Facts about fatherless homes
 

Thought people would find this interesting as well as spark some discussion.

Children from fatherless homes account for:

63% of youth suicides. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human
Services, Bureau of the Census).

71% of pregnant teenagers. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human
Services)

90% of all homeless and runaway children.

70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from
fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept
1988)

85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders. (Source:
Center for Disease Control).

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger. (Source: Criminal
Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26, 1978).

71% of all high school dropouts. (Source: National Principals
Association Report on the State of High Schools).

75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers. (Source:
Rainbows for all God`s Children).

85% of all youths sitting in prisons. (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia
jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992).


Children from fatherless homes are:

11 times more likely to exhibit violent behavior than children from intact "married" homes.

5 times more likely to commit suicide.

32 times more likely to runaway.

20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.

14 times more likely to commit rape.

9 times more likely to drop out of high school.

10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.

9 times more likely to end up in state-operated institutions.

20 times more likely to end up in prison.

37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6,
col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)

"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the
non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish
the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton)
Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers
and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)

"Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s
continued contact with his children...." (Source: Surviving the Breakup,
Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125) Only 11% of mothers value their
husband's input when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers &
doctors rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated %16.(Source: EDK
Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November
1994, p. 36)

"The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more
frequent contact with the children." (Source: Increasing our understanding of
fathers who have infrequent contact with their children, James Dudley, Family
Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.)

"A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with
their children." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Mary Ann
Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54, Winter 1984.)

"Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact
with their fathers, after divorce." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial
Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50,
Winter 1984.)

"Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective involvement
on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage father's
efforts to visit their children." (Source: Ahrons and Miller, Am. Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July 1993.)

"Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their
marital or post-marital relationship." (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing,
Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)

In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J
Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of
non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the
court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the
custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation
is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support
and impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept. 1992


Child Support

Information from multiple sources show that only 10% of all
noncustodial fathers fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with
joint custody paid the support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%;
and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially support
their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173).

Additionally, of those not paying support, 66% are not doing so
because they lack the financial resources to pay (Source: GAO report:
GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).

The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security
Policy, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.

Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%

You first (see rule II.H.3). Why are you interested in these statistics? Was your father around? Did you want to leave your wife, but didn't because of these stats? Did you leave your wife, and now you are feeling guilty, and don't want others to do the same?

Sometimes a statistic is just a number, and really doesnt have a lot of bearing in the real world. There are plenty of children in two parent homes who also have those same issues, but because a two parent home isn't out of the ordinary, it's not recorded.

There are also plenty of single parents who are doing a fine job raising their children, but don't get put onto any statistics list because they have done their job raising their children a nd their children don't draw the attention of statisticians.

While I would agree it is best for the child to have two parents that love and take care of it, one parent can do the job just as well.

Some of the quotes sound like they were from people who had no business having children to begin with. I would say a lot of those issues come from the parents not having a good relationship, with each other or with themselves, if the parents were both in the child's life, the issues would be the same.

Bottom line, it's people who are having children that aren't ready to be having children that is the problem. One parent, two parents, an entire village, if the child isn't wanted and loved, then there are going to be problems

Source?

What about motherless homes?

Seriously (to the OP).. I am a single parent and I couldn't have said this any better (thankyou maleficent), and I cannot think of anything that can add to my feelings right now...

...just maybe, how bloody negative...

"them's the rules".....well, i'm interested only in getting equal treatment for fathers and mothers when they must go to court to determine custody. I believe courts need to start at 50/50 for visitation, which usually leads to 50/50 sharing of child costs. I feel more equality will lead to better family situations. The stats are just showing how children need both parents OR you can look at how single parent homes are not in the best interest of our children and how they do have a negative impact on society.

source:
http://indianacrc.org/stats-info.html

You could also agrue that Fathers are abscent because they choose to be... The stats don't say anything about context and so are just numbers to me...

You could also argue that fathers are absent because they were driven away from their children by an evil woman and the unjust court system.

Keep in mind that the other parent, already emotionally unhappy with you, may very well have every intention of using "every trick in the book" against you, even things and people that you would have never dreamed of before.

Sounds like you have an axe to grind... stop beating around the bush and tell us why you are really posting this...

Perhaps I do, but really I just wanted to hear what others thought about child custody cases where women win the majority of the cases. In some cases, I'm sure they should win custody. But given in many cases all things being equal between the two parents, why would a court NOT rule a 50/50 split? Again, given all things equal and the split being a practical solution given the circumstances.

First paragraph on their homepage:
Wow, how evenhanded of them. :rolleyes: I distrust anyone who is that singleminded.

Just because a man doesn't win custody, doesnt mean that he is shoved out of the children's lives, no matter how 'evil' the woman is. Maybe he needs to get over himself a little bit, and be concerned about his children, and not have it matter where the children are living, a nd making quality of the time he does spend with them matter.

Throwing up a bunch of pretty much meaningless statistics does nothing to help the cause of the inequities of child custody cases, because they are just that... statistics... you don't know the context.

I've seen too many divorces where children become the pawn in it and used to do nothing more than hurt the other person. IF both parents actually were interested inthebest interest of the child and not t heir own precious self interests, they would not fight for 100 percent custody, unless the other parent was completely irresponsible (ie crack whore) They loved each other and respected each other enoughonce to have a child - that love and respect, directed at t he child should be used in the divorce.

source:
http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/lowen99.htm

Who is Most Likely to Practise PAS?

More then 75 per cent of mothers practise PAS, as against 25 per cent of men who alienate. Partly this is due to the view, despite the changes in social and cultural norms, that the mother is the centre of family life. Hence an alienating mother feels she has the greater input and responsibility in caring for the child than the father. Mothers who are on their own feel it is only right that they should have the main or only right to make decisions concerning their children. They will, therefore, use any weapon, fair or foul, to make certain that they have the ultimate power over their children. Among the weapons used are accusations by the mother that the father is unfit to care for or even spend any time with the child. This may be due to allegations of sexual misconduct, alcohol or drug misuse, immorality or poor mental state or lifestyle or possibly criminal involvement. Due to the closeness of the mothers and children, the children will often believe the worse of the other parent.

I won't dispute that divorces can be a messy thing. I would agree that the default position should be 50/50 and that I see no reason for a system that automatically favours the mother over the father in terms of custody.

That said, I don't feel a parent who does not gain custody should either stop financial support or more importantly, stop being a part of that child's life.

Yes, parents can be idiots. Children can come to believe the worst of their non-custodial parent when the custodial parent chooses to slag them off. That said, the only way to prevent this is to continue to be a part of that child's life.

I approach this as a child of divorce who didn't know his father growing up because my parent's couldn't get their shit together.

Hey, my dad won custody of my brother and I during the 1970's, a time when the mother had all of the legal cards.

Guess what? I ran away, got in trouble with the law, and was generally a fuck-up until my early teens. Single fathers aren't the be-all end-all.

I have friends who had two loving parents, and Guess what? They are as messed up as I am! A traditional "Nuclear Family" structure can also fail. I would argue that they are AS LIKELY TO produce a fuck-up, but alas, I have no statistics to make such a claim...

It is all about providing a disciplined and loving environment that teaches respect for others, respect of self, and emphasizes the child's place in society being valued but not critical.

Ladies and Gentlemen, can we persuade our governments, academics, and mass media to STOP FOCUSING on the bad, and instead promote and teach the GOOD?

Don't tell me how to fuck my kid up emotionally, spiritually and socially. My avoidance of those actions will not necessarily produce a productive member of society. Instead, teach me how to do something positive that will produce good outcomes.

"Don't spank your kid, or they will ______" <-- notice that this negative statement does not fill the void of the action removed?

"When necessary, give the kid a 'Time Out'" <-- this is something positive, and an alternative.

I think that these statistics are bull. Maybe like back in the 70's and 80's these "facts" were true, but no today. There's a difference between a fatherless home and a broken home. Broken homes exsist in 2 parent families, in marriages and in divorce/separation.

My mom's provided a better home for me then most two parent families. She's always put her kids before herself, listened to us, set up boundaries and kept us organized. At the same time she's held down a full time job and was always home after school and on weekends.

I see more two parent families end up with pregnant kids, drug addicts, in prison then I do single parent homes. Why? Because your behaviour isn't determined whether or not mommy and daddy live together, it's determined by how whatever parents you do have around raise you. If mom and dad are always at work and the single mom is at home after school which daughter is more likely to get pregnant?

These statistics make me mad. They feed a stereotype and excuse behaviour. "Oh, she/he doesn't have a father around, what could you expect?" According to these statistics I should be out pregnant, shooting crack on the streets and raping people with only my grade 9 to show for it.

Divorce sucks, yea, I realise this and most parents do end up dragging their kids through their emotional battlefield. I wish instead of slapping down a bunch of statistics the government would set up some councelling services. And how about throwing out some statistics of children from a home with two working parents?

This makes me mad. /end rant.

Note my sig.

Democraphics are key here and the stats don't give them.

Its like the murder rate claims in the US. Yes the US has a higher murder rate then western europe, but unless I am a gang member, my chance of being murdred is lower in the US than in most of europe.

Not having a father for many of those stats may be the symptom, but not a cause.

my best friend was raised in a divorced household by his mom. He's more well adjusted than plenty of "nuclear families" etc.

so what's your axe grinding?

This needs to be amended to :Facts about kids whose parents are screw-ups and/or too busy in their own misery to care about their kids.
My sister was widowed when her sons were 5 and 3. They are now 23 and 20, both fantastic young men, NEVER got into any trouble and are doing well in college and their jobs.
Those statistics are feeding the need to pre-judge by only including children from 'broken homes'(read: traumatic family divisions).
At least post something that is balanced.....

I'm glad to see all of your input. I agree with many of you that the statistics don't show too much relevant information, but they should make us take a second look....just to be sure.

Parents may determine your behavior as a child, but once grown I believe you see the choices your making and the responsibility of your action or in-action falls squarely upon your shoulders, not the parents. That being said, I don't think single mothers are to blame for all of these problems the statistics show, but someone is too blame when our children fall prey to these statistics. Who do we choose to blame? The parents of course.....silly.

And if its the parents, then the fewer environments we have where one parent attempts to dissolve the other from playing a role in their childs life the better off we all are. So, be aware of the probleml. Courts need to start at 50/50 and work down from there or up depending on which parent "wins" or is it "lose". Seems to me its always the kid losing and the best we can do is start giving them a 50/50 chance at the onset.

A child should not suffer from the tragedies of a failed relationship.

I remember reading a few years back, that Michigan is the state that stands out in my mind, basically was going to make it mandatory of mom and dad couldn't put aside their petty differences (and it's all petty differences when it comes to children) that the custody would be 50/50. Well, if mom and dad can't be cooperative in a divorce, how would one expect them to be cooperative in joint custody. What about women who are trying to get out of violent or abusive relationships?

The parents need to get their acts together and decide what is in the best interest of the child. Fighting over custody is not. If the parents can't do it, then the courts need to, and the parents have to deal with it.

we don't get to pick who are parents are, we don't get to pick what geographic location we are born in, we don't get to pick what century we are born.

while a child should not suffer the tragedies, it's not just FATHERS that make better families.

I'm going to even then state your whole argument doesn't take into account children raised in same sex relationship households, since your pointing back and for to fathers and mothers.

Does this statistical report cover divorced people only?

What about children without a father because of death?

I have a feeling that most of those numbers came from homes where the parents were never married to start with.

I'm glad you brought up same sex marriage, it nicely illustrates some inequalities that you'll find in our court system. For example, bi-sexual and gay "parents" can lose custody simply because of their sexuality. Alot goes back to civil rights, all should be equal.

And when I say parents, it includes anyone who is responsible for a child, not just the biological ones. And I didn't say not gay parents, so "parents" do include homosexual/bi-sexual/tri-sexual or whatever.

There is a lot of published research on sex differences in parenting styles, and the effects of absent parents on their kids' future lives.

To cut to the chase on this thread's topic: it seems that, as a generalization, fathers have unique positive effects on the development of children of either sex, over and above the contributions provided by the mother. And it is also true (though not as controversial) that mothers have unique and positive effects on the development of children of either sex, over and above contributions provided by the father. So both parents, generally speaking, offer something unique and uniquely valuable to their children that it is difficult (though not impossible of course) for the other parent to provide, and absence of a mother has predictably different effects from absence of a father.

And it is also true that in divorced families, noncustodial fathers tend to drop out of children's lives more often than noncustodial mothers, for various reasons, not always under the control of the father. But in such families, fathers who are aggressive about staying in a parenting role in their children's lives can do so, and when they do, they have a positive effect on the development of their kids over and above the mother's contributions.

In my opinion it is useful to emphasize these studies because the importance of fathers in the lives of their children is often overlooked, especially recently in this country.

I think the research supports a general social policy that, in the absence of unusual circumstances, the default physical custody arrangement should be 50/50.

Here are some pertinent peer-reviewed studies:

I appreciate your thoughts about this, but I can't help but feel you are looking at this from one perspective only.

I see many cases where the 'arrangements' between parents, and ruled by the courts, are made on a case by case basis. There may be perceived inequalities, but on the whole I still see these decisions are made on a case by case basis.

I would really like to know if you have a child? Are you in this position and discussing this from an experience perspective? If not, are you looking to re-think your position or thoughts on this subject?

I am interested in seeing how the numbers are in other countries. To get a cultural perspective. In the US, divorce rates are 60% and people are "proud of it". I personally think our society has decayed - it doesn't matter if it single mom or single dad, you NEED BOTH, and preferably grandparents, cousins etc.

Our society has become uncommitted these days. It's our culture. We need to take responsibility and accountability for ourselves. Don't have kids if you can't/won't commit, don't get married if you can't/won't commit. We are way too "me oriented" and selfish. These statistics sound about right to me and does not surprise me one bit.

This is not a dad or mom issue, it's a dad&mom issue.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who "have a friend raised by a single-parent and is the most well-adjusted out of all of us" or think there is some axe to grind. But I think that misses the larger issue. The decay and breakdown of the family in our society.

1 loving stable parent beats the hell out of two disfunctional ones. (oh- bad visual there)
There is more to this than the absentee father.
Its the poverty, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, child abuse, lack of education,
and simple coincidence that seeps through all families and is a common thread,
I'm sure, through this whole scenario, not just feelings of abandonment.
What I hate is that they spend so much money on doing surveys on this, instead of just putting the money into support & education programs where it may do some good.

And yes, what about the motherless families, thats gotta be a hard go too.

I grew up in a 'fatherless' home. I didn't meet my father until I was in college.
I really feel everything that happened, happened for the best, because where I am now is good.

I don't want to blame my problems on my father 'not being there'... I am responsible for my own actions. As are all the people above.

It must be great to have the mind set that allows you to blame everyone else for all of your mistakes.

I'll add my two cents worth on the subject.

We have the his, hers, ours thing going on here. We also have custody of all of the kids which equal 5. Four of the children still live with us. My husbands oldest daughter is 17 and didn't like the rules and expectations, so she left to go live with her mother about six months ago. Since she left, she has started smoking, drinking, skipping school and runs around wild because there is no supervision. Her mother has 8 criminal cases open against her. We tryed to get her back but got no help from the police, social services. Nobody would help and we don't have enough money to go into court.

As you can probably tell, my husbands ex is in the girls lives. She is ordered to pay $60 per week for two teenage girls (we hold insurance) and we haven't seen a dime in almost two years. She expects me, the new wife to do all the running for the girls like taking them to the doctor, even when she has them on her weekend. She expects me to be the mom and her to have the title. Which is fine, they are my children. I may not have given birth to them, but I'm still their mother and I love them like my own.

On the other hand, my ex is also in the kids lives. We have a great relationship. We just weren't ment to be married. He however probably would be just fine not seeing the kids. I push the issue because they love their father and miss him. He is very good to them when they are at his house. But if I didn't call to set up visits, he wouldn't make the effort. He does however pay child support and have insurance on the kids.

I believe that the kids well being should be first. I don't care much for stats. Kids are what we make them. If you raise them to be criminals they will be criminals. If you raise them to be loving law abiding citizens, then thats what they will be. (Usually)

They key is no matter what, let them know unconditional love and forgiveness for their mistakes. Maybe I'm off the suject a bit, but sparked some feelings on the subject of divorced parents and the best for the kids.

Something that these stats don't address, and something which was talked about extensively in my Sociology classes in college, is that when you say something like "children from fatherless homes are blah blah blah" you're not taking into account WHY the children are fatherless to begin with. Are their parents middle class and white, and just got a divorce, or are these children from poor famlies with fathers who are in prison? If you're poor and your dad is in prison, it makes sense that where you live there is a lot of crime and possibly a higher oppurtunity for you (the kid) to get into trouble. These stats aren't taking into account the whole picture of society from which these "troubled kids" come from.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc- the fallacy of saying that "because B happens after A, B happens BECAUSE of A." We don't know if these kids are in trouble because their dads are nonexistent, or because they live in poverty where the only percieved way to "get ahead" is to sell drugs, be in a gang, or date a drug dealer. Always look at the broader spectrum.

Quite right; and, when you read any article with lots of statistics, always keep in mind The Dread Tomato Addiction by Mark Clifton.

I have a feeling that many of those cases also come from areas where single-mother homes are common, such as high-crim, high-poverty areas. This is a situation in which statistics are being used to advance an agenda without consideration of other factors. Statistically, there is most likely no correlation after these other factors are removed.

From a quoted source earlier:

Changes in adolescent's satisfaction with the father-adolescent relationship significantly influence fluctuations in son's and daughter's psychological well-being; this effect persists after controlling for changes in mother-adolescent relationships. These findings underscore fathers' unique direct contribution to their children's psychological well-being.

This reasoning indicates that the lack of having a father in ones life is independant of race and culture. To be completely convincing they'd have to target particular regions of the brain that are stimulated or not being stimulated by a male parental role model.

They don't deliniate in these statistics as to how many of these children are a result of one night stands and the mother doesn't even know which man she's been with is the father. A mother who is careless about her reproductive abilities is going to be just as careless about her children. If father's could have children then I have a feeling that the statistics would show that this is a problem for single parent homes not just fatherless homes.

Divorce is never pretty and the children that end up caught in it often have emotional problems - so what is the cause of the statistics really?

My brother is just now trying to go through divorce. His son may very well end up in trouble. SIL has lost custody of her first child to her first boyfriend. My brother is trying to avoid going to a lawyer. My SIL is trying to convince me to babysit for her but hide the fact from my brother and refuse to let him visit his child. I'm NOT gonna get caught in that. The subject of single parents homes/divorce and such is a little sensitive subject for me right now. I wish more parents would suck it up and take responsibility for their kids... I'm gonna shut up now.

I don't see how a 50/50 split would work out realistically. Before the child goes to school, it could easily work. But once the child passes the age of 5, what're you going to do, keep them in one school for one semester, in another for another? Switch schools on a yearly basis? I guess you could keep the child at one home during the school year and at another during the summer, but is that fair to the child? when during their vacation they are away from most of their friends? (I'm assuming some geographical distance between the parents, which may not always be the case) I think the system as it stands will be as good as it gets. The courts rule who should gain major custody, and the amount of involvement by the non-custodial parent will be mostly related to how much that parent wants to be involved

Again from an earlier source:

Results from longitudinal event-history analysis showed that although a sizable portion of the risk that appeared to be due to father absence could actually be attributed to other factors, such as teen motherhood, low parent education, racial inequalities, and poverty, adolescents in father-absent households still faced elevated incarceration risks.

BTW -I am from a father absent houshold and I came within a hair of being sent to jail for 10 years when I was about 18. Perhaps the real contributing factor is that fathers usually know about a good lawyer... :hmm:

nothing to add yet... just puzzled at the suspicion and hostility directed towards the topic.

While I think some of the hostility is unwarented, the statistics are questionable.

hold it right there, shady.

the stats say x% of (insert insert misbehavior here) come from father homes. IT DOES NOT state any percentages from the total population of single parent homes.

for instance:
there are 10 rapists. 7 of them came from fatherless homes. thus YOUR 70%. there is no mention of how many single parent homes in total there are. perhaps there only 10 homes. in which case, 100% of single parent homes raise rapists. or perhaps there are 10,000 single parent homes. in which case, 0.001% of these homes are raising rapists. in the absence of all the info, the stats you have prevented are VERY skewed.

let's see some sample sizes.

http://www.fww.org/famnews/single-parents.html

Here is an AP story that may interest those in this discussion. Statistics appear to have been drawn from the 2000 census.
from the article...

105.5 million TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS - which is divided into...

24.8 million TRADITIONAL (2 parents w/kids) HOUSEHOLDS
9.8 million SINGLE PARENT (1 parent of either sex w/kids) HOUSEHOLDS

so... it appears that there are 34.6 million households with children in them total. these statistics reveal that 28.3% of all households with children are headed by single parents of either sex.

hope this helps the discussion. i couldn't readily find statistics that break it down further into how many of the single-parent households are headed by women. at least, not without mixing data sources.

speculation: i'm guessing single father homes are DRAMATICALLY outnumbered by single mother homes.

Pulling a bunch of statistics out of a variety of sources like that is iffy at best. I agree that having two loving, well-adjusted parents is better than having just one. I also agree that the presense of a positive adult male role model is preferable to the absense, and in most cases this role moedel will come in the guise of the father.

Two things might be going on here. First, there are those children whose mothers were never married to their fathers in the first place. This isn't uncommon in poor areas, especially inner cities and poor rural areas. These households begin with two strikes against them.

Second, we have the families in which the parents are divorced. The divorce itself can be stressful on the children, causing a variety of acting out behaviors. In some of these cases, the absense of the father as a factor in the child's life is caused by custodial interference; a hostile mother not letting her children see their father. Is the cause of the problems here the absent father, or the hostility shown by a mother more concerned with getting revenge on her ex than the welfare of her children.

So yes, having a good father involved is better than not. I think we can all agree on that. Having a good, well-adjusted parent involved is what is most important.

This does not mean that the absense of a father, by itself, will cause children to have psychological problems. My children will be raised in a household with no father present (because there won't be a father to be present) and I have no doubt that they have the same opportunity to be healthy and well-adjusted as children in a household headed by a heterosexual couple, and the research bears me out on this.

My personal theory is that there is a negative image presented by the remaining parent in a fatherless home. My personal experience is that women who are divorced are "just a little bitter" towards men. This doesn't make a good impression on children -who grow into mom's stereotype.

And research on bread indicates that:

1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.

4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!

6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and osteoporosis.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.
8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.
9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.

10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

:o

Couldn't agree more. I'm a divorced dad whose six-figure-income ex couldn't care less about the two boys she bore. I raise them 25 out of 30 days on about a tenth of what she makes.

The prejudice I experience as a primary parent WHO HAPPENS TO BE A MAN is reflected pretty clearly in this thread. Fatherhood advocates are always assumed to "have an ax to grind". What is a motherhood advocate? The idea is completely assumed by 99% of the poulation, but there are plenty of fathers and children out there who want and need Dad to be a presence in their lives, and that presence is actively discouraged by moms who are more interested in battling with dad than providing what's best for their children.

I hope that anyone who posts to this thread from now on indicates whether or not they have kids, whether they have a spouse helping to raise those kids, and whether they had a dad in their home growing up. I think the picture would quickly clear. My dad had the shittiest childhood I ever heard of, but he was a fantastic dad, and continues to be my role model. I love my mom, and even my ex--I feel sorry for her, more than anything else -- but when my significance and importance as a father is questioned, I bristle, and I make no apologies.

I am angry, and prejudiced by experience, and certain that my presence as a dad is literally saving my sons' lives.

I have no children, but do plan on having children within the next few years, and I do have a spouse to help raise the children. My parents were married the whole time I was growing up and still are.

I, too, tend to get annoyed when this subject comes up, annoyed by the implication that my children will somehow be harmed by not having a man in the home.

My problem with presenting such statistics out of context is that it implies that fathers are necessary to a child's healthy upbringing and that the absense of a father in a child's life by itself spells dire consequences for the child. There are so many other factors involved that this cannot really be said.

I think that what is most important is the presense of at least one good parent, of either sex; your experience, meembo, would seem to indicate that a good father can raise healthy kids even in the absense of a caring mother. I have no doubt that there are millions of households out there headed by a single father whose children are healthy and well-adjusted, just as there are millions of households headed by a single mother with no involved father whose children are healthy and well-adjusted.

I agree completely that it's better for good fathers to be involved in their childrens lives than not, and that mothers who interfere with this are doing their children more harm than good. I agree that there should be no presumption in favor of the mother in determining custody in divorce cases. I also believe that it's entirely possible for a child to grow up in a household with only one parent or with two same sex parents and be healthy and well-adjusted. The presense or absense of a mother or father, while having an impact, is of lesser importance than the presense of at least one good parent, of either sex, and the absense of toxic influences.

People who are finding fault with the statistics aren't attacking fatherhood per se, but the idea that single mothers are indadequate to raise a child on their own in the absense of a father, which is patently not true. I'd say the same of single fathers in the absense of an involved mother.

Perhaps the most important factor in the above statistics is that the father is absent, but that the household is headed by a single parent. I think we can all agree that two good parents are better than one good parent.

Pehaps the most important factor is that single parent households, usually headed by a woman, are more likely to be poor, and poor households are more likely to produce children with the problems listed.

Perhaps the reason the father is absent in some of these households is because he was a poor father, and that's the cause of the problems.

Perhaps the reason the father is absent is that the mother is hostile and keeping him out of her children's lives, and it's this hostility, the mother's toxic influence that is the source of the problem, and not just the absense of the father.

There are too many other factors to isolate to make the claims that the stats in the OP do.

That's exactly the point. It has nothing to do with the total populations of fatherless homes. It has to do with the populations of antisocial and deviant persons.

Total populations are irrelevant to the statistics.

The largest percentage of individuals from fatherless homes turns out normal without any significant issues what so ever.

It's the percentage of deviants from fatherless homes that's interesting.

For example, FBI profilers know that upwards of 90% percent of serial killers are 30-40 something, white males. This says nothing about 30-40 something white males..it says something about serial killers.

It's a starting point, a commonality occuring with such a frequency that it ~can~ be statistcally interesting. We can use this data to start weeding out risk factors, increase the pool of knowledge and eliminate or more likely at least mitigate them.

I too am somewhat taken aback, although not entirely surprised, by the hostility shown towards the toppic of this thread.

The family courts are so unduly stacked in the mothers favor, it's rediculous, imho. I think this thread illustrates nicely the hostility towards men and father's currently so fashionable in our society.

-bear

I feel compelled to address this because simply put...your children will be harmed without a man in the house.

Children need to raised by a mother and a father. Currently social changes not with standing. It's possible, but not ideal, by any stretch of reason, to think that the alternatives are "just as good." They aren't. Not by a long shot.

In the situation you describe yourself in, your children's mother will have ~failed~ at her marriage, at best she would have made a bad decision in the first place. How is this ideal? Your children will be harmed. They may weather the storm superbly and come out as exceptional people, but they will have had to struggle with issue to do so. Energy tapped from the development of other potential squandered.

It's not a zero sum game. You can't swap one situation for another equally. Some will work adequately, but only one is ideal. That is a two parent mother/father loving family. Anything less is not ideal and is harmful, even if harm which can be overcome.

my .02 cents

-bear

/btw..I don't mean to single you out, embarrass or put ~you~ on the spot as an individual. You provided something quotable for me to illustrate my point.

j8ear, I can see where you are coming from, but sometimes it is just not possible to have a father/male in the house. There are many circumstances, either by choice or by chance, that a single parent will raise a child/children in a home, being either a sole mum or a sole dad.

I think you are putting too much weight into your views because if a child is missing either influence, there are usually others that can help fill the gap. A grandparent, friend, or neighbour.

I think it's a cultural conditioning in which you find only one view being ideal. I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but for instance, in small villages the community will raise the young, the ideal of a mother and father is not as important or the same as we find them in our current society.

I agree completely. I do. My point is that their is only one ideal and anything less then the ideal is harmful. Especially since the "ideal" is required in the first place.

I don't want to minimize the potential or capability of those situations which are not ideal...I instead want to point ot that only the ideal is, well, ideal...and the rest are therefore less then ideal, and neccessarily harmful.

Lets not confuse harmful with damaging. But let's at least come to grips with the reality that less then ideal is harmful, so we can be aware of the harm and mitigate it's consequences.

\Not in anyway intending to flame,/

-bear

I don't see this as flaming... it's a good discussion ;)

I think I was questioning your view of "ideal", the bolded above shows the point I was questioning.

I think a single parent, when considering the overall wellbeing of a child, will take action and bring family, friends, a network of people into the childs life everyday to fill the gap of a missing 'father figure'. This is saying that there are some single moms who will look out for, and see the needs of a child to have this balancing factor.

In the greater scheme of things, I think I would agree that there are many single moms who don't, or can't focus on this aspect. That I can agree is less than "ideal" and harmful. Is this the point you were making?

I think I fight the view, or your perception of "ideal" because I see it as a factor that brings a stigma toward single moms. Being one myself I find it to be a very limiting belief in society. I cannot change the fact that I am a single mom, it would be easier for me to see others looking at my actions, and seeing what I put into my situation rather than just looking at me and saying that my position is "less than ideal". And trust me, I know I have felt at times that my situation is "less than ideal" and I can see where I would have preferred to have a partner... sometimes it's really difficult. Those are the times that I have sought the networking aspect of community/village type arrangements. That is where I have started to look more deeply at our view of "ideal"...

I think there is truely room for some adjustment on our view of ideals in this regard...

I strongly disagree, and the American Academy of Pediatrics agrees with me:

The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1–9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.

What exactly gave you the impression that one of us had a failed marriage? This is the first and only marriage for both of us, and it is strong and healthy.

I disagree, and again, the American Academy of Pediatrics agrees with me:

Children born to and raised by lesbian couples also seem to develop normally in every way. Ratings by their mothers and teachers have demonstrated children’s social competence and the prevalence of behavioral difficulties to be comparable with population norms.8,24 In fact, growing up with parents who are lesbian or gay may confer some advantages to children. They have been described as more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children than children whose parents are heterosexual.25,26

In 1 study, children of heterosexual parents saw themselves as being somewhat more aggressive than did children of lesbians, and they were seen by parents and teachers as more bossy, negative, and domineering. Children of lesbian parents saw themselves as more lovable and were seen by parents and teachers as more affectionate, responsive, and protective of younger children, compared with children of heterosexual parents.25,27 In a more recent investigation, children of lesbian parents reported their self-esteem to be similar to that of children of heterosexual parents and saw themselves as similar in aggressiveness and sociability.15

Children in all family constellations have been described by parents and teachers to have more behavioral problems when parents report more personal distress and more dysfunctional parent-child interactions. In contrast, children are rated as better adjusted when their parents report greater relationship satisfaction, higher levels of love, and lower interparental conflict regardless of their parents’ sexual orientation. Children apparently are more powerfully influenced by family processes and relationships than by family structure.

My children will be raised by an educational professional and a medical professional, which will give them some advantage in the areas of education and health care over children whose parents aren't reading teachers and nurses/paramedics. This doesn't mean that children are harmed by not having a reading teacher and nurse in the home. Those things can be provided by people outside the home, just as positive adult male role models can come from outside the home. Less than ideal does not equal harmful.

WOW....this thing really took off. Glad to see/read everyone's input. The most important point I hoped people would find is that EQUALITY is needed in our family court systems to protect our children from "losing" a PARENT (Dad, Mom, or guardian..other terms welcome for homosexual parents). When a court rules, without proper cause, to award primary custody to one PARENT vs. ANOTHER PARENT, the child(ren) lose(s). Again, unless proper cause is shown. I believe proper cause is somewhat relative, however, I feel something drastic would need to happen or have happened in order to justify having nothing less than an equal parenting-time situation.

I'm a little torn at saying "something drastic would need to happen" because I wouldn't want the court, or any other party, to wait around until something drastic did happen, where the child was seriously harmed. But I assure you, with today's system it MUST BE drastic to get a judge to listen.

For example, my son almost died from Drano ingestion while in his mother's care. I still don't know if I will have a shot at getting more parenting time with my son. He has never been seriously harmed in my care. He has "fall down go boom" and scratch his knee in my care. I've never been arrested, I provide financial support, and my son and I have a great relationship.

I'm a non-custodial parent currently fighting in family court for nothing less than equal parenting-time with my child. He deserves it!!!!!!!!!!!!!