Nearly One in Three American Children Live Without A Father

Via the Huffington Post:

The number of children living apart from their fathers has more than doubled in the last fifty years, from 11 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 2010.

That’s one of the key findings from a new report on fatherhood in the United the States that was released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends project — just in time for Father’s Day.

The findings paint a grim picture of many fathers’ lack of involvement in their children’s lives, using data from over 10,000 people to determine the percentage of “absent” or “non-resident” fathers in America, which the report defines as those who do not live with their children.

A decline in marriage rates may be partially to blame. In 1960, 72 percent of the adult population was married; that share had dropped to 52 percent by 2008. Eighty seven percent of children ages 17 and younger were living with two married parents in 1960 compared with 64 percent in 2008.

According to the report’s co-author Gretchen Livingston, an increase in divorce rates over the last half-century may also play a role.

Read More: Huffington Post

, , ,

  • http://twitter.com/MutinyNow Captain Guy

    Nearly one in three children live without a father. That’s nice. What about those families that are comprised of two mothers? How about those with two fathers? I grew up without a father and I turned out well enough – it’s all about HOW you are raised, not necessarily whom you are raised with. How many children are raised in households that HAVE a father, yet those men are abusive tyrants? You never hear anything about this.

    Studies such as this are geared toward the “traditional” family unit, and many of them are sponsored by the American Family Association and Focus on the Family. Food for thought.

    • SF2K01

      It is about how the child is raised, but statistically he’s better off in a two parent household. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a great single parent, but that’s the exception, not the rule. The jury is still out on two mothers/fathers versus a traditional set up.

      • Thoughts

        Those statistics are bullshit pseudostatistics mobilized by the religious right to promote family values as an alternative to progressive modern forms of social structure. Of course children are worse off in a household where a single mother doesn’t pull in enough money to take care of her kids and there are few to no accessible social services (compared to Europe). And since 2 x poverty >= poverty when one doesnt take into account economic factors it appears as though there is something magic about having a normative mother+father family, when after taking money into account it seems that access to sufficient resources is clearly the dominant factor. Based on demographics using the same statistics one could make similarly ideologically charged arguments such as children are better off with white parents, or better of never speaking spanish in the home, or are better off if they grew up frequently experiencing fine dining, or less susceptible to disease if they ride around in a Mercedes, etc… Also, the jury is not out on gay parents, everything has pointed to gay parents being clearly better. However this has a lot to do with the fact that gay parents often chose to start a family, whereas being straight parents even today is often an accident. We should be less concerned with how many children grow up without a father and more concerned with how many grow up without dinner, or grow up without an education, or grow up paranoid that they are going to be shot.   

        • SF2K01

          You’re still accepting that most people in the single parent situation are only in it because of some kind of trouble they’re in, and even in the situations where they are voluntary single parents things are still harder than if there were more than one. That’s not at all dependent on skin color or language.

          The jury is still out on gay parents specifically because of the issues you mentioned (like you said, compare apples to apples, not gay parents who take good care of a kid versus abusive parents). Parents who want their kids and have the ability to take care of them will always do better (unlike what you said, this is most parents). The question is on how you handle the situations that are not ideal and how much better or worse do those kids fare, and that’s where things start to break down for the other situations.

  • http://twitter.com/MutinyNow Captain Guy

    Nearly one in three children live without a father. That’s nice. What about those families that are comprised of two mothers? How about those with two fathers? I grew up without a father and I turned out well enough – it’s all about HOW you are raised, not necessarily whom you are raised with. How many children are raised in households that HAVE a father, yet those men are abusive tyrants? You never hear anything about this.

    Studies such as this are geared toward the “traditional” family unit, and many of them are sponsored by the American Family Association and Focus on the Family. Food for thought.

  • KxBk6U

    I think the courts play a big role in this absenteeism by giving all the power to the custodial parent who is most often the mother and none to the father. He is required to pay handsomely and on time. The mother is allowed to interfere with his “visitation” with his children and seldom cited with the contempt of court she has earned by doing so. Family courts don’t really care about providing stable lives for the divorced children in their care. They only care about getting money to the mother which generally speaking serves what the mother wants, too.

    • Pittsburgh

      If you put a child in this world, you are just as financially responsible as the mother is, who often, while being a single mother must work one or more jobs to pay the bills for two people, not to mention if she cares to continue an education.  I don’t get where some fathers get this mentality that they are the “fun parent” and get to just have the child for visitation and spend money on their time.  Yeah, that’s convenient and all and Dad sure does look good in the process, but that child also needs food on the table, toys to play with, clothes on his/her back, doctor’s bills, school fees, extracurricular activities, ad infinitum.  Oh, don’t get me started…”She’s spending my money…” smh I do agree that the mother should not always be considered the custodial parent, and I have seen frequent instances which have proved your rough generalization wrong.  I think more courts, not all, try to be more aware of that type of thing nowadays and if not, a good lawyer pays off.  

  • KxBk6U

    I think the courts play a big role in this absenteeism by giving all the power to the custodial parent who is most often the mother and none to the father. He is required to pay handsomely and on time. The mother is allowed to interfere with his “visitation” with his children and seldom cited with the contempt of court she has earned by doing so. Family courts don’t really care about providing stable lives for the divorced children in their care. They only care about getting money to the mother which generally speaking serves what the mother wants, too.

  • Me

    I believe this is a direct result of our “Welfare system”. Fathers have become expendable. Neither party needs to try anymore. It is also a direct result of the lack of God in our schools & society in general… There is no longer a need for a spiritual leader in the home anymore. Im sure there are other factors…but I believe those to be the 2 MAIN factors… Sad really… We keep feeding into the Lucipherian matrix… 

  • Me

    I believe this is a direct result of our “Welfare system”. Fathers have become expendable. Neither party needs to try anymore. It is also a direct result of the lack of God in our schools & society in general… There is no longer a need for a spiritual leader in the home anymore. Im sure there are other factors…but I believe those to be the 2 MAIN factors… Sad really… We keep feeding into the Lucipherian matrix… 

  • Anonymous

    It is about how the child is raised, but statistically he’s better off in a two parent household. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a great single parent, but that’s the exception, not the rule. The jury is still out on two mothers/fathers versus a traditional set up.

  • Thoughts

    Those statistics are bullshit pseudostatistics mobilized by the religious right to promote family values as an alternative to progressive modern forms of social structure. Of course children are worse off in a household where a single mother doesn’t pull in enough money to take care of her kids and there are few to no accessible social services (compared to Europe). And since 2 x poverty >= poverty when one doesnt take into account economic factors it appears as though there is something magic about having a normative mother+father family, when after taking money into account it seems that access to sufficient resources is clearly the dominant factor. Based on demographics using the same statistics one could make similarly ideologically charged arguments such as children are better off with white parents, or better of never speaking spanish in the home, or are better off if they grew up frequently experiencing fine dining, or less susceptible to disease if they ride around in a Mercedes, etc… Also, the jury is not out on gay parents, everything has pointed to gay parents being clearly better. However this has a lot to do with the fact that gay parents often chose to start a family, whereas being straight parents even today is often an accident. We should be less concerned with how many children grow up without a father and more concerned with how many grow up without dinner, or grow up without an education, or grow up paranoid that they are going to be shot.   

  • Ozzy

    Now that we people from broken homes out number those with their parents still married, makes us the normal ones,  and now they are the freaks.

  • Ozzy

    Now that we people from broken homes out number those with their parents still married, makes us the normal ones,  and now they are the freaks.

  • Trep59

    Just wanna say F U to Disinfo and HuffPo for posting this on Father’s Day.

  • Trep59

    Just wanna say F U to Disinfo and HuffPo for posting this on Father’s Day.

  • Bucadibethany

    Just because a dad doesn’t live with his child doesn’t mean he’s absent.

  • Bucadibethany

    Just because a dad doesn’t live with his child doesn’t mean he’s absent.

  • Pittsburgh

    If you put a child in this world, you are just as financially responsible as the mother is, who often, while being a single mother must work one or more jobs to pay the bills for two people, not to mention if she cares to continue an education.  I don’t get where some fathers get this mentality that they are the “fun parent” and get to just have the child for visitation and spend money on their time.  Yeah, that’s convenient and all and Dad sure does look good in the process, but that child also needs food on the table, toys to play with, clothes on his/her back, doctor’s bills, school fees, extracurricular activities, ad infinitum.  Oh, don’t get me started…”She’s spending my money…” smh I do agree that the mother should not always be considered the custodial parent, and I have seen frequent instances which have proved your rough generalization wrong.  I think more courts, not all, try to be more aware of that type of thing nowadays and if not, a good lawyer pays off.  

  • Anonymous

    MAAC is India’s leading educator in
    high-end 3D Animation and Visual effects. Founded in 2001, MAAC has trained
    over 30000 students across the country.

    http://www.bestpadhai.com/

     

    http://maacfaridabad.blogspot.com/

    9711226188

     

  • Anonymous

    MAAC is India’s leading educator in
    high-end 3D Animation and Visual effects. Founded in 2001, MAAC has trained
    over 30000 students across the country.

    http://www.bestpadhai.com/

     

    http://maacfaridabad.blogspot.com/

    9711226188

     

  • Anonymous

    You’re still accepting that most people in the single parent situation are only in it because of some kind of trouble they’re in, and even in the situations where they are voluntary single parents things are still harder than if there were more than one. That’s not at all dependent on skin color or language.

    The jury is still out on gay parents specifically because of the issues you mentioned (The idea that most straight parents only get their kids by accident is patently absurd and not worth weighing out). Parents who want their kids and have the ability to take care of them will always do better. The question is on how you handle the situations that are not ideal and how much better or worse do those kids fare, and that’s where things start to break down for the other situations.

  • Proud Dad

    most woman take the child and run when they are separated, expect the dad to pay but wont let him see the child, after many years finally the man gives up and then is told he never cared. the gun is always to the fathers head. a lot of woman trap the father, dont tell them they are pregnant until its too late. and yes the courts pretend they are for the child but really they want money from the father only so they dont have to pay the lazy mothers who want to sit on their fat asses and collect welfare. I know so many men who will not have kids or get married for this very reason.

  • Proud Dad

    most woman take the child and run when they are separated, expect the dad to pay but wont let him see the child, after many years finally the man gives up and then is told he never cared. the gun is always to the fathers head. a lot of woman trap the father, dont tell them they are pregnant until its too late. and yes the courts pretend they are for the child but really they want money from the father only so they dont have to pay the lazy mothers who want to sit on their fat asses and collect welfare. I know so many men who will not have kids or get married for this very reason.

21