2 parent families and 1 parent families

[bejeezusWC]

this was touched upon on a thread recently; and is something I have been torturing myself with, as a SP

What is the thinking around children becoming much more successful/happy when raised in a 2 parent family as oppossed to in a single parent family?

Is it very much better for the children, because it is considered better to have the male influence in the house AND the female influence in the house???

Or is it the presence of 2 parents??? eg how are same sex couples expected to fair at raising kids??

Or is it a load of bollocks?

I thought it was to do with income?

Basil knows about this, perhaps she will be on later, I can't remember the details.

One word. Money.

That's the long and short of it I think.

Families with two adults in the home are generally better off than families with one adult in the home. Families with one adult in the home are statistically much more likely to be living in poverty.

i think it would be useful to see where the thing in the op was said (link article in paper etc) as I haven't heard this one before!

normally they concentrate on married vs unmarried.

There was a parenting documentary on last year that said society looks for an identifiable group to blame its ills on (why Jewish people have been persecuted at various times) and in the UK in 1980s it was single parents. Reason for this could be that single parents take up more resources - not just benefits but housing is more effeciently spread if two parents live together. Also they are usually women so you know, fair game as usual.

The evidence that was cited was that single parents were worse for the children. They had an expert on who said that possibly this data is sqewed (sp!) by the fact that some single parents will have started out as an unhealthy two parent family and it is that unhealthy start that negatively affects the child not the subsequent single parenthood.

Not sure how that works with people who stay in unhealthy two parent families but perhaps in general the worse it is, the more likely you are to leave.

The evidence that was cited was that single parents were worse for the children. They had an expert on who said that possibly this data is sqewed (sp!) by the fact that some single parents will have started out as an unhealthy two parent family and it is that unhealthy start that negatively affects the child not the subsequent single parenthood

thats a really good point

its impossible to assess isnt it? I would like to see the research and how it was conducted in my fantasy life where I have time for such reading and thinking

"it is that unhealthy start that negatively affects the child not the subsequent single parenthood" and not only the trauma of losing a resident parent but quite possibly the ongoing stress of battling parents which often happens for some time/forever.

I think it was another contributor to the study I mentioned earlier using single mothers by choice as it took out the variable of relationship break down.

I will see if I can find it but I think it was an academic study for a Phd which I guess was only published in some obscure journal!

Yes, sometimes the single mother is a single mother because she has had to get rid of a very abusive man: it is far more likely that harm to the children's future has been done by the man's abusive behaviour than by his absence, yet it is always 'single mothers' who are blamed, for not submitting gratefully enough to male abuse and male ownership.

I think it is to do with income and social acceptance of diverse family forms rather than two parents inherently being better than one.

There was an OECD study of child well-being in rich countries a few years back which found that child well-being was highest in the Netherlands and Sweden. Sweden has a higher level of lone parents than the UK but less child poverty, which I think says something.

Of course, this begs the question whether children of married parents do better or worse than children of single parents in Sweden, but clearly both do better than any children in the UK. But clearly marital status is not the only factor affecting child well-being, and when I was a single parent, I took comfort from that.

YY would be interesting to see the outcomes for children with single mothers by choice I bet the result is all fine and cheerful

I mean people who have had a baby never intending to have a partner involved (sperm donation etc)
Not ones who have chosen to kick out arseholes - although good for them obviously!

I would say it is society that makes these statistics what they are. people who are in a single household can have less employment oppertunities and so limited housing oppertunities etc etc, society labels these people as poor and so society plces low asperations on young people through out education and training and limit oppertunities, i do not believe it is anything to do with the influences of two parents, but i do believe it is the idea and notion that oppertunities are limited and thus creating low self procey in some people.

another factor is that couples who are living with poverty etc have a greater strain on relationships and therefore relationships maybe more likely to break down therefore the statistics for children and young people who come from deprived families may be more likely to come from a one parent family. i think the the single parent statistic is a red herring I think kit is more to do with deprivation. A child who is experiencing deprivation is not more likely to succeed if they have two parents rather than one.

I think that kind of makes sence, so what Im basically saying is i dont believe it is about how many parents rather than a cycle of deprivation. those from deprived families are more likely to repeat that cycle regrdless of having one or two parents.

there is also the major developmental harm witnessing violence has on a child. but that can occur in a family where the mother never leaves the abusive father or vice versa. so not sure that is relevent, would be a difficult study to complete as the mother who remains in the violent relationship is less likely to be honest about the violence.

"Since the mid-1990s, in England, Susan Golombok of the Centre for Family Research at the University of Cambridge has been conducting a longitudinal study of middle-class single mothers. She is comparing the children of 38 two-parent heterosexual couples with those of 25 lesbian couples and 38 single mothers. Most of the mothers have a university degree and a professional or managerial job.

When the children turned 12, Golombok measured their emotional and behavioral development, school adjustment, peer relationships and self-esteem and found no differences among the groups. That held true in the latest round of interviews with the kids, who are now 18."

that proves to a small extent that is societal influences. Im pretty sure a larger study would come up with very similar findings.

I'd be interested in seeing the research too Kew if you can find it.

Interesting thread

there are studies carried out with regards to the attachment and future psychological influences associated with evacuated children however I have not come across any specific to the effects of single parenting as a result of wwii, I think there are more likely to be modern day studies about effects of parenting and fathers serving in the forces who are away at war.

Statistically speaking, co-habiting parents are more likely to split up.
However - if you have 2 children - one with parents who are married and one whose parents are co-habiting. They live in the same area, parents both highly educated, both working, similiar incomes, go to the same school - what difference does marriage make? Given both parents do not separate.

Single parents are at a financial disadvantage. They also have a lot on their plate and are often the only carer as some men do not take child responsibilitites seriously. Rather than say - everyone get married because that is better for the children, why not examine the reasons children from SP families are at a disadvantage and try to overcome those disadvantages. Or is that too obvious?

I seem to remember a poster who isn't around anymore quoting resarch that indicated that a female same sex couple actually had the best outcome for children of the relationship. It was quite interesting.
Personally i think that if there are two parents, each pulling their weight around the house and interacting with the children it's got to be easier on the parents which probably goes a long way towards the better outcomes. That isn't to say that children of caring, responsible lone parents won't do just as well.
When all the stuff comes out about children of married couple doing 'best' I always wonder if they've taken into account children from marriages that are breaking up/barely civil/abusive etc. My money is on no.

Dangerousliaison, I was wondering about WW2 and Bowlby, but I think that was more about evacuation and separation as you say. Interesting to note though that there was moral panic in the 50s about young people and absent fathers (because they had not returned from the war).

The other interesting case, I think, is the former Communist bloc, which had far higher levels of single parenthood than the West, well, East Germany did at least, because provision for childcare, mat leave etc was so much more generous. True, women who worked had the 'dual burden' but the state enabled them to be independent through subsidised childcare etc rather than stay in a duff marriage. There doesn't seem to have been any moral panic around them as far as I know, but I'd be curious to know.

Enimmead, SP are not always at a financial disadvantage. (case study of one: I was way better off than ex-dh because I earned more and he eventually lost his job). The problem is that many women give up work when they have children, leaving them financially vulnerable. Plus, married women can also be the only carer, it's not like two parents always means two involved parents, one can be psychologically absent. I think there are a lot of individual factors at play, and if you levelled the playing field more in terms of gender equality, children of both single parents and married parents would do better.

Single parents aren't always at a financial disadvantage. I have been a higher rate tax payer for years - before my DS was born and since - and have a much greater disposable income than many couples I am friends with.

Once you are out of poverty territory, I'm not convinced that more money= happier/'better' children?

I suppose more money may= happier/less stressed parent, which would have a knock on effect.....

But once out of poverty, there is probably NOT much parental stress around money, compared with high.earning parent in stressful job, working long hours?

Hi kim

I agree-thinking about it, what parameters they use to compare the child rearing outcome is really important isnt it....need to actually look out some of this research

I know plenty of high acheiving/wealthy/successful adults in therapy with ishoos arising from their MC priveleged 'pushy' families/background

and I know plenty of happy issueless people who havent done well academically/financially from poor backgrounds and 'broken' families

The people amongst my friends who stand out for me are 3 ladies who have all done very very well for themselves who were raised by single mums. 1 of those has a father who is an abusive alcoholic/who left was jailed. Another never new her biological father and was raised by a string of abusive step-'fathers'. the third had no father figure and her mum had terrible mental health problems and so she was badly neglected/raised herself and her sister. I am sure they stand out for me because of my own circumstances and the plural of anecdote is not data etc etc etc but still........

Are there recogised indicators that the research is based upon...or do the researchers pick their own??

I personally think that anyone can be a great parent if they put in the time and effort and are a good role model to the child with boundaries, morals and principles.
I was a single parent (her dad is a total deadbeat) but I have a great support network and the little one is always seeing her grandparents, her grandad is the male influence in her life hes hard working, kind, funny and does all the jobs in my house so to me shes not missing out on a male role model. my partner who ive been with for a year is also forming a bond with her hes very much the same as her grandad hard working, kind and funny. If they have people around them who love them thats all that matters in the end.
Sure money can buy you a nice house, good education and nice things but it cant buy you love, morals or manners. My little girl is two and loves learning, a £2 book from asda has taught her colours and she loves books! money is only a bonus.
married parents, single parents, same sex parents it doesnt matter if your a good role model your kid will be the same