Garth George: Two-parent families still the best

COMMENT

Why is it that so many people - sociologists in particular - have so much difficulty in understanding that marriage is a contract between a heterosexual man and woman and that the family consisting of father, mother and children is the basic building block upon which any society is built?

Surely it is the simplest of concepts. And it has never been better or more succinctly put than by this newspaper in its editorial on Monday.

It began: "From time immemorial human beings have found that a man and a woman cohabiting together and sharing the care of their young is most conducive to social stability and the survival of the species."

The editorial was in response to the extraordinary comment made by the Minister of Social Development (God help us) to a family policy conference.

Said Steve Maharey: "I know of no social science that says a nuclear family is more successful than other kinds. It is whether you have loving, nurturing family."

Yesterday on this page a couple of sociologists proclaimed that the editorial was "steeped in the delusion that dual-parent families are, by definition, more supportive than other family structures".

Emma Davis, programme leader (children and families) for the Auckland University of Technology's Institute of Social Policy (God help us), and John Read, an Auckland University psychologist, try to tell us that the key issue for children is not whether the most important adults in their lives are married, heterosexual or single.

I sometimes wonder whether the only research these people read is that which they know will reinforce their own preconceived ideas.

What about the 1999 study commissioned in Britain for the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection group?

It reported: "Children who grow up in broken homes are more likely to suffer poor health and to have emotional and behavioural problems.

"They have higher rates of suicide and are more frequently involved in drug abuse and crime.

"Half of all young offenders come from broken homes. They also perform badly at school, are less likely to go on to further education and more likely to get low-paid jobs. They are twice as likely to suffer divorce or relationship breakdown in adult life than children from intact families."

And what about the research in 2001 for Ireland's Minister for Children, which reviewed a number of studies on how marriage and its break-up affects the well-being of adults?

It had this to say: "Without exception, the analyses of six large databases from four different countries (two of them covering more than 25 years) have shown that marriage is probably the largest single contributor to the well-being of adults while, correspondingly, its break-up tends to have a greater negative impact on well-being than any other variable."

These are only two of numerous such scientific studies in several countries spread over many years which have come to the same conclusion, including one for the Australian Government which led it to introduce all sorts of assistance for families, and one in Christchurch.

If Mr Maharey (and Drs Davis and Read) are unaware of such a vast array of social science, then it's about time they did a bit of reading. It's not as if it is difficult to find.

Then there's the article which appeared directly above that of Drs Davis and Read in which Australian policy analyst Jennifer Buckingham discussed the difficulties being had by boys in schools.

She wrote: "Fundamental changes have occurred in the two most important institutions in boys' lives ... There is a diminishing presence of men in boys' daily lives. One in three boys lives apart from his natural father and only 14 per cent of primary school classroom teachers are male.

"It is possible that many boys can go through primary school without a male presence in their daily lives either at home or at school. Boys need good male role models for guidance and encouragement."

But Drs Davis and Read tell us that the key issues for children are about having at least one parent who is crazy about them and able to keep them safe; about being surrounded by adults who respect and care for them and each other; and about living in families and communities free from violence and abuse.

"Research shows that poverty, social isolation and family conflict are better predictors of poor outcomes for children than family structure," they write.

But it doesn't seem to occur to these academics that every one of those key issues are far more likely to be found in communities in which mum-and-dad families are predominant than in any other.

Children have twice the chance of having a parent crazy about them, two who are able to keep them safe, a readymade extended family of both mum's and dad's rellies to respect and care for them, and are much more unlikely ever to suffer violence and abuse.

It obviously hasn't occurred to the good doctors either, in spite of a huge volume of reliable evidence, that there is less poverty, social isolation and family conflict in two-parent families than in any other sort.

It's not all that difficult to understand. Really.

* Email Garth George