NZ Herald 29 November 2016 Family First Comment: Children living with only one parent or in a blended family are at a higher risk of being abused compared to those living with their biological married parents, a new report reveals.
Children living with only one parent or in a blended family are at a higher risk of being abused compared to those living with their biological married parents, a new report reveals.
A research paper titled Child Abuse and Family Structure, commissioned by Family First, released today highlights a link between children not raised by married biological parents and those suffering abuse.
Bob McCoskrie, national director for family advocacy group Family First, said the research highlighted some key risk factors such as ex-nuptial births where one or both parents were absent, and young mothers and this was over represented by Maori and Pacific cultures. These same groups also had high rates of child abuse.
However, Maori children with two parent working families had low rates of abuse.
In contrast, Asian groups had low rates of child abuse and lowest proportion of single parent families.
Only 9 per cent of Asian families had one parent with at least one child under 18 compared with 28 per cent of Maori.
Whereas only 4.2 per cent of Asian children had been maltreated by the age of 2 compared with 60.9 Maori, 53.2 per cent European, 39.1 per cent non-Maori and 21.7 per cent Pacific.
McCoskrie said the benefits of children being raised by married parents could not be ignored.
However, whenever marriage was promoted, it was seen as an attack on solo or divorced parents, he said.
“In virtually every category that social science has measured, children and adults do better when parents get married and stayed married – provided there is no presence of high conflict or violence.”
The report analysed trends, based on government research, in maltreatment, ethnic groups and family structure dating back from 1967, which is when there was a decline in the marriage rate.
“The research shows it’s the presence of a biological father that generally, not always, protects children and it is marriage that significantly raises the chance that he will remain on the scene,” McCoskrie said.
Co-habited parents were four to five times more likely to separate by the time their child turned 5 than those who were married.
He said the Government needed to stop worrying offending people and instead focusing on the promotion of marriage and preventing marriage breakdowns. More research into married families was also needed in NZ.
“Even to say you want to encourage a marriage culture will get opposition but you have to ask yourself, what is more important. Is it the political correctness or protecting kids?
Report author Lindsay Mitchell, whose earlier research also identified a link between family structures and child poverty, said there were certain family set-ups where children were more vulnerable.
“In the same way discussion about child poverty ignore the elephant in the room – family structure – so do analyses of the incidence of child abuse.”
The report also found a misconception around men predominately being the abusers as the figures showed men were responsible for 60 per cent of physical and sexual abuse, while women were more likely to neglect. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11756289
Child & Family Blog 22 November 2016 Family First Comment: This is disturbing – but significant. We must take heed of this warning. “Men who reported a mistimed pregnancy were more likely to be non-resident fathers; and among non-resident fathers, those who reported a mistimed pregnancy visited their children less often (especially their daughters). But even among resident fathers, those who reported a mistimed pregnancy interacted less with their children.”
A new study has found that fathers who report that a birth was mistimed or unwanted are likely to be less involved in caring for and playing with their young children.
One-third of resident fathers and two thirds of non-resident fathers report having a child from a mistimed or unwanted pregnancy, making this finding a significant factor in assessing children’s wellbeing.
Interviews obtained from 2,764 fathers in the US in 2002-10 through the National Survey of Family Growth were analysed by Dr Laura D. Lindberg and colleagues.
Men who reported a mistimed pregnancy were more likely to be non-resident fathers; and among non-resident fathers, those who reported a mistimed pregnancy visited their children less often (especially their daughters). But even among resident fathers, those who reported a mistimed pregnancy interacted less with their children.
Both resident and non-resident fathers who report a mistimed pregnancy were likely to rate their parenting more negatively.
Although the number of fathers in the sample who reported unwanted pregnancies was too small to be able to draw statistically significant conclusions, the associations were similar to the associations with mistimed pregnancies.
Lindberg LD, Kost K & Maddow-Zimet I (2016), The role of men’s childbearing intentions in father involvement, Journal of Marriage and Family
Media Release 29 November 2016 “Children being raised by their married biological parents are by far the safest from violence”- FAMILY FIRST
A new report on child abuse and its causes argues that the ‘elephant in the room’ is family structure, and that the growth of child abuse has accompanied a reduction in marriage and an increase in cohabiting and single-parent families.
The report follows on from an earlier report (released in May 2016) on child poverty and its link to family structure. This latest report by welfare commentator and researcher Lindsay Mitchell is entitled “CHILD ABUSE & FAMILY STRUCTURE: What is the evidence telling us?” and examines child abuse rates and changes in family structure from the early 1960s through to current day.
Key conclusions include:
For the last fifty years, families that feature ex-nuptial births, have one or both parents absent, large numbers of siblings (especially from clustered or multiple births) and/or very young mothers have been consistently over-represented in the incidence of child abuse – similar to overseas data.
Maori and Pacific families exhibit more of these features and have appeared disproportionately in child maltreatment statistics since earliest data analysis in 1967.
The risk of abuse for children whose parent / caregiver had spent more than 80% of the last five years on a benefit was 38 times greater than for those with no benefit history. Most children included in a benefit appear with a single parent or caregiver.
Contrary to the common narrative that men are perpetrators and women and children are victims, both sexes are responsible for physically abusing children. Males are responsible for around 60% of physical abuse findings and are more likely to sexually abuse children; females are more likely to neglect them. Females are also more likely to inflict multiple types of abuse against children.
The high rates of single, step or blended families among Maori present a much more compelling reason for disproportionate child abuse incidence than either colonisation or unemployment, but like non-Maori, Maori children with two-parent working families have very low abuse rates.
Asian children have disproportionately low rates of child abuse. The Asian population has the lowest proportion of single-parent families.
The presence of biological fathers matters. Generally, it protects children from child abuse. Marriage presents the greatest likelihood that the father will remain part of an intact family.
Compared to married parents, cohabiting parents are 4-5 times more likely to separate by the time their child is aged 5. Overseas data also shows a greater likelihood of child abuse in cohabiting families.
The research paper, commissioned by Family First NZ, draws the conclusion that a reluctance remains (compared to other overseas jurisdictions) to identify which families are disproportionately associated with child abuse and deaths.
“There are certain family structures in which children will be far more vulnerable. Suspension of fact is an abrogation of our collective responsibility to children. In the same way discussions about child poverty ignore the elephant in the room – family structure – so do analyses of the incidence of child abuse.,” says Lindsay Mitchell.
Family First NZ is welcoming the report and calling on politicians and policymakers to develop policies which support marriage – including free counselling, income-splitting, removal of the marriage tax penalty, tax incentives for stable marriages – and promoting the strong formation of families and preventing the breakdown of families.
“Children being raised by their married biological parents are by far the safest from violence – and so too are the adults,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“Whenever marriage is promoted, it has often been labeled as an attack on solo or divorced parents, and that has kept us from recognising the qualitative benefits of marriage which have been discovered from decades of research. In virtually every category that social science has measured, children and adults do better when parents get married and stay married – provided there is no presence of high conflict or violence. This is not a criticism of solo parents. It simply acknowledges the benefits of the institution of marriage.”
“Governments should focus on, and encourage and support what works. Our children deserve this investment in their safety and protection.”
READ the Full Report READ the Executive Summary ENDS
