The Impact of Cohabitation on Children - Research Paper Example

 Cohabitation of Partners and Its Affect on Children Living in the Home Abstract This information will attempt to show supporting information that cohabitation vs. marriage contributes to negative welfare of children. Some statistics are given that support negative results for cohabiting partners in children’s development as well as supporting information for positives toward marriage and children. It touches upon situations within the US and other countries as well regarding cohabitation and its link to career and economics. Summarizing the information appears to lean toward marriage as a viable institution for children. Cohabitation of Partners and Its Affect on Children Living in the Home Gaston, South Carolina, “5 month old Joshua Dial was shaken by his mother’s boyfriend in a manner so violent that the baby immediately lost consciousness and suffered severe brain trauma,” (Wilcox 2011). Joshua died soon afterwards according to local police reports. A Federal study indicates that a case such as this is just one of many of abuse in the New American lifestyle. According to this report children living with their mother and her boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their biological married parents. Also, these same children are six times more likely to be physically, emotionally or educationally neglected. One of the most dangerous places for a child to be in America today is in a home that includes an unrelated male boyfriend, and the danger increases even more when that boyfriend is left to care for a child by himself. (Wilcox 2011). This study confirms what social science has shown for some time. The information tells us that children are more likely to thrive and survive when they are raised in a stable intact home headed by their married parents. Cohabitation is also associated with other disorders among these children such as depression, and feelings of inferiority. One of the main reasons these children do not thrive is linked to not only abuse, but also instability since the partners are not committed. These children are 119 percent more likely to have their parents break up, children exposed to changing routines, new homes and caretakers and to not thrive. (Wilcox 2011). Almost 20 percent of births today are to cohabiting parents, according to Susan L. Brown of the Center for Family and Demographic Research. (Brown 2008-2011). The effects of this type of family lifestyle are just beginning to be understood. However, it is clear that it is a less stable family structure than a married couple or single-mother households. Looking at child development, a child that spends extended time in a cohabiting household is linked to slower cognitive and language growth. Brown notes, also, that even in a stable cohabiting household, there are much smaller gains in mental development. (Brown 2008-2011). These studies have also shown that these children are less likely to be read to than other children. Another distressing fact is that poverty is much higher in cohabiting homes, at 23 percent. However, the poverty rate for married couples is only 7 percent. Linda Waite of the University of Chicago has confirmed this. (Brown 2008-2011). Rising cohabitation has brought about its own novel issues and concerns about the outcome of children among partners instead of the stability of married couples. Wu, Hou, and Schimmele suggest that cohabiting households constantly face a higher chance of children experiencing a family transition than those living in a married/parent household do. (Wu, Hou, Schimmele 2006). Limited family resources presents a primary disadvantage of non-intact and single parent families. Forming a stable attachment to parents creates a central relationship in which children develop healthy and prosocial behaviors. This theory confirms that this strong bond between biological parent and child create a foundation which children learn to adopt parental and societal behavior expectations. (Wu, Hou, Schimmele 2006). This theory further argues that instability is problematic because it weakens the bond and can teach anti-social behaviors through repeated exposure to parental conflict. (Wu, Hou, Schimmele 2006). In one article looking at European countries Sweden appears to have no specific changes or distinct characteristics of cohabiting parents and married couples. On average cohabiting couples in Sweden last nearly as long as married couples; however, cohabiting is still not the norm. There is no data to support cohabiting couples with children. (Gonzalez, Miret, Trevino 2010). Comparing this to the US where increasing unemployment and instability among young men is on the rise, cohabitation is an “adaptive strategy” of career immaturity. In both European and Western societies cohabitation seems to be prevalent among those with fewer economic resources. (Gonzalez, Miret, Trevino 2010). On the other hand, those with higher education and good economic prospects are more likely to marry, stay married and have children. This information would suggest that economics have much to do with cohabiting vs. marriage but with no data to support children. (Smock, Casper, Wyse 2008). Summarizing the information has shown that children within cohabiting relationships are more prone to violence, abuse, death, and substantially slower mental and social development. Therefore, it is my opinion that marriage, even though a disappearing structure, is a very stable environment for a couple partnership and raising children. I think the institution of marriage and making a commitment is one of the things that give it value. With careers on the rise within both genders in today’s’ world, cohabitation seems to be an economic choice. It is noted also that a “non-parent partner has no explicit legal, financial, supervisory or custodial rights or responsibilities.” (Brown 2008-2011). However, when one considers forming a family and the possibility of children and their welfare, I would consider the prospect of a stable marriage vs. cohabitation as my first choice. It is apparent from the information that cohabitation does not serve the best interest of the children. References Brown, Sarah L. “The Impact of Cohabitation on Children.” National Healthy Marriage Resource Center. 2008-2011. Web. 26 July 2011. http://twoofus.org/educational-content/. Gonzalez, Maria-Jose; Miret, Pau; Trevino, Rocio. “Just Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation for fathers’ participation in child care in Western Europe.” 2010. Web. 26 July 2011. http://demographics-research.org/. Smock, Pamela; Casper, Lynne; Wyse, Jessica. “Nonmarital Cohabitation: Current Knowledge And Future Directions for Research.” 07 2008. University of Michigan Institute For Social Research. Web. 26 July 2011. http://psc.isr.umich.edu/. Wilcox, W. Bradford. “Suffer the Little Children: Cohabitation and the Abuse of America’s Children.” 22 April 2011. Web. 26 July 2011. http://the publicdiscourse.com/. Wu, Zheng; Hou, Feng; Schimmele, Christoph M. “Does Cohabitation Matter? The Effects of Non-Marital Cohabitation Disruption on Children’s Behavior.” 2006. University of Victoria. Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 3P5 Canada. Web. 26 July 2011. http://paa2006.princeton.edu/. Read More