Is the Family the Least Safe Place for Children?
Merav Michaeli—modern feminist and anti-marriage activist—insists that a child’s own biological family is the most dangerous place for him or her to exist. In her TED Talk, Cancel Marriage, she said, “If you thought that this arrangement [marriage] is the best thing for children, think again.”
Elsewhere Michaeli said, “The core family as we know it, unfortunately, is the least safe place for children. . .The data speaks about every fifth child that goes through some kind of abuse—sexual, physical, emotional.” She then says that “the core family is the place” where abuse happens because of “parental rights” and because of “this total custody that we have in this structure of marriage.” She concludes that domination by fathers “is part of the ongoing hurt” in the children of the world.
However, a glance at credible data addressing family structure and child abuse reveals a different picture than the dark and foreboding one Michaeli paints. And this has been the case for a very long time.
Dr. Paul Sullins, who has spent his career studying families, observes, “The proposition that the natural family comprising joint married biological parents offers the best context for child well-being and development is among the most strongly attested assertions in all of the social sciences.”
He continues, “National health surveillance surveys have repeatedly found that children in alternate family arrangements are subject to a wide range of emotional and behavioral problems at higher rates than are children in [married, biological] families.”
In a 2015 cooperative report from Princeton University and the Brookings Institution, David Ribar, from the University of Melbourne, writes:
“Reams of social science and medical research convincingly show that children who are raised by their married, biological parents enjoy better physical, cognitive and emotional outcomes, on average, than children raised in other circumstances. . . . [R]esearchers have been able to make a strong case that marriage has causal impacts on outcomes such as children’s schooling, their social and emotional adjustment, and their employment, marriage and mental health as adults.”
In 2010, demographers from the Centers for Disease Control reported findings from National Health Information Surveys from 2001 to 2007. They report: “On every indicator examined, children being raised in single mother or blended families exhibited poorer health than those in nuclear families.”
Specifically regarding abuse, the 2005 National Incidence Survey reported that children living with married biological parents experienced significantly less physical, sexual, and emotional abuse than children in any other family living situation. In fact, instances of abuse were “three to ten times higher for children not living with married biological parents.”
Other studies suggest that one of the most dangerous places for a child to live is with a man who is not the child’s biological father. According to a federal study of child abuse and neglect published in 2010:
“Children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents. Likewise, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are six times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents.”
Scholars from UC Berkeley, Rutgers University, and the Universities of Texas, Virginia, Minnesota, Chicago, Maryland, and Washington reported that children who live with their own married parents generally:
• Live longer, healthier lives both physically and psychologically
• Do better in school
• Are more likely to graduate from high school and attend college
• Are less likely to live in poverty
• Are less likely to be in trouble with the law
• Are less likely to drink or do drugs
• Are less likely to be violent or sexually active
• Are less likely to be victims of sexual or physical violence
• Are more likely to have a successful marriage when they are older
Sara McLanahan of Princeton University explains the phenomenon of the family:
“If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.”
These examples barely scratch the surface of the ever-expanding body of evidence demonstrating that living with one’s own married, biological parents is consistently the most stable, most prosperous, safest place for a child to live. Family structure does not make “no difference” to a child, as is often the claim. The difference for children is staggering.
The question is not whether biology is all that matters in families, but rather whether biological connections matter at all. Of course, a host of other factors also matter. Simply existing in a biological family is no guarantee against difficulty or abuse, nor does it promise love or happiness. And yet, studies show that biological, married families have consistently produced the best outcomes for men, women, and children on virtually every measurable indicator for the bulk of recorded history.
As we watch marriage rates plummet and out-of-wedlock births soar, it’s a good time to remember that if we wish for civilization to survive and thrive, we must construct our public policies and our private lives with the family at the core.