The traditional family

[Paidiske]

Yes but most of these factors do not determine whether they happen in the original family of foster and blended families. For example parental temperament, exposure to stress, mental health problems, neighborhood violence, low self-esteem, parental substance abuse, child temperament or behaviour and family conflict or violence don't discriminate between original nuclear family and non nuclear families like blended and foster families.

That's not the point. If the problem is stress, mental illness, or whatever, then it can happen in any family. There's no need to demonise blended families.

But even when we look at Australia we find a similar situation. The Royal commission into child abuse which is the largest and most comprehensive investigation into child abuse in Australia has found that the breakdown of families is a major contribution to the increase in child abuse. It shows that since the 1960's the traditional family has broken down and that this is the main factor for the increase because children don't have the security of married parents in a stable family.

Is it an increase at all, though, or are people just more prepared to report it now? (And more prepared to report it when reporting doesn't threaten a nuclear family's stability).

What you linked to there does suggest that there's a higher incidence of sexual abuse in step-families, but I think making out that step-families are the problem, rather than that abuse is the problem, is a massive red herring there. There are many healthy step-families in which abuse does not occur (and many of them have come about after an abusive situation has ended).

 

[stevevw]

That's not the point. If the problem is stress, mental illness, or whatever, then it can happen in any family. There's no need to demonize blended families.

I'm not demonizing blended families but simply saying the comparison is not really helpful for comparing different family setups as it does not differentiate. AS you said it can happen in any family but determining which families is important to be able to tell if there is any correlation between a family setup and child abuse.

Is it an increase at all, though, or are people just more prepared to report it now? (And more prepared to report it when reporting doesn't threaten a nuclear family's stability).

That is what the Royal Commission was setup for to investigate the abuse. It created a situation where people felt more able to talk about their abuse. Despite this the findings found an trend between the increase in the breakdown of families and child abuse.

What you linked to there does suggest that there's a higher incidence of sexual abuse in step-families, but I think making out that step-families are the problem, rather than that abuse is the problem, is a massive red herring there. There are many healthy step-families in which abuse does not occur (and many of them have come about after an abusive situation has ended).

It isn't a red herring as that means that a person is falsely blaming something besides the real cause to side track what is really happening. In fact saying that abuse itself is the problem is a red herring fallacy as it is diverting attention away from one of the true major causes of a higher risk of abuse, the type of family setup.

Fundamentally step families are at the root of the problem. The problem and risk is that because step, blended and single parent families are more likely to have situations where there is stress, trauma, financial hardship, broken relationships and the introduction of outsiders etc which can lead to a situations where a child is at risk of neglect or abuse. We could address these individual issues to minimize the chances of children ending up in abusive situations which is relevant and needed. But I think this is the long way around and putting the cart before the horse.

Why don't we address the root cause and prevent this happening in the first place by support stronger and stable families that don't breakup and can stay together if that is what the research is saying. I don't think acknowledging we have a problem with families breaking up and that blended families have a higher rate of risk for children is saying that all blended families are bad or that traditional families never have these problems. But as the report says not acknowledging that there is a higher risk in the first place is the type of silence that leads to further abuse which is what we are trying to change.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not demonizing blended families but simply saying the comparison is not really helpful for comparing different family setups as it does not differentiate. AS you said it can happen in any family but determining which families is important to be able to tell if there is any correlation between a family setup and child abuse.

Except that family setup is not the problem...

That is what the Royal Commission was setup for to investigate the abuse. It created a situation where people felt more able to talk about their abuse.

The Royal Commission investigated sexual abuse in institutions; its terms of reference meant it didn't look at abuse in the home. (Which is what your linked report pointed out). So it didn't make any findings about family breakdown.

It isn't a red herring as that means that a person is falsely blaming something besides the real cause to side track what is really happening.

Yes, exactly. People don't abuse because they're in blended families. There are other issues which need teasing out.

Fundamentally step families are at the root of the problem.

If that were true, nobody would be abused in a nuclear family household.

The problem and risk is that because step, blended and single parent families are more likely to have situations where there is stress, trauma, financial hardship, broken relationships and the introduction of outsiders etc which can lead to a situations where a child is at risk of neglect or abuse. We could address these individual issues to minimize the chances of children ending up in abusive situations which is relevant and needed. But I think this is the long way around and putting the cart before the horse.

No, it's refusing to blame people for having had an unfortunate relationship history, and dealing with the actual issues (stress, trauma, etc).

Why don't we address the root cause and prevent this happening in the first place by support stronger and stable families that don't breakup and can stay together if that is what the research is saying.

Nothing wrong with supporting families, but how would you do that? What's your practical suggestion, without being punitive?

But as the report says not acknowledging that there is a higher risk in the first place is the type of silence that leads to further abuse which is what we are trying to change.

I think making it all about "blended families" instead of the factors which can increase the risk of abuse in all families is scapegoating and putting the focus in the wrong place.

 

[stevevw]

Except that family setup is not the problem...

Why is that. Why does the article say that non traditional families put children at higher risk of abuse including sexual abuse.
The social changes of the recent decades have transformed the character of Australian families and placed larger numbers of children in non-traditional families at greater risk of maltreatment, including sexual abuse.
There must be certain factors that only happen or happen more in non traditional families.

The Royal Commission investigated sexual abuse in institutions; its terms of reference meant it didn't look at abuse in the home. (Which is what your linked report pointed out). So it didn't make any findings about family breakdown.

But the paper linked does. It cites references that show child abuse among non traditional families is mush higher. IE children in non-traditional families at greater risk of maltreatment, including sexual abuse.
Or this which directly links family structure and child well-being.
A public information campaign promoting a pro-responsibility, pro-marriage and pro-child message, and which draws attention to the facts about family structure and child well-being, would end the new silence that hides the culturally inconvenient truth about the family.
And
Numerous studies have found that children who do not live with both biological parents, irrespective of socioeconomic status, are far more likely to be sexually abused than their peers in intact families. In particular, girls living in non-traditional families are found to have been sexually abused by their ‘stepfathers,’ either the married, cohabiting or casual partner of a divorced or single mother, at many times the rate girls are sexually abused by their natural fathers in intact families.
https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2015/04/images/stories/issue-analysis/ia142.pdf

There are many studies which say the same thing. It cannot be denied
CDC study: Traditional, two-parent biological family the safest environment for children
A new study just released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals that children living in traditional, two-parent biological families are overwhelmingly safer than children living with just one biological parent or with non-parental caregivers.
CDC study: Traditional, two-parent biological family the safest environment for children

Yes, exactly. People don't abuse because they're in blended families. There are other issues which need teasing out.

Your missing the point. One of the major contributors of higher incidents of child abuse is the fact that it is committed by the new partner, the non-biological parent in the household. That only happens in blended families. Another major factor is that non-traditional and biological families have higher rates of breakdown and instability. This is not as big a factor in traditional families where both parents are married. So there are certain factors that only happen in non-traditional families that contribute to children being harmed that we need to acknowledge.

If that were true, nobody would be abused in a nuclear family household.

Why

No, it's refusing to blame people for having had an unfortunate relationship history, and dealing with the actual issues (stress, trauma, etc).

But it is the unfortunate relationship history that is contributing to the stress and trauma. To deal with the stress and trauma you have to minimize the poor family history. The poor family history has baggage that contributes to the stress which leads to the abuse of children. Dealing with the stress and trauma is important as this is immediate. But it does not deal with the root causes the breakdown of the traditional family which is found to be the best setup for kids.

Nothing wrong with supporting families, but how would you do that? What's your practical suggestion, without being punitive?

The government is already being punitive in how they treat certain family setups so I think we need to look at that first. When it comes to support across the board I am with you. It doesn't matter what the setup is if people are having issues they need support and we shouldn't make it harder for them on top of it already being hard enough.

I think I have already mentioned how we can address the issue of families. We first have to ask ourselves what we want to achieve. What sort of families we want and look at the research as we do with any topic. Not get personal and have agendas about what is best. Then start to educate and support people especially young people and parents in preparation for parenthood. The value of relationships, marriage and families. The importance of mothers and fathers. Especially fathers as it seems we have a crisis with absent fathers which is causing many young kids especially boys to go off the tracks.

Ie
Nearly three decades of research evaluating the impact of family structure on the health and well-being of children demonstrates that children living with their married, biological parents consistently have better physical, emotional, and academic well-being. Pediatricians and society should promote the family structure that has the best chance of producing healthy children. The best scientific literature to date suggests that, with the exception of parents faced with unresolvable marital violence, children fare better when parents work at maintaining the marriage. Consequently, society should make every effort to support healthy marriages and to discourage married couples from divorcing.
The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce

I think making it all about "blended families" instead of the factors which can increase the risk of abuse in all families is scapegoating and putting the focus in the wrong place.

No one is making it all about blended families. That is just one part of a number of issues under the topic of what family structure is best. Like easy divorce, fatherless families, the struggle of single mothers, the value of marriage, sexual relationships, the role of mothers and fathers and male and females, same sex marriage.

I agree we must look at any issues that families face. But a principle in problem solving is getting to the root of the problem. We need to be open to all aspects of the problem and not just deal with the end result such as the stress, trauma and financial hardship that may be caused by other reasons such as family structure making children more at risk. For example it has been a common understanding by most psychologists that single parents have more struggles and issues which affect children.

That's not saying that coupled families don't have these issues but rather that there is a higher incidence of it with single parents. Especially if we consider that we can perhaps minimize both situations not just bey address the end results but can work on changing the root causes through preventative strategies. The science doesn't care about feelings or subjective views. It deals in facts. If the research shows there is a problem then we should take note. Just like we would do if it was about child obesity. Pointing out that children are becoming more obese and this can cause many problems isn't picking on overweight kids. It is helping them.

 

[stevevw]

Are you suggesting that men should be more harshly treated for spousal abuse? Do you think this would reduce family breakups or are you suggesting that women should just accept the abuse for the sake of their children?

No I am saying we should be looking at why families breakup in the first place. Why men are abusive, why fathers leave the family home, why women want a divorce and begin to address those things so that families don't fall apart and create all these other family structures that are found to lead to further harm and problems. That may mean re-evaluating what a family is. What is important, educating people about parenting and lending support in the hard times rather than making it so easy to end up in situations that just end up falling apart and are so easy to end.

 

[FireDragon76]

Speaking about love. Fostering a child is a good way to give them a loving home with caring and loving parents. But most children who end up in foster care have been physically and sexually abused, neglected or abandoned. So why don't we work on the reasons why these children are traumatized in the first place and reduced this.

Research shows that the highest risk for poor child health and well-being is with separated families and that step families have a high risk of further abuse. The best way for children to have healthy development is with their two biological parents. So yes it is good that people can come in and save these poor children but how about minimizing and stopping the problem happening in the first place and supporting families to ensure they are prepared for children and can managed things when they do have children.

The best way for children is to stop imposing your vision of the good into other peoples lives. I am surprised that people that desire the respect of the wider society and are concerned about spreading a message they consider "Good News" can't understand this. Advancing an agenda like this through admittedly subtle denigration of human dignity is simply not acceptable.

 

[FireDragon76]

No I am saying we should be looking at why families breakup in the first place. Why men are abusive, why fathers leave the family home, why women want a divorce and begin to address those things so that families don't fall apart and create all these other family structures that are found to lead to further harm and problems. That may mean re-evaluating what a family is. What is important, educating people about parenting and lending support in the hard times rather than making it so easy to end up in situations that just end up falling apart and are so easy to end.

Economic factors are a significant reason. Deeply held, rigid ideologies that leave people emotionally immature are another.

 

[stevevw]

The best way for children is to stop imposing your vision of the good into other peoples lives. I am surprised that people that desire the respect of the wider society and are concerned about spreading a message they consider "Good News" can't understand this. Advancing an agenda like this through admittedly subtle denigration of human dignity is simply not acceptable.

What are you talking about.

 

[FireDragon76]

What are you talking about.

"Family values" are pushed by religious people for religious reasons. You think your family values are the best ,but not everybody sees it that way and it's wrong to think that other people will appreciate you denigrating their families, merely because it doesn't measure up to what your religion says is right.

 

[stevevw]

Economic factors are a significant reason. Deeply held, rigid ideologies that leave people emotionally immature are another.

What deeply rigid ideologies.

 

[FireDragon76]

What deeply rigid ideologies.

Like extremist religions.

 

[stevevw]

Family values are pushed by religious people for religious reasons. You think your family values are the best ,but not everybody sees it that way and it's wrong to think that other people will appreciate you denigrating their families, merely because it doesn't measure up to what your religion says is right.

I am not pushing my family values. Haven't you noticed the vast array of research data that has been posted. This is a common knowledge and recognized by most. No agenda, no religion, no nothing just research that shows what is best. Why is it that we can accept research on health like childhood obesity, women's health, men's mental illness but when it comes to families we suddenly attack the science. The research is done by no religious science.

 

[stevevw]

Like extremist religions.

And where is the extremist religion in all this. If saying that kids need a mum and dad is extreme religion then I haven't got the agenda.

 

[FireDragon76]

And where is the extremist religion in all this.

Religious fundamentalism divorced from humanism or honest scientific inquiry.

 

[FireDragon76]

I am not pushing my family values. Haven't you noticed the vast array of research data that has been posted.

Weaponizing science is neither ethically neutral nor is it something that hasn't happened before, with tragic results. So I'm unphased by people citing scientific data in a decontextualized manner.

This is a common knowledge and recognized by most. No agenda, no religion, no nothing just research that shows what is best. Why is it that we can accept research on health like childhood obesity, women's health, men's mental illness but when it comes to families we suddenly attack the science. The research is done by no religious science.

This is "scientism". Christians critique atheists for engaging in scientism, but that's exactly what you are doing. An is doesn't make an ought.

 

[stevevw]

Weaponizing science is neither ethically neutral nor is it something that hasn't happened before, with tragic results. So I'm unphased by people citing scientific data in a decontextualized manner.



This is "scientism". Christians critique atheists for engaging in scientism, but that's exactly what you are doing. An is doesn't make an ought.

I was anticipating the debate getting to a point where someone would attack the person or content. I think you will find that I have taken a balanced approach. IE support people/families as they are and where they are at. We need to consider all aspects and not just one. addressing the end results and the root causes. Taking a social justice approach #299 to the problem ie the system can sometimes be at fault and not the individual.

I even pointed out that I was not using the research in negative way when I mentioned

Yes that is the key, using research to be bigoted and discriminatory. That is a different thing and has a different motive which is destructive. Otherwise used in proper context research can be very helpful in identifying how we can find better ways to do things. Jesus hung with the outcast of society and actually condemned the Pharisees and high priests as hypocrites for looking down and judging people.

I not only said this I actually mentioned that I put this into practice by working with all sorts of families including single mothers and their kids and helping them where they are at practically to overcome their problems without forcing my beliefs on them. This was one of the reasons I started this thread as I was concerned and frustrated with the families I had worked with and that there were so many kids out there suffering as a result of having no dads. So your claims don't stand.

So do you think apart from supporting single parents where they are at do you think there is room in pointing out that children can be affected by single parenthood/being fatherless and therefore we must try to minimize this situation at maybe the policy or educational level..

 

[Lazarus Long]

No I am saying we should be looking at why families breakup in the first place. Why men are abusive, why fathers leave the family home, why women want a divorce and begin to address those things so that families don't fall apart and create all these other family structures that are found to lead to further harm and problems. That may mean re-evaluating what a family is. What is important, educating people about parenting and lending support in the hard times rather than making it so easy to end up in situations that just end up falling apart and are so easy to end.

Or perhaps convincing men that they are not superior, would that be good?

 

[FireDragon76]

So do you think apart from supporting single parents where they are at do you think there is room in pointing out that children can be affected by single parenthood/being fatherless and therefore we must try to minimize this situation at maybe the policy or educational level..

How would you do so without draconian measures that infringe on personal liberties and respect for actual human persons?

 

[Paidiske]

Why is that. Why does the article say that non traditional families put children at higher risk of abuse including sexual abuse.

Correlation isn't causation. Those families don't "put" children at higher risk, those families are at higher risk.

I think I have already mentioned how we can address the issue of families. We first have to ask ourselves what we want to achieve. What sort of families we want and look at the research as we do with any topic.

No, this is where I have a huge problem. It's not appropriate to try to "achieve" a particular type of household for others. Other people's life decisions aren't to be manipulated.

Part of the issue is that most people who are single parents are single parents because it was the best alternative they had; and trying to forcibly remove that alternative through policy or what-have-you is likely to force them into worse situations.

Like easy divorce, fatherless families, the struggle of single mothers, the value of marriage, sexual relationships, the role of mothers and fathers and male and females, same sex marriage.

If only we could go back to the days when divorce was hard, there was no escape from abusive fathers, marriage was a cage and gender roles were rigidly enforced...

No thanks. That is not a good prospect for many people, mostly women.

Pointing out that children are becoming more obese and this can cause many problems isn't picking on overweight kids. It is helping them.

It depends how you do it and what action you want to take.

 

[stevevw]

How would you do so without draconian measures that infringe on personal liberties and respect for actual human persons?

Already do, like I said supporting many families of all makeups but especially single parents (mum's) with children who are struggling with managing household and kids on their own. Lots of practical help like food, transport, housing, cloths, household items. Support for mental health, counselling, family support program, family and domestic violence support, child therapy, young parenting program and relationship counselling.

But I do not understand what you are implying. Are you saying that mentioning that certain family setups lead to more problems is being draconian.