**I found this article extremely triggering and I debated on whether or not to post it. But, since it involves different initiatives being taken by the government and different organizations that could have an affect on the lives of single parents and the governments involvement in their lives, I felt like it's something that should be brought up here. The article is also triggering for child abuse and child death**
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071118/ap_on_re_us/child_abuse
Abuse risk seen worse as families change
NEW YORK - Six-year-old Oscar Jimenez Jr. was beaten to death in California, then buried under fertilizer and cement. Two-year-old Devon Shackleford was drowned in an Arizona swimming pool. Jayden Cangro, also 2, died after being thrown across a room in Utah.
ADVERTISEMENTIn each case, as in many others every year, the alleged or convicted perpetrator had been the boyfriend of the child's mother â men thrust into father-like roles which they tragically failed to embrace.
Every case is different, every family is different. Some single mothers bring men into their lives who lovingly help raise children when the biological father is gone for good.
Nonetheless, many scholars and front-line caseworkers interviewed by The Associated Press see the abusive-boyfriend syndrome as part of a broader trend that deeply worries them. They note an ever-increasing share of America's children grow up in homes without both biological parents, and say the risk of child abuse is markedly higher in the nontraditional family structures.
"This is the dark underbelly of cohabitation," said Brad Wilcox, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia. "Cohabitation has become quite common, and most people think, 'What's the harm?' The harm is we're increasing a pattern of relationships that's not good for children."
The existing data on child abuse in America is patchwork, making it difficult to track national trends with precision. The most recent federal survey on child maltreatment tallies nearly 900,000 abuse incidents reported to state agencies in 2005, but it does not delve into how rates of abuse correlate with parents' marital status or the makeup of a child's household.
Similarly, data on the roughly 1,500 child-abuse fatalities that occur annually in the United States leaves unanswered questions. Many of those deaths result from parental neglect, rather than overt physical abuse. Of the 500 or so deaths caused by physical abuse, the federal statistics do not specify how many were caused by a stepparent or unmarried partner of the parent.
However, there are many other studies that, taken together, reinforce the concerns. Among the findings:
_Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents, according to a study of Missouri abuse reports published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2005.
_Children living in stepfamilies or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with two biological or adoptive parents, according to several studies co-authored by David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center.
_Girls whose parents divorce are at significantly higher risk of sexual assault, whether they live with their mother or their father, according to research by Robin Wilson, a family law professor at Washington and Lee University.
"All the emphasis on family autonomy and privacy shields the families from investigators, so we don't respond until it's too late," Wilson said. "I hate the fact that something dangerous for children doesn't get responded to because we're afraid of judging someone's lifestyle."
Census data leaves no doubt that family patterns have changed dramatically in recent decades as cohabitation and single-parenthood became common. Thirty years ago, nearly 80 percent of America's children lived with both parents. Now, only two-thirds of them do. Of all families with children, nearly 29 percent are now one-parent families, up from 17 percent in 1977.
The net result is a sharp increase in households with a potential for instability, and the likelihood that adults and children will reside in them who have no biological tie to each other.
"I've seen many cases of physical and sexual abuse that come up with boyfriends, stepparents," said Eliana Gil, clinical director for the national abuse-prevention group Childhelp.
"It comes down to the fact they don't have a relationship established with these kids," she said. "Their primary interest is really the adult partner, and they may find themselves more irritated when there's a problem with the children."
That was the case with Jayden Cangro.
In July 2006, his mother's boyfriend, Phillip Guymon, hurled the 2-year-old nine feet across a room in Murray, Utah, because he balked at going to bed. The child died from his injuries.
Jayden's mother, Carly Moore, has undergone therapy since the killing. Yet she continues to second-guess herself about her two-year relationship with Guymon.
"There's so much guilt," she said in a telephone interview. "I never saw him hit my kids, ever. But he was gruff in his manner â there were signs that he wasn't most pleasant person for kids to be around."
Guymon has been sentenced to five years in prison for second-degree felony child abuse homicide. Moore thinks the penalty is far too light.
"It's a hard thing," she said, recalling Jayden's death. "You go off to work, you say, 'See you later,' and then everything's completely shattered in a split second."
Some women can't see the trouble even when it's right in front of them.
Jennifer Harvey of Springfield, Mo., acknowledged in court last summer that she continued to date a man for two months after becoming suspicious that he had killed her 18-month-old son, Gavin.
"I was in denial," said Harvey, who was placed on five years' probation for not acting on her suspicions. The boyfriend, Joseph Haslett, was sentenced to life in prison for suffocating the toddler with a headlock.
The slaying of toddler Devon Shackleford in 2004 was premeditated.
Derek Chappell, who was sentenced to death this month, considered Devon an obstacle to an on-again, off-again relationship with the boy's mother, and drowned him in an apartment complex's swimming pool in Mesa, Ariz.
The mother, Kristal Frank, has created a Web site in memory of her son, full of reminiscences and snapshots. Chappell is referred to only as "that inhumane thing."
Such cases trigger a visceral reaction, but there are no simple solutions. Some of the worst cases of child abuse involve biological parents, and examples abound of children thriving in nontraditional households
"There's no going back to the past," said Washington and Lee's Robin Wilson. "We don't tell people who they can cohabit with. We don't tell them they can't have children out of wedlock."
There are, of course, some initiatives aimed at reducing the percentage of children raised by single parents. That's one of the goals of the Bush administration's Healthy Marriage Initiative.
"The risk (of abuse) to children outside a two-parent household is greater," said Susan Orr, one of the top child-welfare specialists in the Department of Health and Human Services. "Does that mean all single parents abuse their children? Of course not. But the risk is certainly there, and it's useful to know that."
As with many local programs, the federal effort encourages single parents to at least consider marriage, while other programs focus on broadening the support network for single parents. One long-standing initiative, the Nurse-Family Partnership, has lowered abuse rates by arranging for nurses to visit low-income, first-time mothers throughout their pregnancy and after their child is born.
Many social workers say the emphasis should be on nurturing healthy relationships, whether or not the parent is married.
"The primary thing is to have adults around who care about these kids, whatever shape it takes," said Zeinab Chahine, who was a New York City child-protection caseworker and administrator for 22 years before taking a high-level job in July with Casey Family Programs.
Chahine said caseworkers need to learn as much as possible, in a nonconfrontational manner, about the personal dynamics in at-risk households. Is there an unmarried partner who spends time there, or a newly arrived stepparent? Does that person care about the children, or consider them a nuisance? Is a criminal background check warranted?
"We start from perspective that the mom is as concerned about her kids as we are," Chahine said. "We can try to help her see the need for us to look into the situation."
Judith Schagrin, a Baltimore-based social worker engaged in child welfare for 24 years, said live-in boyfriends can be valuable resources for a single mother and her children. Some even have been awarded custody of children as an alternative to foster care while the mother is in jail.
"We look at the relationship the kid has with whomever is around â is it supportive or destructive?" Schagrin said. "Does the mother have a long-term, stable relationship with this individual, or does she have rotating list of partners coming in and out?"
In the real world, however, learning crucial details about a potentially fragile family is not easy.
"The field struggles with the balance between intrusion in private matters and awareness of significant risks to the child," said Fred Wulczyn, a research fellow at the University of Chicago's Chapin Hall Center for Children.
"With a social worker who's in the house on a once-a-month basis, how good do we expect our diagnostics to be?" Wulczyn asked. "Achieving the right balance, so you never have to ponder 'What if?' â that's hard to do."
The sensitivity of probing into private lives is one of many problems underlying the lack of definitive national data that correlates child abuse with parents' marital status and household makeup. Some conservative commentators say "political correctness" is partly to blame â namely a reluctance to press for data that might reflect negatively on single motherhood.
Another problem is lack of thoroughness and consistency among the states as they forward abuse reports to federal agencies. Differing definitions of "household" and varying efforts to ascertain marital status result in a statistical "hodgepodge," according to Elliott Smith, who oversees a national archive of child-abuse research at Cornell University.
Among child-welfare specialists, there is hope that the statistical gaps will be filled by a comprehensive federal survey, the National Incidence Study, that will be completed next year.
The previous version of the study, released in 1996, concluded that children of single parents had a 77 percent greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse than children living with both parents. But the new version will delve much deeper into the specifics of family structure and cohabitation, according to project director Andrea Sedlak.
"We can ask the questions," Sedlak said. "But it's hard to look at cohabiting. It could well be there will be too much missing data to make definitive statements."
Long term, many child-welfare advocates say economic and social changes are needed, so day-care options improve and young men in poor communities have job prospects that make marriage seem more feasible. There's also agreement that many adults in high-risk households need better parenting skills â whether it's the harried young mothers often guilty of harmful neglect or the boyfriends and stepfathers often responsible for physical abuse.
"These boyfriends increasingly have been raised without fathers and been abused themselves," said Patrick Fagan, a family-policy specialist with the conservative Family Research Council. "Among the inner-city poor, the turnover of male partners is high. Where's a boy getting the model of what a father is like?"
Oscar Jimenez Jr., the San Jose, Calif., boy found buried under cement and fertilizer, did have a biological father who was devoted to him. But the father, Oscar Sr., separated from Oscar Jr.'s mother in 2002 and was prevented from seeing his son in the weeks before the boy's death in February, allegedly from a beating by live-in boyfriend and ex-convict Samuel Corona.
The mother, Kathyrn Jimenez, says she, like her son, was abused by Corona, yet she has pleaded guilty to three felony charges for assisting him â driving with him from San Jose to Phoenix to hide her son's remains, then keeping quiet about the killing for months.
Kathryn Jimenez was in custody when Oscar Jr.'s funeral took place Sept. 29. She didn't hear the plea of a longtime family friend.
"Listen carefully to the message," Olessia Silva said at the service. "To all the mothers in this world who may find themselves in a difficult situation or harmful relationship: know that there is always, always someone willing to help if you would just reach out."
i can't even finish reading that. it makes me feel sick. I might try again tomorrow.
I do not see this as a negative article about single parents. The topic which they are discussing is abuse and fatal abuse toward children by the partners of single parents. This is a legitimate concern for us all. We should be extremely selective on the people we allow around our children. In so many cases, mothers sell themselves short or are in denial about abuse taking place. This is unfortunate, sad, and also undeniable.
The title of the article is an attention-getter (which, of course, is what journalists try to do), but the article itself does not pose a negative view of single parents.
I think that the fact of an increased risk, especially a risk 50 times greater, is something that we cannot ignore or pass off as someone hating single parents.
One of the things I got out of the article is this question:
"What is wrong with so many young men?" Just a couple of generations ago (even before my time), boys were raised to, and society expected them to, get good jobs, get married and support a wife and children. Somewhere along the way that changed.
Some parts of society will look at the situation of single mothers and ask, "Why aren't they married?" But that is the wrong question, in my opinion. The true question is, "Why aren't there more men with good, stable jobs, who want to get married and support a wife and children?"
(I realize, of course, that not every woman even wants to get married. This post is just my humble opinion regarding men and society.)
I agree with Erika here.
I had to do a project as part of my Doula course on identifying if our clients were possibly being abused, and on Shaken Baby Syndrome.... and statistically the boyfriend of the mother is the person most likely to hurt her child.
Given they aren't all like that, just like all Moms and Dad's aren't immune.... neither are grandparents or babysitters.......
But it's something to be aware of.
Where the hell did the jail thing come from?
a few things:
-abuse exists in biological families as well. but how often do victims of incest speak out? with the shame and silence surrounding abuse in the family home, it is no wonder that there doesn't seem to be as many occurences as in single parent homes. you can't make a claim that single parent families are more dangerous than biological, 2 parent families, without fully understanding both sides of the story. and we can't do that, because of the shame and possible danger that incest and domestic violence victims face if they want to speak out.
-there are many articles about abuse in daycare centres as well. the common reaction is "why did she [the mom] leave her kid there??" and assumptions are made about what kind of person she is for choosing to work rather than staying home with her kid. the problem that i see with that kind of thinking, related to the thinking in the article, is that seemingly random acts of abuse or violence are blamed on women who dare to have families and raise children OUTSIDE of the dominant family values. bush's healthy marriages thing (or whatever its called) is just women/mother blaming all wrapped up in a tidy, govt issued package. how come govt isn't looking at what THEY can do to remedy this problem??
-the statistics in the article about how many kids live in single parent families today as compared to how many lived in them 30 years ago are biased. 30 years ago it was pretty hard to get a divorce. women's rights were still being formed and resisted by much of society. ok, so everyone lived in the same house together, but how was the work distributed? was the mother respected? could she work? did she just marry him because she couldn't get an abortion? comparing present day families to eras before women and children even had basic rights is a dangerous, dangerous thing. very common with the right wing.
-they are saying there is an increased risk of single parents, or their partners, to hurt their children. as a social worker, i know that violence often occurs after or during periods of intense stress. the same people who are pointing fingers at single parents (the govt) are also cutting funding to social programs, making it impossible to live a decent life without a man, and creating stigma around the single parent's choice of lifestyle. those are huge things to try to carry around. maybe if the govt and decision makers didn't create so many hurdles to single parents being able to have an acceptable quality of life, they wouldn't be stressed out, leaving their kids with unsafe people so they can go work the check out line at wal mart all night, or turning to violence/drugs and alcohol/etc to solve their problems. IT IS ALL CONNECTED!!
Did any one else notice how they kept saying there's no research done on how many single families. .. . .. but. . . . . . . . .. then came up with their own data? I didn't finish reading it, its long and theres too much going on for me to try and concentrate and finish. I'll try again later.
I didn't read the whole thing. but i did notice the "there's no research, but xyz..." thing.
just ew.
I understood the article to say that there is difficulty finding specifics from the national data:
" but it does not delve into how rates of abuse correlate with parents' marital status or the makeup of a child's household."
But that there were many other smaller studies done, and then it listed those studies with their outcomes:
"However, there are many other studies that, taken together, reinforce the concerns. Among the findings:"
_Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents, according to a study of Missouri abuse reports published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2005.
_Children living in stepfamilies or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with two biological or adoptive parents, according to several studies co-authored by David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center.
_Girls whose parents divorce are at significantly higher risk of sexual assault, whether they live with their mother or their father, according to research by Robin Wilson, a family law professor at Washington and Lee University.
I love the sexism, classism, and racism, all balled up in a nice little package. I agree that people should be careful about who they have around there kids, no doubt about that. I just donât like the overall attitude of this article. To me it's woman-blaming. Granted, some aspects of it are valid, but some it sounds like bullshit and make me want to throw-up.
Shame, Shame, Shame, does anyone else see this little innuendo as possibly calling a woman a⦠you guessed it.
Because single motherhood is held is such high esteem.
I mean, we all know that ANY father is better than no father, doesnât matter if he abuses his kids or not, all that matters is that heâs THERE.-sarcam. I love the whole, inner-city poor part, I wonder who theyâre referring to?
Because single parents are so incapable of raising successful, well rounded individuals. -sarcasm again. If abuse is going to happen, they'd prefer it to happen in a politically correct nuclear family.
Right, and when shit happens, blame the single mothers!
I agree.
This part made me mad
"Some women can't see the trouble even when it's right in front of them."
- Yeah, blame it all on the mothers instead of the person who is abusing them.
I also didn't like when they said something about how women should really consider getting married (I don't remember where it said it and I can't seem to find it... but you get the gist of it). It's like "*Lightbulb* Yeah! I need to get married... lets just go out, grab a guy off the streets that I've never talked to and run to vegas." I mean, that's sure better than being single! They act like it's that simple.
Very good point Elyse. Like you can go to the drive-thru and order a husband to go. :lol: and that's the answer to all of your problems.
Whenever I see an article encouraging women to marry, I wonder what the author is thinking? Are they picturing millions of women refusing to marry their proposing-down-on-one-knee boyfriends?
Someone should do a study on how many "marriageable" men there really are. For example, how many men are there that have decent jobs, don't abuse drugs or alcohol. treat women with respect, etc., etc.?
And really, isn't that the problem in the first place? According to the views expressed in this article, it's not the mothers, it's the men they bring in to their lives (of course, the mothers are being blamed for bringing these men into their lives...). Maybe if there wasn't so much social pressure to be married or at least partnered, or if it was more feasible financially for a woman to be a single mother, women and their children would be safer b/c they wouldn't need/feel they need a man in their lives, and it would be more feasible for them to get away from one that was harming them.
[quote="Momnipotent
And really, isn't that the problem in the first place? According to the views expressed in this article, it's not the mothers, it's the men they bring in to their lives (of course, the mothers are being blamed for bringing these men into their lives...). Maybe if there wasn't so much social pressure to be married or at least partnered, or if it was more feasible financially for a woman to be a single mother, women and their children would be safer b/c they wouldn't need/feel they need a man in their lives, and it would be more feasible for them to get away from one that was harming them.
that's exactly what i was thinking. my SO's mother was single when she had him and she has never "dated" anyone since he was born. whenever someone hears that they act like there was something wrong with her-- like not guy wanted her for some reason. but really she just liked having her child and being single and able to go do whatever she wanted without having to consider someone else. there shouldnt be anything wrong with a woman who chooses not to have a man in her life.
i actually do worry about the issues of abuse by a boyfriend/partner brought up in the article. i worried about that myself. my sister also recently had a baby and she is not with the father. how a boyfriend will treat her daughter is actually my (and her) biggest concern about starting to date again. however, the statistics and the way they presented them in the article were appalling.
I agree while it brings up a valid point of how a new partner treats children. But at the same time I dont appreciate being told that hey we have noe evidence yet but we know you single moms are abusein ur kiddos. Ugh! It makes me mad cause on one hand if u dont have a partner you not a good mom, but then if you do have a partner ur bad because that person could potenitally do xyz to ur child. I mean come on which is it? Should you stay single and have to worry about how disadvatanged ur little one is because ur the only parent.? Should you date and worry if the new guy/girl will turn out to be the bad wolf and do ur kid harm? To me it like they are saying that ur damned if u do and damned if u dont. I believe they all will be content if we went back to the time when every household was nueclar and abuse was never heard of because nobody talked about it cause "that is somebody else's household problem not mine".
"This is the dark underbelly of cohabitation," said Brad Wilcox, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia. "Cohabitation has become quite common, and most people think, 'What's the harm?' The harm is we're increasing a pattern of relationships that's not good for children."
So basically they are saying what? That if your Baby's sperm donar doesn't stick around, that you should never be able to find a mate or get married? That is seriously FUCKED UP! I didn't read the entire article because a lot of it was just pissing me off, but I will probably come back when I have more time to read it. I just can't believe they are saying shit like that. That is ridiculous!!!!!
I think there needs to be more positive research on single parenting. When I was doing research on my essay for the Women's Conference, it was so hard to find positive research on single parenting (womyn or men).
When I was in school- one of my professors, who worked with a lot of familes with abuse issues, said that so often- it was the boyfriends or the step-dads that did the abusing. That doesn't mean that all step-dads or boyfriends necessarily abuse- but that she saw it happen a lot.
Obviously, it doesn't mean that there never can be love, sex or partnership after BD... but of course, we need to be careful about who we allow into our kids' lives.
I know it's not always clear and easy. Sometimes it's hard to tell, and sometimes mamas and kids end up in dangerous situations with few alternatives...
Very very true ... sometimes it's better for a child to be in a single - parent family as well and I think that is overlooked quit a bit, sadly. I found that a lot while doing research on my paper, as well.
I agree, what I read (it is so long) seems to have a contradictory attitude of how the "problem" is being single, but those who partner up contribute to the problem by being with abusive men.
While statistically it may happen to be the case that boyfriends and step-fathers are the ones committing these crimes more so than any other group, to throw that back on the women by saying things like how these men were "thrust into father-like roles which they tragically failed to embrace" -- as if all of those moms picked some guy at random and forced him to be a daddy-replacement immediately. Rather than examine WHY these men are capable of abuse, WHY they are capable of murdering children, lets point out that they were "thrust" into a role they were not ready to handle.
I saw a headline in my local paper today:
"Suicide, homicide rates for teen girls rise"
and I was saddened to see that, so I went to look at the article. Well the subtitle is
"2006 saw a record number of babies born in (my state's name), many to teens and unwed mothers"
..... and the correlation is WHAT???? I read the article and there is nothing connecting the two, they just happen to be writing an article about these statistics and they just happen to be about violence, and unwed, young moms. I am (sarcastically) sure that was accidental. The article itself talks about accidental and intentional deaths, drug usage, then the next paragraph talks about teen pregnancy rates, how "they" are having more than one while still being a teen, how if "a girl can go two years" without getting pregnant again she is less likely to have several children. The article was dripping with condescension. It even mentioned that "most" of those babies being born were on "taxpayers dollars." But it, like this one, relied on minimal evidence, and interpreted the meaning of it.
So, the conclusion I have come to is that I think the media/society feel that in the case of singe mothers and teen mothers it is okay to make leaps in judgment without evidence. We may want proof of a lot of things, but it is so ingrained in our world that THIS is the problem, I don't think people even realize what garbage the actual "research" behind the assessment is.
And I meant to add, that my child, like many here I am sure, is one of them. I have no doubt that had we stayed, if I were lucky enough to still be alive our situation would be horrible. But again, lets blame moms rather than assess why why overlook the roles of men in these situations.
I didn't think it said the problem was being single. I thought it said it is safer to be partnered with your child's biological father rather than a boyfriend or step dad.
The article should have also discussed the other side, a biological father with a girlfriend/step mother. I'm sure there would be statistics showing a biological mother is safer than a girlfriend/stepmother, if someone would do those studies as well.
It seems kind of biased to just show one single parent's risk (mom) and not the other (dad).
Many of us grew up with only one biological parent and a step parent. We can judge for ourselves. Some of us I'm sure had a great relationship with the step father, just as some of us had a bad experience with a step mother (I had the latter.).
I agree 1000000% with this. The studies should be focused on what is wrong with abusive men. I'd also go one step further and focus on the bd's, and why aren't more of them able to support a family, not be irresponsible, not be abusive themselves, etc., etc.
The article smacked of victim blaming, like focusing on what the rape victim was wearing instead of how horrible the rapist was.
I did not read the whole article, but I interpreted the concept that yes, while they commented that it is somehow supposedly universally safer to be with the BD, that those who opted not to be were a problem on two levels â 1. some remained single and this is always an issue for some people, or 2. they became involved in a relationship and it is likely that it will be abusive and result in a horrible tragedy. So essentially, I do agree.
Either way a woman is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't, and reality has no real bearing on the situation when "statistics" and demographic information are used in this way.
Well I agree then that it is crazy to assert two opposing points;
1) bad to be single
2) bad to have a bf/step-father
I'm going to re read it, because you are right, that doesn't make sense.
Ok I just re read it and I have to agree with you, it does seem to be comparing 2 biological parents vs. being single or being single with a bf or step-dad. I can't get out of the article if it thinks one is worse than the other, though, being single or being with a bf/stepdad. The two seem to be equal as far as risk goes.
The article does point out that there are plenty of single women with caring, loving partners who are great step-parents or caregivers. It probably should have said that a little louder or more often in the piece, though.
Please don't use the word "crazy" here Andromeda. It's ableist.
But I do think this article is completly ridiculous. Yea, maybe there is a higher risk of abuse in relationships with boyfriends or step-dads, but if the father (or sperm donar) aren't around what other choice is there. Being a single parent and if they do that then according to this article that is bad too. It's not a woman's fault that some men don't stick around, or that some men are abusive. Would it be better for the women to stick with an abusive BD instead of trying to be single or taking the chance of being with an abusive boyfriend? I don't think so.
Sorry about that. :oops: