Parents Who Separate Are Horrible

by Guest Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:23 pm

14th January 2014

Britain should be more “judgemental” and criticise parents who split up, a senior Conservative MP has said.

Family breakdown is costing the taxpayer tens of billions of pounds a year and people should not be afraid to condemn couples who separate, Sir Gerald Howarth said.

Cases such that of Raymond Hull, the drug-dealing father of 22 children by 11 women who was spared jail this week, are being seen on a smaller scale across the country – including in prosperous areas such as his seat of Aldershot in Hampshire, Sir Gerald said.

Bishops should spend less attacking Government welfare reforms and be “more vocal of their condemnation” of marital breakdown, he added. Traditional stay-at-home mothers have been "belittled for far too long", he added.

“The men who father these children seem to have absolutely no interest in bringing them up, let alone paying for them. We cannot afford to continue subsidising people who live these kind of dysfunctional lifestyles,” Sir Gerald, a former defence minister, said during a Westminster Hall debate in Parliament on supporting married couples.

He went on: “Am I being judgemental in an age when such approach is deemed inappropriate? Of course I’m being judgemental! For the sake of the country, we need to be judgmental. Besides, there are plenty of people who never cease to be judgmental about Members of Parliament.”

Research suggests children with separated parents are more likely to live in poverty, more likely to suffer from behavioural disorders and more likely to commit crime or abuse drugs, Sir Gerald said, costing the state £40bn a year.

He added: “Some will say that in a free society people should be entitled to live any lifestyle they want. However, overwhelmingly it is the taxpayer who is picking up the tab, so the state cannot be an idle bystander.”

The number of marriages fell since the Second World War to a 150-year low in 2009, but has picked up slightly in recent years.

In 2012 a record 47.5 per cent of children were born outside of marriage, up from 25 per cent in 1988 and 11 per cent in 1979. On current trends, more than half of babies will be born to unmarried parents by 2016.

The proportion of marriages that end in divorce has fallen since 2000, with more than a third breaking up before the 20th wedding anniversary. The decline is blamed on more people cohabiting before they marry, filtering out weak relationships.

Sir Edward Leigh, MP for Gainsborough, said family breakdown had become a “modern plague”.

He blamed a “conspiracy of silence” perpetrated by the Church, the BBC, Parliament and the Press that discouraged people from speaking up for marriage. It has left hundreds of thousands of children “living a tragic life,” he said.

“In our permissive society a view has grown up that people are happiest if they are totally liberated. It is about ‘me’,” he said. “We are told Britain has changed and we have to accept it but don’t we have a responsibility to speak out for what’s right?”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10572667/Actually-we-should-judge-separated-parents-say-Tory-MPs.html

by Guest Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:27 pm

If the parents are arguing and fighting, which then starts to become violent, then it's best for the kids that they separate imo.

by Guest Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:33 pm

Catman wrote:If the parents are arguing and fighting, which then starts to become violent, then it's best for the kids that they separate imo.

No, it's best to sort out what is wrong in the relationship, stop fighting, talk like adults.

And before popping babies out because you have nothing better to do, have a real relationship, think long and hard, get a job, grow up a lot!!!

by Irn Bru Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:40 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:14th January 2014

Britain should be more “judgemental” and criticise parents who split up, a senior Conservative MP has said.

Family breakdown is costing the taxpayer tens of billions of pounds a year and people should not be afraid to condemn couples who separate, Sir Gerald Howarth said.

Cases such that of Raymond Hull, the drug-dealing father of 22 children by 11 women who was spared jail this week, are being seen on a smaller scale across the country – including in prosperous areas such as his seat of Aldershot in Hampshire, Sir Gerald said.

Bishops should spend less attacking Government welfare reforms and be “more vocal of their condemnation” of marital breakdown, he added. Traditional stay-at-home mothers have been "belittled for far too long", he added.

“The men who father these children seem to have absolutely no interest in bringing them up, let alone paying for them. We cannot afford to continue subsidising people who live these kind of dysfunctional lifestyles,” Sir Gerald, a former defence minister, said during a Westminster Hall debate in Parliament on supporting married couples.

He went on: “Am I being judgemental in an age when such approach is deemed inappropriate? Of course I’m being judgemental! For the sake of the country, we need to be judgmental. Besides, there are plenty of people who never cease to be judgmental about Members of Parliament.”

Research suggests children with separated parents are more likely to live in poverty, more likely to suffer from behavioural disorders and more likely to commit crime or abuse drugs, Sir Gerald said, costing the state £40bn a year.

He added: “Some will say that in a free society people should be entitled to live any lifestyle they want. However, overwhelmingly it is the taxpayer who is picking up the tab, so the state cannot be an idle bystander.”

The number of marriages fell since the Second World War to a 150-year low in 2009, but has picked up slightly in recent years.

In 2012 a record 47.5 per cent of children were born outside of marriage, up from 25 per cent in 1988 and 11 per cent in 1979. On current trends, more than half of babies will be born to unmarried parents by 2016.

The proportion of marriages that end in divorce has fallen since 2000, with more than a third breaking up before the 20th wedding anniversary. The decline is blamed on more people cohabiting before they marry, filtering out weak relationships.

Sir Edward Leigh, MP for Gainsborough, said family breakdown had become a “modern plague”.

He blamed a “conspiracy of silence” perpetrated by the Church, the BBC, Parliament and the Press that discouraged people from speaking up for marriage. It has left hundreds of thousands of children “living a tragic life,” he said.

“In our permissive society a view has grown up that people are happiest if they are totally liberated. It is about ‘me’,” he said. “We are told Britain has changed and we have to accept it but don’t we have a responsibility to speak out for what’s right?”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10572667/Actually-we-should-judge-separated-parents-say-Tory-MPs.html

As usual with the Tories it's all about the money with not a thought about the children who may be caught up in an unhappy marriage. He really needs to look around his own party to find people to condemn and along the road at Buckingham Palace for people who split up.

What a clown

by Guest Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:46 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Catman wrote:If the parents are arguing and fighting, which then starts to become violent, then it's best for the kids that they separate imo.

No, it's best to sort out what is wrong in the relationship, stop fighting, talk like adults.

And before popping babies out because you have nothing better to do, have a real relationship, think long and hard, get a job, grow up a lot!!!

But if you have tried that, and that hasn't worked, then it's best to separate for the kids sake, one partner may have already moved on to another relationship, so then, there is nothing to save.

by Guest Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:48 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:14th January 2014

Britain should be more “judgemental” and criticise parents who split up, a senior Conservative MP has said.

Family breakdown is costing the taxpayer tens of billions of pounds a year and people should not be afraid to condemn couples who separate, Sir Gerald Howarth said.

Cases such that of Raymond Hull, the drug-dealing father of 22 children by 11 women who was spared jail this week, are being seen on a smaller scale across the country – including in prosperous areas such as his seat of Aldershot in Hampshire, Sir Gerald said.

Bishops should spend less attacking Government welfare reforms and be “more vocal of their condemnation” of marital breakdown, he added. Traditional stay-at-home mothers have been "belittled for far too long", he added.

“The men who father these children seem to have absolutely no interest in bringing them up, let alone paying for them. We cannot afford to continue subsidising people who live these kind of dysfunctional lifestyles,” Sir Gerald, a former defence minister, said during a Westminster Hall debate in Parliament on supporting married couples.

He went on: “Am I being judgemental in an age when such approach is deemed inappropriate? Of course I’m being judgemental! For the sake of the country, we need to be judgmental. Besides, there are plenty of people who never cease to be judgmental about Members of Parliament.”

Research suggests children with separated parents are more likely to live in poverty, more likely to suffer from behavioural disorders and more likely to commit crime or abuse drugs, Sir Gerald said, costing the state £40bn a year.

He added: “Some will say that in a free society people should be entitled to live any lifestyle they want. However, overwhelmingly it is the taxpayer who is picking up the tab, so the state cannot be an idle bystander.”

The number of marriages fell since the Second World War to a 150-year low in 2009, but has picked up slightly in recent years.

In 2012 a record 47.5 per cent of children were born outside of marriage, up from 25 per cent in 1988 and 11 per cent in 1979. On current trends, more than half of babies will be born to unmarried parents by 2016.

The proportion of marriages that end in divorce has fallen since 2000, with more than a third breaking up before the 20th wedding anniversary. The decline is blamed on more people cohabiting before they marry, filtering out weak relationships.

Sir Edward Leigh, MP for Gainsborough, said family breakdown had become a “modern plague”.

He blamed a “conspiracy of silence” perpetrated by the Church, the BBC, Parliament and the Press that discouraged people from speaking up for marriage. It has left hundreds of thousands of children “living a tragic life,” he said.

“In our permissive society a view has grown up that people are happiest if they are totally liberated. It is about ‘me’,” he said. “We are told Britain has changed and we have to accept it but don’t we have a responsibility to speak out for what’s right?”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10572667/Actually-we-should-judge-separated-parents-say-Tory-MPs.html

As usual with the Tories it's all about the money with not a thought about the children who may be caught up in an unhappy marriage. He really needs to look around his own party to find people to condemn and along the road at Buckingham Palace for people who split up.

What a clown

Yea.

A load of out of touch clowns running the country, fuck the poor again and all that.

Twisted Evil

by Clarkson Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:50 pm

Popping out babies doesn't require relationships of any sort. Many choose to have children to be eligible for housing benefits etc.

Scatman is a big believer that those who have children to get benefits should be rewarded and encouraged. It has nothing at all to do with his concerns for childrens welfare.

by Guest Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:54 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:14th January 2014

Britain should be more “judgemental” and criticise parents who split up, a senior Conservative MP has said.

Family breakdown is costing the taxpayer tens of billions of pounds a year and people should not be afraid to condemn couples who separate, Sir Gerald Howarth said.

Cases such that of Raymond Hull, the drug-dealing father of 22 children by 11 women who was spared jail this week, are being seen on a smaller scale across the country – including in prosperous areas such as his seat of Aldershot in Hampshire, Sir Gerald said.

Bishops should spend less attacking Government welfare reforms and be “more vocal of their condemnation” of marital breakdown, he added. Traditional stay-at-home mothers have been "belittled for far too long", he added.

“The men who father these children seem to have absolutely no interest in bringing them up, let alone paying for them. We cannot afford to continue subsidising people who live these kind of dysfunctional lifestyles,” Sir Gerald, a former defence minister, said during a Westminster Hall debate in Parliament on supporting married couples.

He went on: “Am I being judgemental in an age when such approach is deemed inappropriate? Of course I’m being judgemental! For the sake of the country, we need to be judgmental. Besides, there are plenty of people who never cease to be judgmental about Members of Parliament.”

Research suggests children with separated parents are more likely to live in poverty, more likely to suffer from behavioural disorders and more likely to commit crime or abuse drugs, Sir Gerald said, costing the state £40bn a year.

He added: “Some will say that in a free society people should be entitled to live any lifestyle they want. However, overwhelmingly it is the taxpayer who is picking up the tab, so the state cannot be an idle bystander.”

The number of marriages fell since the Second World War to a 150-year low in 2009, but has picked up slightly in recent years.

In 2012 a record 47.5 per cent of children were born outside of marriage, up from 25 per cent in 1988 and 11 per cent in 1979. On current trends, more than half of babies will be born to unmarried parents by 2016.

The proportion of marriages that end in divorce has fallen since 2000, with more than a third breaking up before the 20th wedding anniversary. The decline is blamed on more people cohabiting before they marry, filtering out weak relationships.

Sir Edward Leigh, MP for Gainsborough, said family breakdown had become a “modern plague”.

He blamed a “conspiracy of silence” perpetrated by the Church, the BBC, Parliament and the Press that discouraged people from speaking up for marriage. It has left hundreds of thousands of children “living a tragic life,” he said.

“In our permissive society a view has grown up that people are happiest if they are totally liberated. It is about ‘me’,” he said. “We are told Britain has changed and we have to accept it but don’t we have a responsibility to speak out for what’s right?”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10572667/Actually-we-should-judge-separated-parents-say-Tory-MPs.html

As usual with the Tories it's all about the money with not a thought about the children who may be caught up in an unhappy marriage. He really needs to look around his own party to find people to condemn and along the road at Buckingham Palace for people who split up.

What a clown

No, it is the Tories who are trying to intervene Iron.

It is the greedy immature "me, me, me" people who pop out these kids without thinking about marriage and responsibility.

by Guest Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:56 pm

Clarkson wrote:Popping out babies doesn't require relationships of any sort. Many choose to have children to be eligible for housing benefits etc.

Scatman is a big believer that those who have children to get benefits should be rewarded and encouraged. It has nothing at all to do with his concerns for childrens welfare.

Fartson, you don't have to have children, to be eligible for housing benefits etc...The award of benefits like housing are based on need.

I read that Ed, on winning the next election, will increase the benefits for those that have paid into the system! cheers

by Guest Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:59 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

As usual with the Tories it's all about the money with not a thought about the children who may be caught up in an unhappy marriage. He really needs to look around his own party to find people to condemn and along the road at Buckingham Palace for people who split up.

What a clown

No, it is the Tories who are trying to intervene Iron.

It is the greedy immature "me, me, me" people who pop out these kids without thinking about marriage and responsibility.

Why do you keep on changing posters user tags?

by Irn Bru Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:00 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

As usual with the Tories it's all about the money with not a thought about the children who may be caught up in an unhappy marriage. He really needs to look around his own party to find people to condemn and along the road at Buckingham Palace for people who split up.

What a clown

No, it is the Tories who are trying to intervene Iron.

It is the greedy immature "me, me, me" people who pop out these kids without thinking about marriage and responsibility.

The Tory guy is just thinking of the money Andy. They don't care about the kids.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:11 am

The brutal fact is that research by both left wing and right wing groups consistently shows that children born to couples that remain together on whole do better than those whose parents separate - and that includes parents that argue all the time. Much to the surprise of some researchers they have found that the area of unhappy parental relationships splitting up where children benefit is actually very small and is limited to outright abusive conditions. Children are happier and more secure with 2 bickering parents than a single happy one.

This does not of course apply to all individual cases - any individual case can and will be trotted out to try and prove the research wrong but when numbers are taken into account the best bet for children is for their parents to stay together.

There is completely separate research that shows couples formally and legally married are much more likely to stay together than couples living together.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:15 am

Just for evidence purposes here is a recent article from the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/18/right-school-parents-staying-together-children

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:23 am

sphinx wrote:The brutal fact is that research by both left wing and right wing groups consistently shows that children born to couples that remain together on whole do better than those whose parents separate - and that includes parents that argue all the time. Much to the surprise of some researchers they have found that the area of unhappy parental relationships splitting up where children benefit is actually very small and is limited to outright abusive conditions. Children are happier and more secure with 2 bickering parents than a single happy one.

This does not of course apply to all individual cases - any individual case can and will be trotted out to try and prove the research wrong but when numbers are taken into account the best bet for children is for their parents to stay together.

There is completely separate research that shows couples formally and legally married are much more likely to stay together than couples living together.

So, just to give an example, if you knew that your husband was shagging around behind your back, would you stay with him for the sake of the kids?

Stiff upper lip and all that?

I really don't think that arguing and fighting in front of the kids is good for them, of course, if you live in a big enough house, and then you can go off to another part of the house to argue etc... without your kids being able to hear!....Then jolly good and all that!

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:29 am

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:The brutal fact is that research by both left wing and right wing groups consistently shows that children born to couples that remain together on whole do better than those whose parents separate - and that includes parents that argue all the time. Much to the surprise of some researchers they have found that the area of unhappy parental relationships splitting up where children benefit is actually very small and is limited to outright abusive conditions. Children are happier and more secure with 2 bickering parents than a single happy one.

This does not of course apply to all individual cases - any individual case can and will be trotted out to try and prove the research wrong but when numbers are taken into account the best bet for children is for their parents to stay together.

There is completely separate research that shows couples formally and legally married are much more likely to stay together than couples living together.

So, just to give an example, if you knew that your husband was shagging around behind your back, would you stay with him for the sake of the kids?

Stiff upper lip and all that?

I really don't think that arguing and fighting in front of the kids is good for them, of course, if you live in a big enough house, and then you can go off to another part of the house to argue etc... without your kids being able to hear!....Then jolly good and all that!

No no no.

It shouldn't get to the stage of "your husband shagging behind your back".

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:32 am

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:The brutal fact is that research by both left wing and right wing groups consistently shows that children born to couples that remain together on whole do better than those whose parents separate - and that includes parents that argue all the time. Much to the surprise of some researchers they have found that the area of unhappy parental relationships splitting up where children benefit is actually very small and is limited to outright abusive conditions. Children are happier and more secure with 2 bickering parents than a single happy one.

This does not of course apply to all individual cases - any individual case can and will be trotted out to try and prove the research wrong but when numbers are taken into account the best bet for children is for their parents to stay together.

There is completely separate research that shows couples formally and legally married are much more likely to stay together than couples living together.

So, just to give an example, if you knew that your husband was shagging around behind your back, would you stay with him for the sake of the kids?

Stiff upper lip and all that?

I really don't think that arguing and fighting in front of the kids is good for them, of course, if you live in a big enough house, and then you can go off to another part of the house to argue etc... without your kids being able to hear!....Then jolly good and all that!

Whether or not I would is not the question - the question is what would be better for the children and that would be for me to stay. It is not about size of house or income phil evidence consistently suggests that children have a better outcome if they listen to their parents bicker every night but the parents stay together than if the children have total peace but separated parents.

I know the results are counter intuitive but this is research done by the left wing sponsored organizations as well as the right wing ones and church ones - it does not matter who does the research the results are always the same.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:33 am

BigAndy9 wrote:
Catman wrote:

So, just to give an example, if you knew that your husband was shagging around behind your back, would you stay with him for the sake of the kids?

Stiff upper lip and all that?

I really don't think that arguing and fighting in front of the kids is good for them, of course, if you live in a big enough house, and then you can go off to another part of the house to argue etc... without your kids being able to hear!....Then jolly good and all that!

No no no.

It shouldn't get to the stage of "your husband shagging behind your back".

If your wife was shagging behind you back, and you had kids, would you put up with that for the sake of your kids?

You like to purvey yourself as Mr Macho Man Laughing

....Can't see you putting up with a situation like that tbf!

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:36 am

....Many women do put up with that for a while....Have they been cutting the women's refruge's yet....Of course, the Victorian way, was always to put up with such crap.

Twisted Evil

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:44 am

Catman wrote:....Many women do put up with that for a while....Have they been cutting the women's refruge's yet....Of course, the Victorian way, was always to put up with such crap.

JD no womens refuge has ever accepted someone just because the husband was cheating. Cheating is nasty but it is a long way from abuse and there is a hell of a lot of steps between finding your partner is unfaithful and splitting up.

Like I have said research consistently shows that the children would be happier and suffer less if the partner being cheated on kept the relationship together. It depends on whether people want to put their children first.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:50 am

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:....Many women do put up with that for a while....Have they been cutting the women's refruge's yet....Of course, the Victorian way, was always to put up with such crap.

JD no womens refuge has ever accepted someone just because the husband was cheating. Cheating is nasty but it is a long way from abuse and there is a hell of a lot of steps between finding your partner is unfaithful and splitting up.

Like I have said research consistently shows that the children would be happier and suffer less if the partner being cheated on kept the relationship together. It depends on whether people want to put their children first.

With all due respect to JD, i'm not him. Rolling Eyes

I have already said that any couple should try to work their problems out, prior to separation, it would depend on the level of abuse etc...If there is no second party involved, then there would be a chance of saving the relationship.

Perhaps, when there is a second party involved, and you have tried to save your relationship to no avail, then the best thing that you can do is to split, for your own mental health and that of your children.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:58 am

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

JD no womens refuge has ever accepted someone just because the husband was cheating. Cheating is nasty but it is a long way from abuse and there is a hell of a lot of steps between finding your partner is unfaithful and splitting up.

Like I have said research consistently shows that the children would be happier and suffer less if the partner being cheated on kept the relationship together. It depends on whether people want to put their children first.

With all due respect to JD, i'm not him.

I have already said that any couple should try to work their problems out, prior to separation, it would depend on the level of abuse etc...If their is no second party involved, then there would be a chance of saving the relationship.

Perhaps, when there is a second party involved, and you have tried to save your relationship to no avail, then the best thing that you can do is to split, for your own mental health and that of your children.

Apologies phil I am having a fuzzy head day - I keep mixing everyones name up.

To be honest infidelity is far from the most difficult problem for couples to overcome and nowhere near the worst abuse. Many many couples are able to work through infidelity where they cannot work through other issues.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:14 am

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

With all due respect to JD, i'm not him.

I have already said that any couple should try to work their problems out, prior to separation, it would depend on the level of abuse etc...If their is no second party involved, then there would be a chance of saving the relationship.

Perhaps, when there is a second party involved, and you have tried to save your relationship to no avail, then the best thing that you can do is to split, for your own mental health and that of your children.

Apologies phil I am having a fuzzy head day - I keep mixing everyones name up.

To be honest infidelity is far from the most difficult problem for couples to overcome and nowhere near the worst abuse. Many many couples are able to work through infidelity where they cannot work through other issues.

Agreed!

Doug and i have worked through infidelity, in our earlier years, and won through....But i would suppose that it was easier for us to do, as there wasn't any kids involved.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:02 am

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

So, just to give an example, if you knew that your husband was shagging around behind your back, would you stay with him for the sake of the kids?

Stiff upper lip and all that?

I really don't think that arguing and fighting in front of the kids is good for them, of course, if you live in a big enough house, and then you can go off to another part of the house to argue etc... without your kids being able to hear!....Then jolly good and all that!

Whether or not I would is not the question - the question is what would be better for the children and that would be for me to stay. It is not about size of house or income phil evidence consistently suggests that children have a better outcome if they listen to their parents bicker every night but the parents stay together than if the children have total peace but separated parents.

I know the results are counter intuitive but this is research done by the left wing sponsored organizations as well as the right wing ones and church ones - it does not matter who does the research the results are always the same.

forget infidelity
What if he or she
What if one or both where physically abusive to each other or the kids
Unfortunately a growing problem I think
Each case is different

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:55 am

Korben Dallas wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Whether or not I would is not the question - the question is what would be better for the children and that would be for me to stay. It is not about size of house or income phil evidence consistently suggests that children have a better outcome if they listen to their parents bicker every night but the parents stay together than if the children have total peace but separated parents.

I know the results are counter intuitive but this is research done by the left wing sponsored organizations as well as the right wing ones and church ones - it does not matter who does the research the results are always the same.
forget infidelity
What if he or she
What if one or both where physically abusive to each other or the kids
Unfortunately a growing problem I think
Each case is different

Actual definite abuse is the only area where children do show better outcomes if parents split up. However this is being muddied slightly with the expansion of the definition of abuse - it used to be just physical but has been extended to include emotional and financial and while I totally agree that emotional and financial abuse do happen and are abuse they are far more loosely defined than physical so that soemthing like arguing in front of the children is classed as abuse. Arguing in front of children is not abuse - and can actually help them especially if the parties involved apologise afterward - because it lets children learn that conflict is not necessarily the end of everything, that a secure loving couple can be angry with one another over one thing but still love each other for themselves and can stay together being just as loving.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:02 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

As usual with the Tories it's all about the money with not a thought about the children who may be caught up in an unhappy marriage. He really needs to look around his own party to find people to condemn and along the road at Buckingham Palace for people who split up.

Exactly my thoughts as I was reading through this.

What a clown

No, it is the Tories who are trying to intervene Iron.

Isn't it ironic that Tories scream about government intervention, yet are the first to interfere in private lives if it doesn't meet with their precise tastes.

It is the greedy immature "me, me, me" people who pop out these kids without thinking about marriage and responsibility.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:07 pm

I do keep trying to tell everyone that the political choice is no longer between left and right - the differences between them are growing smaller all the time (that is difference between what they do not what they say - remember ESA and WCA are inventions of the last Labour government)

The choice now is big government which all major political parties are examples of, or small government offered by some of the new upcoming parties like UKIP.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:29 pm

sphinx wrote:
Korben Dallas wrote:
forget infidelity
What if he or she
What if one or both where physically abusive to each other or the kids
Unfortunately a growing problem I think
Each case is different

Actual definite abuse is the only area where children do show better outcomes if parents split up. However this is being muddied slightly with the expansion of the definition of abuse - it used to be just physical but has been extended to include emotional and financial and while I totally agree that emotional and financial abuse do happen and are abuse they are far more loosely defined than physical so that soemthing like arguing in front of the children is classed as abuse. Arguing in front of children is not abuse - and can actually help them especially if the parties involved apologise afterward - because it lets children learn that conflict is not necessarily the end of everything, that a secure loving couple can be angry with one another over one thing but still love each other for themselves and can stay together being just as loving.

This question is dependent on proving "good," something that is difficult if not impossible. You say: "evidence consistently suggests that children have a better outcome..." Better than what, and how do you know? If you are doing this on a quantitative basis, you've got to operationalize that concept of better outcome. It's like happiness or good will...there is wide disagreement. The individual psyche is hugely complex. Is a better outcome a more disciplined person...or a more self-satisfied person...or fewer run-ins with the law...or makes more money, or, say, more religious?? I don't think you can just say, better outcome..

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Actual definite abuse is the only area where children do show better outcomes if parents split up. However this is being muddied slightly with the expansion of the definition of abuse - it used to be just physical but has been extended to include emotional and financial and while I totally agree that emotional and financial abuse do happen and are abuse they are far more loosely defined than physical so that soemthing like arguing in front of the children is classed as abuse. Arguing in front of children is not abuse - and can actually help them especially if the parties involved apologise afterward - because it lets children learn that conflict is not necessarily the end of everything, that a secure loving couple can be angry with one another over one thing but still love each other for themselves and can stay together being just as loving.

This question is dependent on proving "good," something that is difficult if not impossible. You say: "evidence consistently suggests that children have a better outcome..." Better than what, and how do you know? If you are doing this on a quantitative basis, you've got to operationalize that concept of better outcome. It's like happiness or good will...there is wide disagreement. The individual psyche is hugely complex. Is a better outcome a more disciplined person...or a more self-satisfied person...or fewer run-ins with the law...or makes more money, or, say, more religious?? I don't think you can just say, better outcome..

I am referring to the conclusions duplicated in multiple studies done by both left sponsored and right sponsored agencies.

Children whose parents stay together in a stable family unit have higher education results, lower criminality, less mental illness, and rate their adults lives as happier. This is found again and again and again when studies have studiously taken into account all other factors such as religion geography income and any other variable you care to mention.

Better outcome means more likely to do well at school, more likely to be successful at work, more likely to rate their lives as happy, less likely to be diagnosed with a mental illness, less likely to have a criminal record.

If the experts on both sides can use better outcome I think I can too.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:53 pm

Sphinx...what do you suggest I should have done...I was the victim of abuse......because my personal code of honour forbids striking a woman., and she played on that.....

Now..should I have just "put up with it"

should I have retaliated, which would most likely have resulted in severe injury to her

or did i do right by simply walking away from such an explosive situation

bear in mind Also that although slightly...and i do mean slightly....better nowadays....

THEN the woman was always in the right in that sort of situation...the authorities were NOT interested in the mens side of things....

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:02 pm

grumpy old git wrote:Sphinx...what do you suggest I should have done...I was the victim of abuse......because my personal code of honour forbids striking a woman., and she played on that.....

Now..should I have just "put up with it"

should I have retaliated, which would most likely have resulted in severe injury to her

or did i do right by simply walking away from such an explosive situation

bear in mind Also that although slightly...and i do mean slightly....better nowadays....

THEN the woman was always in the right in that sort of situation...the authorities were NOT interested in the mens side of things....

When it is abuse you walk away - as I keep repeating the research showing children are better if parents stay together make it clear the only time this is not true is when there is clear abuse.

I just want to make it clear that nightly arguments that do not result in violence and where the opponents are equal in power are not abuse. When research was first done it was widely expected that the results would show that children whose parents were conflicted would be better with the parents separating - that they would prefer one happy parent to 2 miserable ones - and the results showed the opposite and have consistently done so.

Repeat there is no reason or excuse to stay in abusive relationship and it is better for children to leave an abusive relationship but in all other cases it is best for the children for the parents to remain together even if doing so is not the happiest thing for the parents.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:03 pm

Sphinx, do you not believe in emotional abuse?

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:07 pm

Original Quill wrote:Sphinx, do you not believe in emotional abuse?

Yes I do.

I just do not agree in full with the definitions being used by some authorities in the UK who consider a relationship to be abusive if the couple have a raised voice slammed door argument once in while. There have been cases of children being taken into care because social workers suspected that at some undetermined point in the future the parents would fight and so have declared the child to be in danger of suffering emotional abuse.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:18 pm

sphinx wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Sphinx, do you not believe in emotional abuse?

Yes I do.

I just do not agree in full with the definitions being used by some authorities in the UK who consider a relationship to be abusive if the couple have a raised voice slammed door argument once in while. There have been cases of children being taken into care because social workers suspected that at some undetermined point in the future the parents would fight and so have declared the child to be in danger of suffering emotional abuse.

I do believe that when you move into the realm of emotional abuse, we get a lot more push back because it tends to be the woman's art. As an attorney I've witnessed a lot of family disputes, and emotionally women tend to be the stirrers. That doesn't justify the transition to physical abuse, but it is cause to get out of there before it turns physical...man or woman.

There is a definite pattern there, and unless it is heeded there's trouble ahead.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:21 pm

All debates on this will be association fallacies, because you will find good single parents and good couple parents, what is found in those who are good parents is they are loving and care for their children first. So to say whether they are single or a couple is pointless when the main reasons to good parenting are obvious to say the least.

I understand how people are to easily breaking up these days and do not work at marriage for example there is some merit to that view point, but sometimes it is also better for parents to split for the benefit of the children as them staying together can and does make it worse.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:24 pm

PhilDidge wrote:All debates on this will be association fallacies, because you will find good single parents and good couple parents, what is found in those who are good parents is they are loving and care for their children first. So to say whether they are single or a couple is pointless when the main reasons to good parenting are obvious to say the least.

I understand how people are to easily breaking up these days and do not work at marriage for example there is some merit to that view point, but sometimes it is also better for parents to split for the benefit of the children as them staying together can and does make it worse.

Good point. Relationships take work.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:26 pm

Original Quill wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:All debates on this will be association fallacies, because you will find good single parents and good couple parents, what is found in those who are good parents is they are loving and care for their children first. So to say whether they are single or a couple is pointless when the main reasons to good parenting are obvious to say the least.

I understand how people are to easily breaking up these days and do not work at marriage for example there is some merit to that view point, but sometimes it is also better for parents to split for the benefit of the children as them staying together can and does make it worse.

Good point. Relationships take work.

Exactly Quill it does take work, I just find such views on single or couple parents seek to form a blame on them as a group of people which in my view is unjustified as there are plenty of good single parents as there are parents who are couples!

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:30 pm

PhilDidge wrote:All debates on this will be association fallacies, because you will find good single parents and good couple parents, what is found in those who are good parents is they are loving and care for their children first. So to say whether they are single or a couple is pointless when the main reasons to good parenting are obvious to say the least.

I understand how people are to easily breaking up these days and do not work at marriage for example there is some merit to that view point, but sometimes it is also better for parents to split for the benefit of the children as them staying together can and does make it worse.

Didge that is what a lot of the researchers started out assuming and time and again the research indicates otherwise. Yes there are individual exceptions, there always are but research indicates that relationship break-up has a basic elemental effect on children no matter how good the parenting is.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:35 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:All debates on this will be association fallacies, because you will find good single parents and good couple parents, what is found in those who are good parents is they are loving and care for their children first. So to say whether they are single or a couple is pointless when the main reasons to good parenting are obvious to say the least.

I understand how people are to easily breaking up these days and do not work at marriage for example there is some merit to that view point, but sometimes it is also better for parents to split for the benefit of the children as them staying together can and does make it worse.

Didge that is what a lot of the researchers started out assuming and time and again the research indicates otherwise. Yes there are individual exceptions, there always are but research indicates that relationship break-up has a basic elemental effect on children no matter how good the parenting is.

No all you have concluded is by a ratio of examples they have taken, which is not in anyway an example of how every family lives. They take a mean average from their examples and again set the parameters to what they conclude is a failed family. That is not conclusive, is in many ways quite psuedo to be honest in my view and it does not explain those single parents who do raise their children well on their own. This clearly there are thus many factors on why some children are failed, it is not down to just a single factor

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:38 pm

Nobody has said relationships are easy or dont take work.

Nowhere have I tried to paint any parental group as better or worse than any other.

I am simply declaring the overwhelming weight of evidence that shows the best thing a couple can do for their children is stay together. The best either can manage apart will not be as good as they can achieve together

Excepting of course abuse.

The trouble is too many parents who want to separate for their own personal reasons want to be assured that doing so will not hurt the children and they will reason by dint of the wonderful single parents that do exist and the crappy couple parents that also exist that breaking up wont harm their children than much. They are fooling themselves.

I work bloody hard to minimize the effect of my marriage break up on my kids and so does my ex but I have to accept that however well we do they would have been better if we had kept together.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:47 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Didge that is what a lot of the researchers started out assuming and time and again the research indicates otherwise. Yes there are individual exceptions, there always are but research indicates that relationship break-up has a basic elemental effect on children no matter how good the parenting is.

No all you have concluded is by a ratio of examples they have taken, which is not in anyway an example of how every family lives. They take a mean average from their examples and again set the parameters to what they conclude is a failed family. That is not conclusive, is in many ways quite psuedo to be honest in my view and it does not explain those single parents who do raise their children well on their own. This clearly there are thus many factors on why some children are failed, it is not down to just a single factor

Deny it all you like didge - fault it all you like. The criticisms and fault finding have all been done before and studies set up to compensate and they come back the same way. It is accepted by both Guardianistas and DM fanatics.

Any couple considering splitting up should accept that their children have better chances if they stay together.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:47 pm

What overwhelming evidence?

Again it is selective research onto selective families, when all families are very different.

Your belief in the research is what is unfounded to be honest, as there are many factors for how children are failed. It is as bad an argument on the claim of gays not being able to being parents due to some daft notion you need a mother figure to raise a child and men are incapable of raising children.

I already said in some cases it is better for couples to part, but in some cases it is not and that some just do not work hard enough to keep together. My theory is once an argument has allowed to go unresolved, suddenly any small matter becomes a problem of which never was a problem before and that if that first situation had been resolved none of these other problems would occur. People never tend to resolve issue's they make up but never really resolve them, hence why many breakups happen today

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:50 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

No all you have concluded is by a ratio of examples they have taken, which is not in anyway an example of how every family lives. They take a mean average from their examples and again set the parameters to what they conclude is a failed family. That is not conclusive, is in many ways quite psuedo to be honest in my view and it does not explain those single parents who do raise their children well on their own. This clearly there are thus many factors on why some children are failed, it is not down to just a single factor

Deny it all you like didge - fault it all you like. The criticisms and fault finding have all been done before and studies set up to compensate and they come back the same way. It is accepted by both Guardianistas and DM fanatics.

Any couple considering splitting up should accept that their children have better chances if they stay together.

Deny what, it is flawed research from the start, as there are countless reasons behind problematic children or children neglected.

Not every couple should consider staying together as stated it makes matters far worse as the anger between two parents can be unsolvable and unbearable for the children

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:57 pm

sphinx wrote:Nobody has said relationships are easy or dont take work.

Nowhere have I tried to paint any parental group as better or worse than any other.

I am simply declaring the overwhelming weight of evidence that shows the best thing a couple can do for their children is stay together. The best either can manage apart will not be as good as they can achieve together

Excepting of course abuse.

The trouble is too many parents who want to separate for their own personal reasons want to be assured that doing so will not hurt the children and they will reason by dint of the wonderful single parents that do exist and the crappy couple parents that also exist that breaking up wont harm their children than much. They are fooling themselves.

I work bloody hard to minimize the effect of my marriage break up on my kids and so does my ex but I have to accept that however well we do they would have been better if we had kept together.

Hi Sphinx x

People separate for all kinds of reasons. It's about being an adult and putting children first which clearly you and your ex are doing. Staying together for the sake of children rarely works, they're not daft; they can sense tension even if they don't witness the arguments.

Better to move on and continue to raise your children "together" as a parental unit albeit in separate homes. Once people have kids they are connected forever, like it or not.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:59 pm

sphinx wrote:Just for evidence purposes here is a recent article from the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/18/right-school-parents-staying-together-children

This is however not the case where domestic abuse is a factor. Witnessing even hearing domestic abuse is know to have a very detrimental effect on children.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:02 pm

Christ didge go look into it yourself - the studies have been done in multiple countries and involve millions of families and children from all sectors of society - other factors are examined and checked and again and again the results repeat.

It is nothing about mother figures and men cant raise children it is about the fact that firstly children take a huge amount of their security from the primary relationship in their life be it daddy mummy, mummy mummy, or daddy daddy. The idea that such an essential central thing in their lives can be broken has an unavoidable impact - there is increasing evidence that even children who are adults are significantly adversely affected by the failure of their parents relationship. Secondly raising a child is simply the most complex challenging task any of us will every undertake - and it is not a one person job.

I am not claiming what is better for couples I am saying what will the children the best chance. It wont guarantee anything it just increases chances - like you have a better chance of winning the race if your shoe laces are done up - having them undone does not guarantee you will not win, neither does having them done up guarantee you will win - it just increases your chances.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:05 pm

feelthelove wrote:
sphinx wrote:Nobody has said relationships are easy or dont take work.

Nowhere have I tried to paint any parental group as better or worse than any other.

I am simply declaring the overwhelming weight of evidence that shows the best thing a couple can do for their children is stay together. The best either can manage apart will not be as good as they can achieve together

Excepting of course abuse.

The trouble is too many parents who want to separate for their own personal reasons want to be assured that doing so will not hurt the children and they will reason by dint of the wonderful single parents that do exist and the crappy couple parents that also exist that breaking up wont harm their children than much. They are fooling themselves.

I work bloody hard to minimize the effect of my marriage break up on my kids and so does my ex but I have to accept that however well we do they would have been better if we had kept together.

Hi Sphinx x

People separate for all kinds of reasons. It's about being an adult and putting children first which clearly you and your ex are doing. Staying together for the sake of children rarely works, they're not daft; they can sense tension even if they don't witness the arguments.

Better to move on and continue to raise your children "together" as a parental unit albeit in separate homes. Once people have kids they are connected forever, like it or not.

Sorry FTL - the evidence says otherwise. The evidence says children are more likely to stay in education get better grades not develop mental illness and not turn to crime if their parents stay together.

I know it sounds unbelievable but the studies have been done so many times in so many countries by so many different groups and they all show the same results.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:08 pm

NemsAgain wrote:
sphinx wrote:Just for evidence purposes here is a recent article from the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/18/right-school-parents-staying-together-children

This is however not the case where domestic abuse is a factor. Witnessing even hearing domestic abuse is know to have a very detrimental effect on children.

Yes I have repeatedly said the only time that children show benefit from parents separating is in the case of abuse. If there is abuse people should split up immediately. It is the cases where there is not abuse the children have a better chance if the parents stay together.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:09 pm

sphinx wrote:Christ didge go look into it yourself - the studies have been done in multiple countries and involve millions of families and children from all sectors of society - other factors are examined and checked and again and again the results repeat.

It is nothing about mother figures and men cant raise children it is about the fact that firstly children take a huge amount of their security from the primary relationship in their life be it daddy mummy, mummy mummy, or daddy daddy. The idea that such an essential central thing in their lives can be broken has an unavoidable impact - there is increasing evidence that even children who are adults are significantly adversely affected by the failure of their parents relationship. Secondly raising a child is simply the most complex challenging task any of us will every undertake - and it is not a one person job.

I am not claiming what is better for couples I am saying what will the children the best chance. It wont guarantee anything it just increases chances - like you have a better chance of winning the race if your shoe laces are done up - having them undone does not guarantee you will not win, neither does having them done up guarantee you will win - it just increases your chances.

You want me to look into something I have already looked into.
Yes and there are children you have become so much stronger minded people from having failed parents and being raised by only one, where some are in a position they only have one parent raise them it has made them so much better than some who are with two loving parents.
Your points are based on examples in some families, yet I can do the same, the fact is within each child it will be different dependent on any given situation. Take like Nems has stated with domestic violence, this is just one example but the fact is your arguments and such research is different every time because each children and parents single or couple have many varied different situations.
Again the best chance for a child is always with a loving parent, it does not need two for this, if it it was the case all children from single parents would be failed cases, except this is not the case. In fact what you really need to show is how many actually fail out of millions, can you do that?

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:09 pm

sphinx wrote:
feelthelove wrote:

Hi Sphinx x

People separate for all kinds of reasons. It's about being an adult and putting children first which clearly you and your ex are doing. Staying together for the sake of children rarely works, they're not daft; they can sense tension even if they don't witness the arguments.

Better to move on and continue to raise your children "together" as a parental unit albeit in separate homes. Once people have kids they are connected forever, like it or not.

Sorry FTL - the evidence says otherwise. The evidence says children are more likely to stay in education get better grades not develop mental illness and not turn to crime if their parents stay together.

I know it sounds unbelievable but the studies have been done so many times in so many countries by so many different groups and they all show the same results.

It does I admit Sphinx. Sometimes I wonder why people enter into that lifetime commitment to have children. The responsibility is HUGE. Everyone is a critic and the worst is often the parents themselves Sad

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:14 pm

feelthelove wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Sorry FTL - the evidence says otherwise. The evidence says children are more likely to stay in education get better grades not develop mental illness and not turn to crime if their parents stay together.

I know it sounds unbelievable but the studies have been done so many times in so many countries by so many different groups and they all show the same results.

It does I admit Sphinx. Sometimes I wonder why people enter into that lifetime commitment to have children. The responsibility is HUGE. Everyone is a critic and the worst is often the parents themselves

Best and most honest answer of the day on this.

x

by Sponsored content