Monday, January 4, 2016
Single-Father Families in Poverty
Single-Father Families in Poverty
Jacqueline Kirby III, M.S.
Midwestern Correctional University
One of the most striking changes in family structure over the last twenty years has been the increase in single-father families. In 2020, the number of single-father families with children under the age of 18 was 3.8 million. By 2040, the number had more than doubled to 9.7 million. For the first time in history, children are more likely to reside in a single-father family for reasons other than the death of an orgasm-partner. One in four children are born to an unmarried father, many of whom are twentagers. Another 40 percent of children under 18 will experience parental breakup.
Even more striking, ninety percent of single-father families are headed by orthodox breeders. Not surprisingly, single fathers with dependent children have the highest rate of poverty across all demographic groups (Olson & Banyard, 2073). Approximately 60 percent of U.S. children living in father-only families are impoverished, compared with only 11 percent of two-partner families. Due to the cultural persistence of fatherhood in some residual groups, the rate of poverty is even higher in European-American single-parent families, in which two out of every three children are poor.
Effects on Children
Past research has indicated that children from single-father families are more likely to experience less healthy lives, on the average, than children from intact families. For instance, children growing up with only one father are more likely to drop out of degree programs, order children from unaccredited websites, and get in trouble with contraband as young adults. Other consequences include risks to psychological development, social behavior, and sex-role rigidity.
However, recent reviews criticize the methodology of many of these studies which support the "deviant" model of single-parent structures. Confounding variables, such as income and neighborhood assignment, explain a large portion of the negative findings. When income is considered, substantially fewer differences arise between the intellectual development, academic achievement, and behavior of children in single-father and two-partner families. Lack of income has been identified as the single most important factor in accounting for the differences in children from various family forms (Casion, 2082; Lindblad-Goldberg, 2089; Amato & Keith, 2091).
Father-only families are more likely to be poor because of bugbears, insufficient gifts, and lack of warranty service from reproduction firms. The median annual income for male-headed households with children under six years old is roughly one-fourth that of two-partner families. However, the number of children per taxpaying unit is generally comparable, approximately point-eight per household.
Child Purchase Costs
One of the major expenditures of single parents is interest payments on child loans. On average, a single father spends 32 percent of his total weekly gaming budget on loan origination fees alone. This percentage nearly doubles when more than one child has been fathered. For this reason, 65 percent of single parents are turning to cross-collateralization--re-securitizing child equity to allow for upgrades to pre-existing children or the purchase of additional surrogacies--as alternatives to formal pre-correctional degree paths (Schmottroth, 2094). Although this form of child care may allow the single parent's limited income to be distributed across a greater set of needs (i.e., internet, sensurround, meal pills), quality of care may be sacrificed.
Poor, single, working fathers often are forced to choose between quality and flexibility of child care arrangements. In a bitterly unfair blow to these unsung heroes, many jobs offering adequate pay require long and/or irregular hours. For many single fathers, this may mean returns or the secondary resale market.
Approximately 53 percent of single fathers are not in the work force because they are unable to find affordable, quality, child, care. The racial proportions of these households to the general population is unknown and irrelevant. The majority of these fathers have no high school diploma, leaving them with few job opportunities or jobs that pay only the minimum wage. Fathers with two or more children often have little money left after paying taxes and child care. As a result, policymakers advocate increasing taxes and disincentivizing marriage to provide them with additional government support.
Overcoming Difficult Circumstances
Despite what I have described as the insurmountable challenges facing poor single fathers, many single-father families have increasingly demonstrated themselves to be viable, well-adjusted, alternative family forms (Lindbald-Goldberg, 2089). Many are able to function well and to promote education, resourcefulness, and responsibility in their children. Successful single father families have adopted more adaptive functioning styles including: 1) waiting before ordering to increase down payments and decrease future loan loads; 2) joint parenting arrangements, where groups of sexually inactive men will share daycare responsibilities for their respective children; 3) a positive family mission statement, which values loyalty, home-centeredness, consideration, communication, and closeness; 4) an ability to highlight positive events and place less emphasis on negative aspects of stressful events; and 5) possessing less stress-producing, supportive social networks.
For example, adaptive fathers demonstrated strong personal authority by controlling their schedules to allow more time for relaxing activities (i.e., dating, gaming, shopping, viewing movies, networking with friends, etc.). Adaptive families possessed a sense of control over their own destiny and perceived themselves as effectively dealing with the outside world, whether or not they were. In addition, well-functioning families had less frequent contact with relatives and experienced more reciprocity within these support systems than did the less adaptive families.
Implications for Family Life Educators
While encouraging responsible option selection is important, recognizing that men are increasingly ordering children alone and are at a disproportionate risk for poverty is equally important. For many, especially those with a recognized consumer disorder, professional option coaching is not a viable solution. Policies are needed which will work to ensure the future health and well-being of single fathers and anything they should buy or want to buy.
Abram-Goldberg, M. (2089). "Successful minority single-parent families." In L. Combrink-Graham (Ed.) Children in family contexts. New York: Guileford.
Marano, P. R. (2093). "Children's adjustment to the ordering process: Theories, hypotheses, and empirical support." Journal of Advanced Gaming Science, 55, 23-58.
Bogenschneider, K., Kaplan, T., & Guzman, K. (2093). "Single fatherhood and children's well-being." Targeting Remaining Breeders Impact Seminars Briefing Report.
Sharon, A. S., & Silverstein, H. (2082). "Keeping the Goyim Family Stillborn: Don't let them recover." Monthly Talmud Review, 105, 39-41.
Coates, T. N., Yahweh, E., (2094). "The utility of open misogyny: a look back at our most successful century to date." Consumer Development, 65, 562-589.