The Bible and Society

How God’s Word is True

Posts Tagged ‘Family’

Statistics of a Fatherless America

Posted by Mats on 03/07/2010

http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

Sexual activity. In a study of 700 adolescents, researchers found that “compared to families with two natural parents living in the home, adolescents from single-parent families have been found to engage in greater and earlier sexual activity.”
Source: Carol W. Metzler, et al. “The Social Context for Risky Sexual Behavior Among Adolescents,” Journal of Behavioral Medicine 17 (1994).

A myriad of maladies. Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

Drinking problems. Teenagers living in single-parent households are more likely to abuse alcohol and at an earlier age compared to children reared in two-parent households
Source: Terry E. Duncan, Susan C. Duncan and Hyman Hops, “The Effects of Family Cohesiveness and Peer Encouragement on the Development of Adolescent Alcohol Use: A Cohort-Sequential Approach to the Analysis of Longitudinal Data,” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 55 (1994).

Drug Use: “…the absence of the father in the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in the greater use of alcohol and marijuana.”
Source: Deane Scott Berman, “Risk Factors Leading to Adolescent Substance Abuse,” Adolescence 30 (1995)

Sexual abuse. A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother’s boyfriend.
Source: Beverly Gomes-Schwartz, Jonathan Horowitz, and Albert P. Cardarelli, “Child Sexual Abuse Victims and Their Treatment,” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Child Abuse. Researchers in Michigan determined that “49 percent of all child abuse cases are committed by single mothers.”
Source: Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay, “A Study of Child Abuse in Lansing, Michigan,” Child Abuse and Neglect, 8 (1984).

Deadly predictions. A family structure index — a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed — is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males.
Source: Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, “Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult and Elderly Suicide: Are There Common Underlying Structural Factors?” Social Science Research 23, 1994.

High risk. Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

Suicidal Tendencies. In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families.
Source: David A. Brent, et al. “Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Peers of Adolescent Suicide Victims: Predisposing Factors and Phenomenology.” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 34, 1995.

Confused identities. Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity.
Source: P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf, Fatherless Children, New York, Wiley Press, 1984.

Psychiatric Problems. In 1988, a study of preschool children admitted to New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients over a 34-month period found that nearly 80 percent came from fatherless homes.
Source: Jack Block, et al. “Parental Functioning and the Home Environment in Families of Divorce,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (1988)

Emotional distress. Children living with a never-married mother are more likely to have been treated for emotional problems.
Source: L. Remez, “Children Who Don’t Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems,” Family Planning Perspectives (January/February 1992).

Uncooperative kids. Children reared by a divorced or never-married mother are less cooperative and score lower on tests of intelligence than children reared in intact families. Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed “significant detrimental effects” of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.
Source: Greg L. Duncan, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Kato Klebanov, “Economic Deprivation and Early Childhood Development,” Child Development 65 (1994).
Unstable families, unstable lives. Compared to peers in two-parent homes, black children in single-parent households are more likely to engage in troublesome behavior, and perform poorly in school.
Source: Tom Luster and Hariette Pipes McAdoo, “Factors Related to the Achievement and Adjustment of Young African-American Children.” Child Development 65 (1994): 1080-1094

Beyond class lines. Even controlling for variations across groups in parent education, race and other child and family factors, 18- to 22-year-olds from disrupted families were twice as likely to have poor relationships with their mothers and fathers, to show high levels of emotional distress or problem behavior, [and] to have received psychological help.
Source: Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro, “Long Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment and Achievement in Young Adulthood.” Journal of Family Psychology 7 (1993).

Fatherly influence. Children with fathers at home tend to do better in school, are less prone to depression and are more successful in relationships. Children from one-parent families achieve less and get into trouble more than children from two parent families.
Source: One Parent Families and Their Children: The School’s Most Significant Minority, conducted by The Consortium for the Study of School Needs of Children from One Parent Families, co sponsored by the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the Institute for Development of Educational Activities, a division of the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, Arlington, VA., 1980

Divorce disorders. Children whose parents separate are significantly more likely to engage in early sexual activity, abuse drugs, and experience conduct and mood disorders. This effect is especially strong for children whose parents separated when they were five years old or younger.
Source: David M. Fergusson, John Horwood and Michael T. Lynsky, “Parental Separation, Adolescent Psychopathology, and Problem Behaviors,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 33 (1944).

Troubled marriages, troubled kids. Compared to peers living with both biological parents, sons and daughters of divorced or separated parents exhibited significantly more conduct problems. Daughters of divorced or separated mothers evidenced significantly higher rates of internalizing problems, such as anxiety or depression.
Source: Denise B. Kandel, Emily Rosenbaum and Kevin Chen, “Impact of Maternal Drug Use and Life Experiences on Preadolescent Children Born to Teenage Mothers,” Journal of Marriage and the Family56 (1994).

Hungry for love. “Father hunger” often afflicts boys age one and two whose fathers are suddenly and permanently absent. Sleep disturbances, such as trouble falling asleep, nightmares, and night terrors frequently begin within one to three months after the father leaves home.
Source: Alfred A. Messer, “Boys Father Hunger: The Missing Father Syndrome,” Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, January 1989.

Disturbing news: Children of never-married mothers are more than twice as likely to have been treated for an emotional or behavioral problem.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, Hyattsille, MD, 1988

Poor and in trouble: A 1988 Department of Health and Human Services study found that at every income level except the very highest (over $50,000 a year), children living with never-married mothers were more likely than their counterparts in two-parent families to have been expelled or suspended from school, to display emotional problems, and to engage in antisocial behavior.
Source: James Q. Wilson, “In Loco Parentis: Helping Children When Families Fail Them,” The Brookings Review, Fall 1993.

Fatherless aggression: In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed “greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households.”
Source: N. Vaden-Kierman, N. Ialongo, J. Pearson, and S. Kellam, “Household Family Structure and Children’s Aggressive Behavior: A Longitudinal Study of Urban Elementary School Children,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 23, no. 5 (1995).

Act now, pay later: “Children from mother-only families have less of an ability to delay gratification and poorer impulse control (that is, control over anger and sexual gratification.) These children also have a weaker sense of conscience or sense of right and wrong.”
Source: E.M. Hetherington and B. Martin, “Family Interaction” in H.C. Quay and J.S. Werry (eds.), Psychopathological Disorders of Childhood. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979)

Crazy victims: Eighty percent of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals come from broken homes.
Source: J.B. Elshtain, “Family Matters…”, Christian Century, July 1993.

Duh to dead: “The economic consequences of a [father’s] absence are often accompanied by psychological consequences, which include higher-than-average levels of youth suicide, low intellectual and education performance, and higher-than-average rates of mental illness, violence and drug use.”
Source: William Galston, Elaine Kamarck. Progressive Policy Institute. 1993

Expelled: Nationally, 15.3 percent of children living with a never-married mother and 10.7 percent of children living with a divorced mother have been expelled or suspended from school, compared to only 4.4 percent of children living with both biological parents.
Source: Debra Dawson, “Family Structure…”, Journal of Marriage and Family, No. 53. 1991.

Violent rejection: Kids who exhibited violent behavior at school were 11 times as likely not to live with their fathers and six times as likely to have parents who were not married. Boys from families with absent fathers are at higher risk for violent behavior than boys from intact families.
Source: J.L. Sheline (et al.), “Risk Factors…”, American Journal of Public Health, No. 84. 1994.

That crowd: Children without fathers or with stepfathers were less likely to have friends who think it’s important to behave properly in school. They also exhibit more problems with behavior and in achieving goals.
Source: Nicholas Zill, C. W. Nord, “Running in Place,” Child Trends, Inc. 1994.

Likeliest to succeed: Kids who live with both biological parents at age 14 are significantly more likely to graduate from high school than those kids who live with a single parent, a parent and step-parent, or neither parent.
Source: G.D. Sandefur (et al.), “The Effects of Parental Marital Status…”, Social Forces, September 1992.

Worse to bad: Children in single-parent families tend to score lower on standardized tests and to receive lower grades in school. Children in single-parent families are nearly twice as likely to drop out of school as children from two-parent families.
Source: J.B. Stedman (et al.), “Dropping Out,” Congressional Research Service Report No 88-417. 1988.

College odds: Children from disrupted families are 20 percent more unlikely to attend college than kids from intact, two-parent families.
Source: J. Wallerstein, Family Law Quarterly, 20. (Summer 1986)

On their own: Kids living in single-parent homes or in step-families report lower educational expectations on the part of their parents, less parental monitoring of school work, and less overall social supervision than children from intact families.
Source: N.M. Astore and S. McLanahan, Americican Sociological Review, No. 56 (1991)

Double-risk: Fatherless children — kids living in homes without a stepfather or without contact with their biological father — are twice as likely to drop out of school.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Survey on Child Health. (1993)

Repeat, repeat: Nationally, 29.7 percent of children living with a never-married mother and 21.5 percent of children living with a divorced mother have repeated at least one grade in school, compared to 11.6 percent of children living with both biological parents.
Source: Debra Dawson, “Family Structure and Children’s Well-Being,” Journals of Marriage and Family, No. 53. (1991).

Underpaid high achievers: Children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes. Almost twice as many high achievers come from two-parent homes as one-parent homes.
Source: “One-Parent Families and Their Children;” Charles F. Kettering Foundation (1990).

Dadless and dumb: At least one-third of children experiencing a parental separation “demonstrated a significant decline in academic performance” persisting at least three years.
Source: L.M.C. Bisnairs (et al.), American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, no. 60 (1990)

Son of Solo: According to a recent study of young, non-custodial fathers who are behind on child support payments, less than half of these men were living with their own father at age 14.

Slip-sliding: Among black children between the ages of 6 to 9 years old, black children in mother-only households scored significantly lower on tests of intellectual ability, than black children living with two parents.
Source: Luster and McAdoo, Child Development 65. 1994.

Dadless dropouts: After taking into account race, socio-economic status, sex, age and ability, high school students from single-parent households were 1.7 times more likely to drop out than were their corresponding counterparts living with both biological parents.
Source: Ralph McNeal, Sociology of Education 88. 1995.

Takes two: Families in which both the child’s biological or adoptive parents are present in the household show significantly higher levels of parental involvement in the child’s school activities than do mother-only families or step-families.
Source: Zill and Nord, “Running in Place.” Child Trends. 1994

Con garden: Forty-three percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household — 39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers — and an additional 14 percent lived in households without either biological parent. Another 14 percent had spent at last part of their childhood in a foster home, agency or other juvenile institution.
Source: US Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Prison Inmates. 1991

Criminal moms, criminal kids: The children of single teenage mothers are more at risk for later criminal behavior. In the case of a teenage mother, the absence of a father also increases the risk of harshness from the mother.
Source: M. Mourash, L. Rucker, Crime and Delinquency 35. 1989.

Rearing rapists: Seventy-two percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. Sixty percent of America’s rapists grew up the same way.
Source: D. Cornell (et al.), Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5. 1987. And N. Davidson, “Life Without Father,” Policy Review. 1990.

Crime and poverty: The proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rate of violent crime and burglary, but the community’s poverty level does not.
Source: D.A. Smith and G.R. Jarjoura, “Social Structure and Criminal Victimization,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25. 1988.

Marriage matters: Only 13 percent of juvenile delinquents come from families in which the biological mother and father are married to each other. By contract, 33 percent have parents who are either divorced or separated and 44 percent have parents who were never married.
Source: Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Social Services, April 1994.

No good time: Compared to boys from intact, two-parent families, teenage boys from disrupted families are not only more likely to be incarcerated for delinquent offenses, but also to manifest worse conduct while incarcerated.
Source: M Eileen Matlock et al., “Family Correlates of Social Skills…” Adolescence 29. 1994.

Count ’em: Seventy percent of juveniles in state reform institutions grew up in single- or no-parent situations.
Source: Alan Beck et al., Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987, US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1988.

The Main Thing: The relationship between family structure and crime is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature.
Source: E. Kamarck, William Galston, Putting Children First, Progressive Policy Inst. 1990

Examples: Teenage fathers are more likely than their childless peers to commit and be convicted of illegal activity, and their offenses are of a more serious nature.
Source: M.A. Pirog-Good, “Teen Father and the Child Support System,” in Paternity Establishment, Institute for research on Poverty, Univ. of Wisconsin. 1992.

The ‘hood The likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is raised without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent families.
Source: A. Anne Hill, June O’Neill, “Underclass Behaviors in the United States,” CUNY, Baruch College. 1993

Bringing the war back home The odds that a boy born in America in 1974 will be murdered are higher than the odds that a serviceman in World War II would be killed in combat.
Source: US Sen. Phil Gramm, 1995

Get ahead at home and at work: Fathers who cared for their children intellectual development and their adolescent’s social development were more like to advance in their careers, compared to men who weren’t involved in such activities.
Source: J. Snarey, How Fathers Care for the Next Generation.Harvard Univ. Press.

Diaper dads: In 1991, about 20 percent of preschool children were cared for by their fathers — both married and single. In 1988, the number was 15 percent.
Source: M. O’Connell, “Where’s Papa? Father’s Role in Child Care,” Population Reference Bureau. 1993.

Without leave: Sixty-three percent of 1500 CEOs and human resource directors said it was not reasonable for a father to take a leave after the birth of a child.
Source: J.H. Pleck, “Family Supportive Employer Policies,” Center for research in Women. 1991.

Get a job: The number of men who complain that work conflicts with their family responsibilities rose from 12 percent in 1977 to 72 percent in 1989. Meanwhile, 74 percent of men prefer a “daddy track” job to a “fast track” job.
Source: James Levine, The Fatherhood Project.

Long-distance dads: Twenty-six percent of absent fathers live in a different state than their children.
Source: US Bureau of the Census, Statistical Brief . 1991.

Cool Dad of the Week: Among fathers who maintain contact with their children after a divorce, the pattern of the relationship between father-and-child changes. They begin to behave more like relatives than like parents. Instead of helping with homework, nonresident dads are more likely to take the kids shopping, to the movies, or out to dinner. Instead of providing steady advice and guidance, divorced fathers become “treat dads.”
Source: F. Furstenberg, A. Cherlin, Divided Families . Harvard Univ. Press. 1991.

Older’s not wiser: While 57 percent of unwed dads with kids no older than two visit their children more than once a week, by the time the kid’s seven and a half, only 23 percent are in frequent contact with their children.
Source: R. Lerman and Theodora Ooms, Young Unwed Fathers . 1993.

Ten years after: Ten years after the breakup of a marriage, more than two-thirds of kids report not having seen their father for a year.
Source: National Commission on Children, Speaking of Kids. 1991.

No such address: More than half the kids who don’t live with their father have never been in their father’s house.
Source: F. Furstenberg, A. Cherlin, Divided Families. Harvard Univ. Press. 1991.

Dadless years: About 40 percent of the kids living in fatherless homes haven’t seen their dads in a year or more. Of the rest, only one in five sleeps even one night a month at the father’s home. And only one in six sees their father once or more per week.
Source: F. Furstenberg, A. Cherlin, Divided Families. Harvard Univ. Press. 1991.

Measuring up? According to a 1992 Gallup poll, more than 50 percent of all adults agreed that fathers today spend less time with their kids than their fathers did with them.
Source: Gallup national random sample conducted for the National Center for Fathering, April 1992.

Father unknown. Of kids living in single-mom households, 35 percent never see their fathers, and another 24 percent see their fathers less than once a month.
Source: J.A. Selzer, “Children’s Contact with Absent Parents,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50 (1988).

Missed contact: In a study of 304 young adults, those whose parents divorced after they left home had significantly less contact with their fathers than adult children who parents remained married. Weekly contact with their children dropped from 78 percent for still-married fathers to 44 percent for divorced fathers.
Source: William Aquilino, “Later Life Parental Divorce and Widowhood,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 56. 1994.

Commercial breaks: The amount of time a father spends with his child — one-on-one — averages less than 10 minutes a day.
Source: J. P. Robinson, et al., “The Rhythm of Everyday Life.” Westview Press. 1988

High risk: Overall, more than 75 percent of American children are at risk because of paternal deprivation. Even in two-parent homes, fewer than 25 percent of young boys and girls experience an average of at least one hour a day of relatively individualized contact with their fathers.
Source: Henry Biller, “The Father Factor…” a paper based on presentations during meetings with William Galston, Deputy Director, Domestic Policy, Clinton White House, December 1993 and April 1994.

Knock, knock: Of children age 5 to 14, 1.6 million return home to houses where there is no adult present.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Who’s Minding the Kids?” Statistical Brief. April 1994.

Who said talk’s cheap? Almost 20 percent of sixth- through twelfth-graders have not had a good conversation lasting for at least 10 minutes with at least one of their parents in more than a month.
Source: Peter Benson, “The Troubled Journey.” Search Institute. 1993.

Justified guilt. A 1990 L.A. Times poll found that 57 percent of all fathers and 55 percent of all mothers feel guilty about not spending enough time with their children.
Source: Lynn Smith and Bob Sipchen, “Two Career Family Dilemma,” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 12, 1990.

Who are you, mister? In 1965, parents on average spent approximately 30 hours a week with their kids. By 1985, the amount of time had fallen to 17 hours.
Source: William Mattox, “The Parent Trap.” Policy Review. Winter, 1991.

Waiting Works: Only eight percent of those who finished high school, got married before having a child, and waited until age 20 to have that child were living in poverty in 1992.
Source: William Galston, “Beyond the Murphy Brown Debate.” Institute for Family Values. Dec. 10, 1993.

More Statistics

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God`s 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 youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

The State of Fatherhood

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 `93.)
“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).
52% of fathers who owe child support earn less than $6,155 per year. (Source: The Poverty Studies Institute at the University of Wisconsin, Madison,1993)
66% of single mothers work less than full time while only 10% of fathers fall into this category. In addition, almost 47% of non-custodial mothers default on support compared with the 27% of fathers who default. (Source: Garansky and Meyer, DHHS Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, 1991).
66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to inability to pay. (Source: U.S. General Accounting Office Report, GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992).
Total Custodial Mothers: 11,268,000
Total Custodial Fathers: 2,907,000 (Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991).

The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Oct. 1991, 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%

False accusations of abuse:

160,000 reports of suspected child abuse were reported in 1963. That number exploded to 1.7 million in 1985.

There were more than three million reports of alleged child abuse and neglect in 1995. However, two million of those complaints were without foundation or false! (Source: National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) Child Maltreatment 1995: Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System)

Infamous Fatherless People

BILLY THE KID SADDAM HUSSEIN
SIRHAN SIRHAN ADOLPH HITLER
ROBERT GRAYSMITH
(ZODIAC SERIAL KILLER)
MARC LEPINE
(MASS MURDERER OF 14)
JACK THE RIPPER LEE HARVEY OSWALD
JOHN WILKES BOOTH JEFFREY DAHMER

CHARLES MANSON
(CULT LEADER)

“MONSTER” CODY
(L.A. CRIPS GANGLORD)
Advertisements

Posted in Science | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Women Really Want Abstinence-Based Empowerment, Not NOW and Casual Sex

Posted by Mats on 20/02/2010

http://www.lifenews.com/nat6026.html

by Jennifer A. Marshall
February 19
, 2010

LifeNews.com Note: Jennifer Marshall is the director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation and author of “Now and Not Yet: Making Sense of Single Life in the Twenty-First Century.”

// Add to My Yahoo! Email RSS Print

A group that thinks an ad celebrating Tim Tebow’s life is bad news for women might be a little out of touch with what women really want.

That helps explain why the National Organization for Women and other feminist groups have vehemently opposed abstinence education while failing to notice that a culture of casual sex hasn’t been so liberating for women.

Just ask the 29-year-old Briton living in America whose anonymous account appeared in her country’s left-wing Guardian newspaper.

“(M)y sexual liberation was perversely trapping me in destructive relationships, while intimacy had become something elusive, insubstantial, disappointing, surreal,” she writes.

Weary of a “burlesque comedy where we all pretended we were emotionless and cool,” she decided to stop having sex because “I wanted sex to be, quite simply, special again.”

Similar world-weary statements have been recorded by researchers such as Dr. Miriam Grossman, author of “Unprotected,” and Laura Sessions Stepp, author of “Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both.”

Only a third of young women say they truly wanted to have sex the first time they did, Stepp reports. Young women, she writes, “are trying to make sense of what is arguably the most confusing sexual landscape any generation has ever faced.”

Most sex education pushes young women into this jungle and tells them contraception will provide adequate protection. This puts incredible pressure on those who have the most at risk in the casual-sex scene. And it jeopardizes their dreams of long-term security and love.

The vast majority of young women say marriage and motherhood are important to future happiness. Why wouldn’t we equip young women to achieve those dreams while avoiding such consequences as sexual assault and serious disease — to say nothing of bewildering heartache? Why not teach young women the real facts about the risks of early sexual activity?

Teen girls who engage in sex are more vulnerable to sexually transmitted disease and depression. Girls who are sexually active in high school are half as likely to go on to college as abstaining peers from the same social setting. Later, they often have more difficulty in forging the kind of lasting relationships that lead to marriage.

Why not help young women make social choices that advance their long-term educational, vocational and marriage prospects? What about teaching tactics for resisting unwanted sexual advances? How about helping girls build relational and communication skills that will allow them to get what they really want — lasting love?

This common-sense approach is exactly what abstinence education seeks to do. Contrary to its detractors’ caricature, abstinence education aims to empower young people with the information, skills and long-term perspective they need to successfully navigate what Stepp calls today’s “confusing sexual landscape.” New evidence says this approach is helping girls do exactly that.

A study by University of Pennsylvania researchers released Feb. 2 found abstinence education is effective in delaying the onset of teen sexual activity.

After eight hours of instruction on abstinence, middle school students were one-third less likely to engage in sexual activity compared to their peers. This effect persisted two years after they attended the class.

By contrast, the study found both “safe sex” and “comprehensive sex-ed” programs ineffective. The former promote only use of contraceptives; the latter teach abstinence and contraception.

Published in the American Medical Association’s Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, the Penn study used a randomized controlled experiment. The approach, designed to produce unbiased results, is considered the gold standard in program evaluation.

This is the most sophisticated evaluation showing abstinence education’s positive results, but it’s not the first. A 2008 research paper from The Heritage Foundation catalogued 15 scientific studies of abstinence education, 11 of which found positive effects.

On the same day the Penn researchers’ study came out, President Barack Obama released his 2011 budget proposal. It zeroes out funding for abstinence education while creating a $179 million comprehensive sex-ed program — the very kind the Penn study shows to be ineffective. Add that to more than $600 million a year already spent by the Department of Health and Human Services on pregnancy and STD prevention programs and “family planning” services for teens.

The Obama administration’s plans not only fly in the face of the research, they ignore the real needs of young women. Teen girls say they want to hear the abstinence message. More and more young women who have braved the casual-sex culture say they still haven’t found what they’re looking for.

If we want to empower these women, let’s teach abstinence.

Posted in Medicine, Society | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Democrats Want People in Prision to Vote

Posted by Mats on 07/01/2010

This comes as no surprise since more than likely most people in jail are democrats.

Hat tip to Van Helsing.

Liberal Court Uses “Racism” Ploy to Grant Vote to Felons

Posted by Van Helsing

Liberalism is the ideology of the criminal. While others create, liberals use force to expropriate. For moral cover, they cloak themselves in altruism (which is in itself a moral illness, as Ayn Rand made a career of explaining). But there is absolutely zero moral difference between breaking into someone’s house and stealing money to buy crack, and voting for bureaucrats who will use equally coercive measures to steal money to finance the progressive agenda.

It is no coincidence that progressives are wrong on every moral issue. They side with parasites against the productive, degenerates against the decent, abortionists against babies, terrorists against civilians, savages against civilization, animals against humans. This is because, having built their entire ideology on a foundation of theft and coercion, liberals are morally depraved by definition.

Consequently it comes as no surprise that criminals overwhelmingly support Democrats. Even less surprising are liberal efforts to extend the vote to felons:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday tossed out Washington’s law banning incarcerated felons from voting, finding the state’s criminal-justice system is “infected” with racial discrimination.

The surprising ruling, by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle, said the law violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act by disenfranchising minority voters. …

[State Attorney General Rob] McKenna said the ruling, if upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, would apply to all 48 states that ban voting by felons in prison or on supervision.

The “racism” ploy is predictable not only because it is the default fallback position of moonbats who can find no other way to justify their assault on society, but because blacks are far more likely to be felons, as a result of committing crimes at a grotesquely disproportionate rate.

This is a tribute to the success welfare policy has had in destroying the black family. Thanks to a government that pays generously for the production of babies out of wedlock, the black illegitimacy rate is an appalling 70%. Children raised in single-parent households are far more likely to become criminals (PDF).

Full voting rights for felons will close a perfect vicious cycle: Criminals vote for Democrats, who devote more money to welfare programs, producing more illegitimate children who grow up to be criminals.

Already we have criminals running the government; they are deliberately dismantling our civilization as we watch.

On a tip from Lyle.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Religiosity and Parental Involvement in Sex-Ed Protect Youth from Risky Behaviors

Posted by Mats on 15/10/2009

Wednesday September 30, 2009


By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study from Marquette University has found that religious attitudes toward sexuality, parent-based sexual education and intact two-parent households have a positive influence upon youth in their sexual practices and the onset of first sexual intercourse.

Researchers took a nationally representative sample of 3,168 men and women ages 15-21 years old from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and obtained the data from 60-90 minute interviews with participants from the 2002 survey.

The study’s findings confirmed previous research literature, which suggests “religiosity” – defined by the authors as a set of institutionalized beliefs, doctrines and rituals, and ethical standards for how to live a good life – is “a protective factor that appears to contribute to decreased sexual risk behaviors.”

According to the study, those who viewed religion as “very important” reported an average of 1.9 lifetime sexual partners and on average began sexual activity at 17.4 years. In contrast, those who viewed religion as somewhat important or “not important at all,” began their first sexual activity at 16.9 years and had an average of 2.9 lifetime sexual partners.

However, researchers found that high religious attitudes toward sexuality (RAS) “appeared to be the most protective religiosity variable in terms of decreasing sexual risk.”

RAS had the greatest influence for youth remaining virginal by 21 years – an effect greater than just frequent attendance of church services or religious values.

Among those who valued religion as “very important” 20 percent were still virgins by age 21; among those who attended church services frequently, 25 percent of participants reported they were still virgins by 21 years.

But those who had high “religious attitudes on sexuality” reported the highest rate of virginity by 21 years and the highest rate of delayed first sex. 34 percent of these youth remained virgins by 21 years, and the average onset of sex began at 18.8 years.

By contrast, researchers found that only 8 percent of those with low religious attitudes toward sex were still virgins by 21, and began their first sex on average at 17.0 years old – just about the same time as those who did not value religion (16.9 years).

However, parents and an intact two-parent household also have an enormous effect on children and the choices they make in regards to sex, researchers found.

“Those adolescents who lived in a two-parent family from birth to the age of 18 were 14 percent less likely to ever have had sex compared to those who did not and had significantly fewer lifetime sexual partners” researchers reported.

Of youth with parents who raised them with a “just say no” attitude toward pre-marital sex, 31 percent remained virgins until 21 years, and the mean age of sexual debut for the group was 17.4 years. For youth, who “did not learn to say no,” having their parents involved was also beneficial: 29 percent remained virginal until 21 years, although the average age of first sex for this group was 17.1 years.

Just parental involvement in children’s sexual education and voicing their expectations for their children in regards to sex was superior in reducing the rate of risky sexual behaviors and onset of first sex than formal sex education. Researchers found that the topic most brought up by parents with their children was “how to avoid having sex,” but the study found primarily that “speaking with parents about abstinence was associated with decreased sexual risk behaviors.”

Youth who had only formal-based sexual education were far more prone to engage in sexual behaviors than their peers who had the involvement of their parents in sex-education. Of those trained in “abstinence and abstinence-plus” sex-education 26 percent remained virginal by 21 years, and on average began their sexual debut at 17.6 years. Those without any abstinence-component to sex education had only 25 percent remain virginal by 21 years, and began having sex at 17.1 years.

“It is important for parents to make it explicit that they do not approve of adolescents engaging in sexual activity,” researchers concluded. “This ‘simple’ practice of letting one’s child know about expectations for their sexual behavior has been shown to be efficacious.”

“Further, the influence of parental education about avoiding intercourse was strengthened when there was a close relationship between the parent and the child.”

The researchers conclude that formal sex-education in the United States – even abstinence-based education – has thus far failed on its own power to address rampant sexual promiscuity and high numbers of sexual partners among youth. A new approach is needed, but the study’s findings indicate that integrating religiosity and close parent-child relationships into sex-education may be the most promising avenues for fixing the problem.

The results and conclusions of the study are contained in a paper called “The Association of Religiosity, Sexual Education, and Parental Factors with Risky Sexual Behaviors Among Adolescents and Young Adults” written by lead researchers Kristin A. Haglund and Richard J. Fehring.


Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to “LifeSiteNews.com”. Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

Posted in Society | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: