Excellent article on Shared Parenting

[MYSONSDAD]

 
 

 
Follow is some "extremely telling" research and empirical data, produced by Governmental and Private institutions which clearly establish that Children NEED BOTH PARENTS - a fact which is not eliminated as a result of marital divorce!
 
READ ON and UNDERSTAND why a "Presumption of Shared Parenting" for divorcing parents FAR OUTWEIGHS the "best interest" of the Trillion Dollar per year Divorce Industry - for whom (anti)FAMILY Law exists!!!
 
=================
Scrutinizing Single and Cohabiting Parent (http://www.profam.org/pub/xnr_cur.htm)
Some progressive commentators are too busy celebrating the growing diversity of family to acknowledge that children typically do not do well growing up with a single or cohabiting mother.  Princeton sociologist Sara McLanahan is sufficiently in tune with regnant orthodoxies to argue that "some single motherhood is probably a good sign of society insofar as it indicates that women have the freedom to opt out of bad relationships."  Nonetheless, in a study recently published in Demography, McClanahan expresses deep reservations about the beneficence of trends giving us more and more single mothers, and more and more cohabiting unmarried parents.

 "We should," McLanahan writes, "be concerned about the high prevalence of single mothers, especially among mothers in the lower social strata."  After all, she notes, "across all Western industrialized countries [including Sweden, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, and the United Kingdom], children in single-mother families have much higher poverty rates than children in two-parent families." McLanahan stresses that the economically disadvantaged status of single mothers persists "even though many countries provide substantial single support to single mothers."  

But McLanahan has her eye on more than economics.  She sees in single motherhood "a proxy for multiple risk factors that do not bode well for children."  She cites data showing, for instance, that "unmarried mothers with low education (a high school degree or less) are more likely to suffer from clinical depression and to have used drugs and tobacco during their pregnancies than married mothers with similar levels of education."

It also disturbs McLanahan that the children of a single mother typically see little or nothing of their father, and she regards "father absence" as potentially "harmful to children."   Further, she believes that "high levels of father absence are likely to be a sign of social disorganization and isolation."

But even if the father is present in the home, McLanahan sees potential risks for children if he is not married to their mother.  Comparing the families formed by cohabiting couples with those formed by married couples, McLanahan identifies distinctively problematic characteristics of cohabiting-couple families.  Compared to married-couple families, such families "are much more likely to include children from other relationships and parents' relationships are more fragile."  The fragility of cohabiting-couple families shows up in statistics showing that "nearly half of cohabiting mothers ... have ended their relationship with their child's father by the time their children are three years old."  It further troubles McLanahan that when cohabiting-couple families are compared to married-couple families, "breast-feeding and language stimulation are less common, whereas harsh parenting is more common."  

(Source: Sara McLanahan, "Diverging Destinies: How Children Are Faring Under the Second Demographic Transition," Demography 41 [2004]: 607-627.)  

The Civility of Fundamentalism  

Whether Horace Mann in the nineteenth century or John Dewey in the twentieth, partisans of state-directed education have disparaged private schools, particularly Catholic parochial schools and, more recently, evangelical Protestant schools, for allegedly not socializing young people in democratic values. While that contention lacks empirical support, political scientists at the University of North Carolina, Duke, and Texas Christian have documented just the opposite, finding that fundamentalist Christian schools are "as successful as public schools in teaching the values necessary [for students] to assume the burdens of citizenship in a democratic society."

The three professors surveyed white tenth and twelfth graders that were enrolled in ten Christian high schools in a metropolitan area in the southwest United States. These schoolsâ€"all but one with less than 150 studentsâ€"were chosen because they taught biblical inerrancy, creationism, salvation by faith alone, the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, and that women should graciously submit to their husbands. For the public-school comparison sample, they chose a school district in the same metro area, where they surveyed white students in the tenth and twelfth grades who were not enrolled in special education classes.

At the tenth-grade level, the researchers found that students in the public schools scored higher on eight of the eleven educational objectives measures (particularly among what they call "classic liberal objectives" and "comprehensive liberal objectives"), while the fundamentalist students outperformed their public school peers in three (political knowledge and the "republican" virtues of volunteering and placing values ahead of individual success).

However, by twelfth grade, the fundamentalist students scored higher in seven of the eleven objectives. Not only did they significantly improve their scores on four of the five measures of "classical liberal values," but they also moved from significantly lower to significantly higher than their public school peers on two of those measures: support for democratic norms and in moral reasoning. The fundamentalist students also outperformed their public school peers in political tolerance, although the difference was not statistically significant. In the "comprehensive liberal objective" category that measured support for rights for gays and women and correcting inequality, these students scored, as they had in the tenth grade, significantly lower than their public-school peers, but the gap had narrowed.

These bivariate findings were supported by multivariate tests that controlled for father's education, family income, the number of books that students owned, student GPA, and church attendance. Given that the students in the fundamentalist schools reported higher levels of socioeconomic status, the researchers theorize that the dramatic improvements between tenth and twelfth grade students "may not be the product of the type of school, but of the type of student attending the school."

Nevertheless, these findings suggest that the American republic is threatened less by fundamentalist Christian schools, or the parents who patronize such schools, than by the politically correct crowd who foment fear over the mere existence of "sectarian" institutions.

(Source: R. Kenneth Godwin, Jennifer W. Godwin, and Valerie Martinez-Ebers, "Civic Socialization in Public and Fundamentalist Schools," Social Science Quarterly 85 [2004]: 1097-1111.)

Overwhelmed Mothers, Troubled Children  

Why do children whose parents have divorced often begin to act defiantly or to slide into depression?  Researchers investigating the problems typical among such children now think that the "depressed/withdrawn parenting" of mothers overwhelmed by the consequences of divorce may be to blame.

To identify the reason that parental divorce multiplies children's adjustment problems, a team of researchers from the University of California and San Diego State University recently set to work analyzing data collected over two years from thirty-five middle-class divorced mothers with a child in the fourth grade at the beginning of the study period and compared those data with comparable data collected for children of one hundred seventy-four married middle-class mothers.  

Much as they expected, the researchers found that "mothers rated children from divorced families higher on the Children's Behavior Check List Internalizing and Externalizing scales at all three yearly assessments" than they rated children from intact families.  In other words, divorced mothers were more likely to see their children both slip into anxiety and depression (Internalizing behavior problems) and to engage in aggressive, disobedient behaviors (Externalizing behavior problems) than were married mothers.  Likewise, "teachers rated children from divorced families as higher [than peers from intact families] on the Teacher Report Form Internalizing and Externalizing scales at two of the three yearly assessments," with TRF ratings for the third year right at the threshold for statistical significance (p = 0.06).  

In their finding that "divorced mothers reported both more depressive symptoms and [parental] withdrawal than did the nondivorced mothers at each yearly assessment," the researchers believe they have found a key reason for the problems documented among children of divorced mothers.  In subsequent statistical analyses, the researchers indeed limn a statistically significant "path from depressive/withdrawn parenting to child externalizing behavior."  The California and San Diego State scholars then likewise trace a similar path for internalizing behavior. In sum, "depressive/withdrawn parenting among the divorced mothers accounted for the higher levels of externalizing and internalizing behavior that the children exhibited at home and school in the fourth and fifth grades."

The propensity of divorced mothers to manifest depressed/ withdrawn styles of parenting did not surprise the researchers.  After all, "divorced mothers are often burdened with multiple demands and fewer resources: assuming household responsibilities that were formerly shared with a spouse, working more hours at their jobs to make ends meet, and making do with less social support than their nondivorced counterparts."  Nor is it surprising that children who watch their depressed mothers withdrawing from them would often succumb to depression or would engage in "acting out behavior ... [as] an attempt ... to re-engage mothers who are preoccupied ... or to gain attention from teachers or other adult caregivers."

Curiously, the researchers see the role of divorced mothers' depressed/withdrawn parenting style "begin[ning] to diminish" as their children move into sixth grade, yet they do not see these children escaping from their Internalizing and Externalizing problems.  What is going on?  On the one hand, sixth-grade children are "developing cognitive abilities" that allow them "to more realistically assess the meaning of a single mother's negative mood and lack of availability."   But on the other hand, children who have already spent much of grade school with a depressed and withdrawn divorced mother may already have developed problems that their new cognitive abilities will not dispel.

The authors of the new study thus emphasize that "externalizing behavior problems that began in earlier years could become self-perpetuating by the time the children reach early adolescence," as such behaviors are "fueled by interactions with deviant peers and other extrafamilial reinforcing mechanisms."  Similarly, children who initially begin experiencing Internalizing problems early in grade school because of a depressed and withdrawn divorced mother may "with the onset of adolescence, [manifest] certain disorders such as major depression" as "predisposing vulnerabilities" expose them to mental pathology.

(Source: Jeffrey J. Wood, Rena L. Repetti, and Scott C. Roesch, "Divorce and Children's Adjustment Problems at Home and School: The Role of Depressive/Withdrawn Parenting," Child Psychiatry and Human Development 35 [2004]: 121-141.)    

Teens Need Moms and Dads, Not Just Two Parents  

Since they cannot by nature procreate, homosexuals have been pushing to change state laws to allow them to adopt children. Some have even argued that what makes for good parenting is not the gender complimentarity of parents, but the devotion of parents (or adoptive parents). While not all husband-wife couples make the best parents, a study by Tami M. Videon of Rutgers University highlighting the independent influence of fathers on the emotional health of adolescents suggests that child well-being depends not on the contributions of mothers or fathers, but upon the contribution of mothers and fathers.

Using the first two waves of data (1994-95 and 1996) from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the professor of psychiatry examined the impact of father-adolescent relationships on depressive symptoms of more than 6,500 boys and girls from intact, two-parent families. In her first model, she found that higher levels of satisfaction with fathers are correlated with fewer depressive symptoms among both boys and girls (p <.001 for both).

These statistically significant relationships held true in her second model, which controlled for relationships with mothers (which also correlated inversely with depressive symptoms for boys and girls). The magnitude of the effects of the father-adolescent relationship were somewhat reduced in this model, "indicating that the mother and father relationship [each] explain a portion of the same variance in adolescent psychological well-being." At the same time, adds Videon, "the father-adolescent relationship has a significant influence on children's well-being beyond the impact of the mother- adolescent relationship."

While Videon clearly intents her research to demonstrate the shortcomings of single motherhood, her findings nonetheless also implies that gay adoption is not a good idea, as well.

(Source: Tami Videon, "Parent-Child Relations and Children's Psychological Well-Being: Do Dads Matter?" Journal of Family Issues 26 [2005]: 55-78.)

Vulnerable to Violence  

Teens (especially boys) who have been exposed to violenceâ€"either as a victim or as a witnessâ€"are much more likely to commit acts of violence themselves than are peers not so exposed.  Researchers investigating the way exposure to violence pushes young adolescents toward violent acts do not, however, see this pathological pattern equally prevalent in all social settings:  this pattern of violence begetting violence typically shows up among teens denied the stabilizing influence of an intact parental marriage.

In a study conducted for the National Institute of Justice, criminologists Stacey Nofziger and Don Kurtz recently parsed data collected in 1995 as part of the National Survey of Adolescents, looking particularly for circumstances linking youthful exposure to violence to subsequent violent juvenile crime.  Much as they had expected, the researchers find that "exposure to violence has serious consequences for violent offending," with "experiences of violence in the juveniles' lives all serv[ing] as substantial risk factors for violent offending."

However, despite theoretical reasons for supposing that low family income and urban residence would foster adolescent violence and that high family income and rural residence would inhibit such violence, in their initial analysis of their data the researchers find that "neither family income nor where the juvenile lives are significant risk factors."  In contrast, their analysis reveals a strong influence of family structure: "Always having lived with both biological parents appears to be a protection against violent offending (O[dds] R[atio] .463) [ p < 0.001]."  

In a second analysis that takes into account both increasing levels of exposure to violence and differences in types of victimization, family income still fails to predict violent teen offenses, but place of residence does emerge as a predictor, with "juveniles living in small towns and rural communities ... significantly less likely to engage in violent offenses" than urban peers.  And the second analysis once again confirms the deterrent effect of  "always having lived with both biological parents" (Odds Ratio of .578; p < 0.001).

  The researchers conjecture that parental marital status may reduce the likelihood of teens' violent offending in a couple ways.  First, an intact parental marriage "greatly influence the economic stability of the family with two parents generally being able to provide greater economic resources."  Second, an intact parental marriage "increase the family networks" in ways that "increas[e] the likelihood of spending time with family members."  Though both conjectures are plausible, readers may recall that neither of the researchers' statistical models establishes a linkage between household income and teen offending and may therefore regard the second conjecture as more compelling than the first.  Teens who spend leisure with aunts, uncles, and cousins are much less likely to pick up a switchblade than peers spending their spare time on the streets with strangers.

(Source: Stacey Nofziger and Don Kurtz, "Violent Lives: A Lifestyle Model Linking Exposure to Violence to Juvenile Violent Offending," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 42 [2005]: 3-26.)

===================

In Divorce proceedings involving children in Maryland, law abiding and wholly fit-to-parent Fathers are relegated to little more than "visitor" in 85% of those proceedings.  This "marginalization" of the critical role of the Father has removed a critical developmental influence from the lives of our children - the negative impact upon the societal landscape of the United States is readily apparent to anyone that cares to open their eyes and honestly survey that landscape.  
 
Visitors are not in a position to impart core-values to their children.  The children are then often required to acquire their values on the streets of life - a street where differing values of "good" can cost that child his/her very life - conformance to the street then becomes a de facto necessity for life.
 
Visitors are not afforded the luxury of sufficient time to effectively mentor their children.  The children instead emulate the thug on the street who has accumulated fancy clothes, jewelry, cars and drugs through illegal activities.  Our children view these things as the "mark of success" and align their behaviors with the thug so as to gain the same material things in life.
 
Visitors do not have the opportunity to adequately serve as spiritual leader to their children - do we need to dig any deeper to determine the root cause of the decline in American morality?
 
Visitors do not have the opportunity to present a positive role model for their children that the children will then grow to emulate.  The children instead begin to emulate the behaviors they view on television and on the local street corners.
 
Visitors are not in a position to implant the concepts of Right OR Wrong, Discipline, OR Self-control.  The children instead learn antisocial behaviors from their equally disturbed and as equally angry peers.
 
Visitors are not allowed to serve in the critical role of disciplinarian to their children, and it is no small wonder that children of divorce are out of control!!  The children instead run free throughout the streets of our Nation, learning new antisocial behaviors and vices.
 
I could go on an on about the limitations of a "visitor" when it comes to parental roles.  Suffice to say, our children absolutely NEED BOTH PARENTS in their lives if they are to be properly prepared for life in the real world - a world which is fast becoming "not a pretty place."
 
"Presumption of Shared-Parenting" for fit-parents is the ONLY Viable Solution!!!!
 
Empirical data being indisputable, I have provided (below) current statistics from the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, the Census Bureau and private studies, which clearly communicates the significant damage that has occurred courtesy of the "Failed Social Experiment" of the last 35-years - an experiment with human souls implemented by the Federal and State Legislatures at the behest of the TRILLION Dollar per year Divorce Industry, and an experiment which would certainly make Dr. Mengle' proud.
 
Simply by restoring BOTH "FIT" PARENTS to the lives of the children, these extremely tragic "single-parent statistics" can be reversed in a relatively short period of time.  Children raised without BOTH PARENTS in their lives:
are 33 times more likely to be seriously abused (so that they will require medical attention).
are 73 times more likely to be killed as a result of abuse.
account for 71% of teenage pregnancies (Costing the US Taxpayers $40B per year).
daughters are 2.1 times more likely to have children during there teenage years than are children from intact families.
are 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide
are 6.6 times to become teenaged mothers  
are 24.3 times more likely to run away
are 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
are 6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institution
are 10.8 times more likely to commit rape
are 6.6 times more likely to drop out of school
are 15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenager
account for 90% of all homeless and runaway children
account for 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions
account for 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers
account for 85% of prison youths
account for 63% of youth suicides
account for 85% of all children the exhibit behavioral disorders
account for 80% of rapists motivated by displaced anger disorder
The ONLY viable solution to this societal crisis is the "Presumption of Shared-Parenting" for ALL "fit parents" and the "enforcement of the fundamental liberty right to parent one's children absolutely free from unnecessary governmental interjection unless/until it is clearly established that a parent is unfit to parent."  This one reform in Family Law will "on day-1 of implementation eliminate the vast majority of contentious divorces, and will in fact, reduce the number of divorces due to the "elimination of incentives for divorce" which are so much a part of the lure built-in to the vile system of the Divorce Industry.
 
This "solution" is not just the opinion of this Father (or the 25-MILLION similarly-situated parents), but has been corroborated by the Journal of Family Psychology (March 2002, Vol. 16, No. 1) which published the results of a detailed meta-analysis of 33 studies, involving 1,846 sole-custody children, 814 joint-custody children, and 251 intact families.  Participants were randomly selected from court and divorce records, convenience samples, national samples, school samples, and clinical samples.  The finding clearly established that "that children in joint custody arrangements were as well adjusted as children in intact families, and better adjusted than children in sole custody arrangements."  Further, the findings clearly established that "children in joint custody arrangements had fewer behavioral and emotional problems, had higher self-esteem, better family relations and school performance than children in sole custody arrangements" and that "these children were as well adjusted as children in intact families on the same measures."
 
Given the empirical data that accurately reflects that damage that is being done to our children by the forced-absence of a parent following divorce, AND given the empirical data that clearly identifies the solution - "Presumption of Shared-Parenting" MUST become the Law of the Land within the FAMILY Court Arena!!
 
CLEARLY, the "Presumption of Shared-Parenting" for all parents that are "fit to parent" IS in the best interest of our Nations Children.  OR, are the Special Interests" of the Secular, Feminist, Homosexual, Lawyer and Medical lobbies of the TRILLION Dollar per year Divorce Industry of more "vital interest" re other "interests" that prevent this "presumption" from becoming law the law of the land?

"Children learn what they live"

[4honor]

Did you know that a well thought out letter to your state senator about the issues of presumed shared parenting can open a good dialogue about the matter and will allow you access to "properly educating them?

Neither did I until I tried it. Remember to make it about the children and they can't help to listen.

In our case, shared parenting will not help SS (distance and age of SS are factors) but I will not stand idley by while these same problems plague my grandchildren (who should show up in 8-25 years).