that it is years and years away.

Obviously, because of this message board I have been thinking about this alot and I am confess the fact that my mother was just 18 when I was born and I was twenty when my eldest was born. (Which perhaps confirms part of what you have all been saying) but I would argue that between the 60's when I was born and the present day the age at which women give birth has gone up considerably. However, I wasn't from a single parent family and I didn't loose my virginity until I was at the ripe old age of 18!) I am not sure how young twenty is considered but I would be mortified if either of my children 'settled down' at this age - or heaven forbid before this age - to have children! In fact I have grown to believe as I've got older that there should be a law forbidding people from 'settling down' until they are well into there twenties. I think people change so much in their early twenties that whom they think is right for them at twenty, often - although not always - is absolutely wrong for them. Of course I am not serious about the law but I do find it staggering that teenagers are often desperate to 'settle down'. Get to know yourself before you make such decisions will be part of my advice to my children!

As for the fact that people feel that celebrating the traditional family is seen as somehow condemning other forms of the family that is a fair point.

Tigermoth your point about the extended family is a good one. The extended family can be an invaluable part of many childrens lives and I get the distinct impression that this is not so for many. God parents or Guardians are often instrumental in filling such roles.

Sorry Winnie - I was referring to my "choice" to work which in our household is very much a choice. I didn't mean to imply that single parents "choose" their situation.

I have actually only read of the study in the Guardian which gave what seemed to be a balanced account of the findings. I can well understand your upset if other media outlets put an unfortunate spin on it as I couldn't agree more that the worst possible outcome of any such study would be more prejudice/less understanding of the whole issue of single parents.

An age to be engaging in sex, that is a difficult one, and I'm quite sure my mother thought I was 16!. Being honest and open here I wasn't I was 15 and am now married to that very man, and didn't have my eldest until I was 25. It is a very difficult and difficult is the wrong word to use here, as all parents will have had sex at different ages, some even waiting until they are married. We also all have different views on when we think that our children are ready to have sex.

Another point, just to get another view, is what would any of you do if your daughter came home at say aged 14 or 15 and said that they were pregnant, or your son came home and said that his girlfriend was pregnant?. What path would many of you follow?

Winnie, couldn't agree more with you on the perils of settling down at a young age. I have changed to an incredible extent since my days as a University Student. I went out with the same young chap for 5 or so years at that age. Now I find him so deeply irritating that I struggle to be in the same room as him - luckily I moved to England rather than accept his marriage proposal!!.

Message withdrawn

Bloss - I agree with your last point. My almost 16 year old thinks she is in love at the moment. Whether she is or not, only time will tell. But this has raised all sorts of issues for my husband and me. We feel deeply concerned that at such a young age she is so emotionally involved - and yet we were together from the age of 19, and she is easily as mature emotionally as I was when I met my husband. The potential for her to be hurt is enormous, and yet we have to trust her to take care of herself in this relationship. It is very scary, and I just wish she hadn't already come to this point. She has plans for university, but I worry they could become derailed in all the intensity of this relationship.

Winnie – sorry you feel this way. I was only quoting one particular single parent set- up I knew because it involved issues that had never occurred to me. Yes there is stigma attached to single parents but there is also quite the opposite – a lot of positive discrimination involving women’s rights. This interested me because I feel that both sides of the issue have to be examined. I have another friend (sorry for bringing up examples here!) who has recently become a single parent and she now actually regrets it as her husband was not a bad person she had just fallen out of love with him. I disagree with you that people feel they must “stick with it (marriage) because - despite it being 2001 - the stigma attached (to single parenthood) is immense” How many people really stick at a marriage these days?! The divorce rates show this all too well. Yes some marriages are violent and abusive but I would bet that most marriages that breakdown are not for these reasons – most likely the partners just suffer ‘irretrievable breakdown’.

Also aren’t you contradicting yourself – you state positive examples of single parents which is fair enough but you also state that these people have rarely entered this situation through choice, ie they would prefer to be in a relationship – isn’t this actually proving the point made by the research – that two parents is the preferred model? I would guess that you are stating that these women (and presumably sometimes men) are making the best of the situation and many of them can bring up their children adequately. Fair enough but don’t you think many of them would PREFER to have a partner where children are involved. Aren’t you confusing serial relationships and multiple relationships – they aren’t the same thing. Serial is one at a time, multiple is … well of course - many …. Most people have serial relationships in their lifetime – this doesn’t suggest one night flings – it can merely mean more than one partner in their overall lifetime.

At the end of the day the statistics of marriage show that that is what most people want – a nuclear family.

Tigermoth – your example about extended family is a good one but unfortunately it is rare. We are living in an increasingly fragmented society where often close family and friends are far away – this to me would stress even more the importance of a tight family unit.

I think the age you are when you have a child is important – it would appear that the younger you are the less likely you are to stay with the father. This I am sure is a factor in why so many people are choosing to put off having children. It would make an interesting study though as despite this, divorce rates are still high and because children come later in a relationship it must mean that they are relatively young when the parents split up which must be damaging.

I was 3 months off my 17th birthday when I had sex for the first time – I regarded myself as rather naive but felt that this was the right time for me and it was a fairly positive experience.

Just like to take the point raised here that many single parents are not single by choice and would prefer to be in a partnership so, depending on your point of view, this makes the nuclear family the ideal unit.

Well again I'm referring to the single parents I know, but time and time again I hear from them 'Yes, I'd love a new man in my life, but I have a really strong relationship with my child, we talk about having a new 'daddy' but we're very happy as we are. Introducing another adult into our home could really rock the boat, and I don't want to do that'

I know of several single parents who are waiting till their child is older before trying to embark on a relationship - for their child's sake.

You could argue that the child doesn't know the benefits of being in a two-parnent family, so will naturally prefer the familiar over the unfamiliar, but what about all those stories of nasty step parents - and the increased risk of child abuse by male step fathers?