Nuclear Family Not "Necessary"

The old cliche of "staying together for the sake of the kids" is being proven to have an effect opposite to the desired one.  Researchers have found that a nuclear family isn't necessarily what's best for children, despite the long-held belief that children in single parent homes fair poorly when compared to those living in traditional homes with a mother and father.  According to the research, financial standing and love yield more positive results.

While children in single parent homes still have their share of challenges, those challenges are not the result of their parents being unmarried, but rather the more indirect circumstances often caused by lone-parenting such as reduced parenting time and low socio-economic status due to a single income.

Dr Lauren Wild, a family psychology expert, was quoted in the piece as saying:

"The nuclear family is probably still ideal but... children in a stable, loving and supportive single-parent family are probably better off than those in a nuclear family where parents are constantly fighting.

The quality of the relationship with a father is probably more important than whether he is under the same roof."

I have long held the belief that a family doesn't have to have a mother and a father, or even two parents of the same gender to be successful, and that love is what is most important.  (The idealist in me would like to believe that "love is all you need", but the man who lives in the GTA in 2007 knows that money makes it easier to need only love.)

This piece can also serve as a wake up call to those relationships that are in a bit of trouble, showing them that just sticking it out isn't helping their kids; that sometimes the best thing for everyone involved is to realize that while marriages are supposed to last, they don't have to.  As depressing a thought as that is, acknowledging it can only result in happier, better off children.  And really, isn't that what everyone wants?

Follow-Up To An African-Centric School?

Last week in this space, I looked at the subject of an African-centric school in Toronto.  This week, the Star has yet another piece about the benefits of such a program, as well as an interesting sidebar that covers the history of the subject as far back as the early 1990s.

To read more SciFi Dad, you can go to Tales From The Dad Side.

Comments

[Laural]

This was interesting but raised questions for me.
I know they are saying finances play a key role, but the assumption is that 2 parent families have more money than single parent families.
But, in our case for instance, if I continued working (as I have a higher income) and Mike stayed home we'd have a certain amount of money. So, let's say I make 50k. And I would be supporting 3 people.
If Mike left, than that same 50k would cover just my son and I, so we'd have more money. So, then would that make us happier?
I don't think so. Or, maybe it's too early for me to be trying to dissect news articles.
But, know what I mean?

[motherbumper]

Oh this is a tough one. I had many friends who parents divorced right after the children finished high school (like it was some kind of goal) and while some breathed a big sigh of relief, others were crushed (they probably would have been regardless of the timing). But despite the parent's relationship between each other, the quality of the parent/child relationship is key to raising confident adults.

[kittenpie]

I agree with this, but whether parents stay together or split up, the trick to my mind is to act like grownups and remember that your children are watching and listening. So if you decide to stick it out, you work out a way to communicate properly and work together. If you decide to split, you don't badmouth the other parent or use your child as your pawn or messenger. I think the real damage comes from the bad baheaviour of people who are giving into their feelings and pushing each others' buttons instead of trying to work out a way to make the family work, whether it's under one roof or two.

[Mouse]

I seem to remember another study not too long ago that suggested that the "damage" to children in divorced family was done by the tumult before the split as opposed to the parents living apart. Which would agree with this assessment. It makes sense to me.