Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Children of parents in wedlock ARE happiest: Research contradicts claims that children are unaffected by mother and father's marital status
Note: These researchers actually talked to the children concerned. "Children are interviewed as they reach the age of 16". Elementary of course but still a big contrast to the recent studies designed to promote homosexual parenting -- which just took the word of the parents and never even clapped eyes on the children concerned
Children whose parents are married have significantly higher self-esteem, according to research unveiled yesterday.
Teenagers of married couples were more confident than those in single-parent families or youngsters whose parents lived together in a stable long-term relationship, it found.
Overall, boys with married parents had the highest self-esteem, while girls with co-habiting parents had the lowest.
Previous research has found that confidence and happiness in childhood has a significant impact on future life chances and is more important than factors such as income.
The latest study contradicts previous claims that children are unaffected by their parents’ marital status.
It found that children whose parents were in stable, long-term co-habiting relationships reported the same levels of self-esteem as those from single parent households.
By contrast, children whose parents were married reported higher levels of self-esteem.
The study, from the Marriage Foundation, was based on data from 3,822 children polled in British Household Panel Survey. Harry Benson, research director at the foundation, said: ‘Conventional wisdom has it that child outcomes depend on parents staying together rather than marital status.
‘This new finding shows that assumption to be false.
‘In terms of self-esteem, teenagers living with parents who are together but not married are no better off than children living with lone parents.
‘Family income makes no difference. Marriage alone provides the boost. A number of studies have shown that self-esteem is closely related to how secure people feel in their relationships.
‘It appears that children of married parents are responding to something they see in their parents’ relationships that reflects greater security.’ Mr Benson said children of married couples were more likely to see their parents as ‘one solid and secure unit’, adding: ‘Their self-esteem benefits accordingly.’
Previous research by the foundation has found that 93 per cent of parents who stay together until their child’s 15th birthday are married.
Its chairman, former High Court judge Sir Paul Coleridge, said the Government should place more importance on marriage as it sought to tackle ‘a meteoric rise in family breakdown’. He said: ‘Marriage matters because it is the most important predictor of a child’s future life chances.
‘Not only is a married couple more likely to save their child from undergoing the trauma of family breakdown, we now have evidence that parents’ public declaration of commitment to each other significantly alters a child’s self-perception and self-esteem.
‘Being married not only influences the chances of families staying together. It also influences the well-being of their children. It is not being moralistic or judgmental to say marriage works best for families. It is a statement of fact.’
The Marriage Foundation is a think-tank which aims to reduce divorce rates.
Its previous research has linked family breakdown to poor academic performance in children and mental health issues including depression and anxiety.
A Government guide to divorce launched in 2012 noted: ‘It’s not the separation itself that can cause harm to your children, it’s the level of conflict that they see or hear between parents.’
But the last related major inquiry in Britain, the Exeter Family Study for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said that family breakdown was a greater influence on children than fighting between parents.
Marriage Foundation chairman Sir Paul said that during his career in the family courts, he witnessed a huge rise in the number of children going through the system – and blamed it on the rising number of cohabiting couples who split after becoming parents.
Girl was put in care for eight months after social worker error led to her mother being wrongly branded mentally ill
A former nursery school headteacher has told how bungling social workers put her three-year-old daughter into care for eight months after a medical record mix-up.
Angela Milnes was distraught when council officials wrongly labelled her as mentally ill and threatened to have Sylvia adopted.
The award-winning parenting blogger had to fight to get her daughter back before council bosses finally admitted they had made a mistake.
Eventually, a judge ordered mother and daughter to be reunited and council chiefs were forced to issue an apology. They also agreed to pay Mrs Milnes substantial damages, which must be held in trust until Sylvia, now seven, turns 18.
Yesterday Mrs Milnes, 33, spoke out for the first time. ‘When Sylvia was taken away I was heartbroken,’ she said. ‘It destroyed my life.
‘I cried every night and used to sleep in Sylvia’s bed because that was the only thing I had left. I lost friends – some stuck by me, but others judged me.’
Mrs Milnes was born in the UK but grew up in New Zealand. She trained as a nursery school teacher, got married and had Sylvia in 2008.
However, the couple split and, in 2010, Mrs Milnes returned to the UK, settling in Castleford, West Yorkshire.
The following year in December, Mrs Milnes was contacted by social services after she mentioned to her GP that she was concerned about the behaviour of a man with mental health issues who had befriended her.
As a result, social workers immediately took Sylvia into care.
The move was supposed to be temporary but court papers later revealed that an assessment of the case wrongly labelled Mrs Milnes, who has a chronic illness and sometimes uses a wheelchair, as having mental health issues.
It emerged that social workers misinterpreted a reference in Mrs Milnes’s medical notes from New Zealand and labelled her as a psychiatric patient.
Wakefield Council placed Sylvia with a foster family and court proceedings commenced with a view to her being put up for permanent adoption.
In April and May 2012 Mrs Milnes was forced to undergo two separate psychological and psychiatric assessments, both of which confirmed she was fit to be a mother.
The authorities in New Zealand also confirmed that she had never been a psychiatric patient.
Finally, in July, a family judge sitting at Leeds County Court ordered that she be returned to her mother.
Mrs Milnes lodged a formal complaint with the council and, following a two-year battle, it was eventually upheld and the council were ordered to pay her damages in October 2014.
She married her partner John, 41, in 2013, but said her health has suffered and she has since been diagnosed with adrenal insufficiency, a rare condition which causes chronic exhaustion, pain, headaches and nausea.
How the Left controls the language and the argument
Ever wonder why those on the left who are opposed to personal choice on every level other than abortion refer to themselves as pro-choice? That’s simple, because it sounds better that what it really is, pro-abortion. In the mass media there is no such thing as pro-abortion. Through this sleight of the rhetorical hand those opposed to the taking of an innocent human life are labeled as anti-choice.
One of the keys to leftist success is the manipulation of the language. Moral issues become social issues. The Strategic Defense Initiative became Star Wars as in science fiction. Tax raises become revenue enhancements. Although women outnumber men in America they are linked to minorities.
Had anyone ever heard of a Transgender person five years ago? Certainly we had all heard of transvestites and cross dressers. The Collins English Dictionary defines them as follows: 1. (Psychiatry) a person who seeks sexual pleasure from wearing clothes that are normally associated with the opposite sex 2. any cross-dresser. See cross-dressing.
What was once viewed as a psychological oddity has now been relabeled and turned into a movement. We now have the spectacle of the federal government by edict taking control of school restrooms and showers under the guise of equality.
The left claims it is the ideology that believes in science except when they don’t. The American College of Pediatricians put out a statement in March of this year stating, “Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: ‘XY’ and ‘XX’ are genetic markers of health — not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident.”
Another example of the left manipulating the language is the United States Congress banning words the left does not approve of from the United State Code and changing them to more politically correct terms. They are calling this, “modernization.” House Resolution 4238 reads in part, “Office of Minority Economic Impact.—Section 211(f)(1) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7141(f)(1)) is amended by striking ‘a Negro, Puerto Rican, American Indian, Eskimo, Oriental, or Aleut or is a Spanish speaking individual of Spanish descent’ and inserting ‘Asian American, Native Hawaiian, a Pacific Islander, African American, Hispanic, Puerto Rican, Native American, or an Alaska Native.’” The Congress is now the language police.redskins offensive
Also a part of the leftist language agenda is the constant calls for the renaming of streets, schools, sports teams like the Washington Redskins and anything thing else that offends their tender feelings. This gives them the opportunity to take a false moral high ground while schooling the rest of us on our moral failings for not recognizing how right they are. It also subtlety attacks western culture and history. The irony of this coming from an ideology responsible for more human misery and death than any other political movement in history seems to escape them.
The way to fight this is not to go along with the cultural distortion of the left through the modification of the common vernacular. There is no such thing as social studies in schools. It is history. Social issues are not social issues they are moral issues. There is no pro-choice movement it is a pro-abortion movement. People are not trans-anything they either male or female. If they think otherwise they are mentally ill. If you accept the leftist language distortions you are accepting the premise of their arguments.
A British fish enthusiast has been told to get rid of the pond in his back garden because it could potentially be a hazard for burglars
Sovereign Housing have told Kevin Sheehan to demolish the water features at his home in Abingdon, Oxfordshire.
When he asked why, the 62-year-old claims they told him the measure had to be adopted because 'if someone breaks in they could fall in'.
Mr Sheehan, who lives with his partner and their one-year-old daughter Olivia, has slammed the ruling as 'ridiculous'.
He told the Oxford Mail: 'It's my home, I am going to fight it as much as I can – there is no rule in the tenancy about fish ponds.
'The reason they gave was if someone breaks into the back garden they can fall in the pond because there's a six-foot fence all round and they can't see it.
'I said: "Well they shouldn't be breaking in."'
'I've got about 80 fish in the pond, where can I put these fish if I've not got a pond? I can't put them in the river, I'd get into trouble. They can't die because of this.'
Mr Sheehan's fish include Koi carp, fantails and goldfish. They are currently housed in a small pool at the bottom of his garden as he extends his main pond. The structure has a wall of concrete blocks surrounding it and the entire garden is surrounded by a 6ft wooden fence.
A letter sent to him from Sovereign said his large brick pond must be removed because of 'possible risk'. He has also been ordered to remove the smaller one because it 'could impact on the safety of the residents or general public'.
Mr Sheehan has been given three weeks to make the relevant changes. He added: 'I was thinking of my daughter's safety and was building it up another two blocks. I had it at the old height for about 15 years and it's never been a problem.'
Debbie Down, spokeswoman for Sovereign, said: 'We don't want to prevent anyone enjoying hobbies which may include fish keeping in a garden pond, but as the landlord we ask residents to get our permission if they intend running a business from their home or building a permanent structure.'
When MailOnline contacted Sovereign about the pond being demolished due to its danger to burglars, a spokesman said: 'I'm sure there would be that liability.'
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.