Home > Children, Sexual Integrity, Single Parents > More US Women Having Children With Different Biological Fathers

More US Women Having Children With Different Biological Fathers

April 3rd, 2011

Totally not cool. Those poor kids.

Twenty percent of US mothers have children with different biological fathers, a study presented at the Population Association of America meeting revealed today. Cassandra Dorius, from the University of Michigan Institute of Social research added that mothers of multiple children of different biological fathers tend to be less educated, under-employed, and have lower incomes.

Meaning: Multiple partner fertility defined as having children with more than one partner.

When Dorius examined patterns in families with more than two children, she discovered that 28% of them had different birth fathers. “It’s pervasive.”, Dorius added.

Dorius and team gathered data from almost 4,000 women who had been interviewed face-to-face several times over nearly three decades. First interviews took place in 1979 when participants were aged between 14 and 22 years. Data was gathered regarding their education, employment, ethnicity, family characteristics, and custody status.

Dorius said that having multiple fathers had consequences for both the children and the mothers – they tend to be disadvantaged compared to other mothers in the country. A mother whose children had different biological fathers tends to spend approximately three times longer in poverty during adulthood, and had about 1 to 2 years less formal education than other females.

Because of the greater number of variables for both the mother and the children, Darius said this type of family structure tends to be more stressful.

Dorius said:

“Everyday decisions are more complex and family rules are more ambiguous. Families need to figure out who lives with whom and when, who pays for things like clothing, who is responsible for child support.”

Keep reading.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Ann
    April 5th, 2011 at 10:58 | #1

    And someone needed a study to figure this all out? Human history alone shows that children do best in a stable family, with a mother and a father who are married and committed to each other and their children for life. There are exceptions, but women who choose to have children without getting married do themselves and their children no fabors. Do we wonder why welfare costs have skyrocketed? For decades we have rewarded this with money for food, clothing, housing, and medical care. I’ll bet the majority of these women grew up in homes with no fathers to love and guide them until adulthood. The world is in a big mess, and until we get back to a system of morality based upon natural law, it will continue on the same path.

  2. Sean
    April 5th, 2011 at 14:29 | #2

    Many of these women ARE married….just for the second or third time.

  3. April 5th, 2011 at 17:01 | #3

    @Sean So they abuse marriage – and that therefore this makes SSM somehow valid? As if two wrongs make a right?

  4. nerdygirl
    April 5th, 2011 at 20:56 | #4

    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm

    Ann, no. Less then 20% of all welfare recipients stay on welfare for more then 5 years.

  5. April 7th, 2011 at 14:49 | #5

    @nerdygirl Your numbers are skewed – the percentage is much higher, closer to 75%. What happens is that when the are off the rolls for a short time and get back on, they are counted as starting over, not continuing. Am familiar with many such cases.

  6. nerdygirl
    April 7th, 2011 at 19:04 | #6

    @Glenn E. Chatfield

    Then back it up.

  7. April 8th, 2011 at 07:48 | #7

    @nerdygirl And just how I am I to “back up” what personal knowledge I have of specific incidents? How can I “back up” a government roll that drops people who leave the system for a week or a month and count them as new when they come back? How am I to access such records? Many better people, such as Thomas Sowell, have previously documented the very same things, and have demonstrated that most families on welfare remain their from one generation to the next. As noted before, I know of several families in that very same situation – generational welfare.

  8. April 8th, 2011 at 07:50 | #8

    @nerdygirl The last part of my comment got dropped. What I wanted to point out that in real life one sees this in any major city. I saw it for 17 years in the Chicago area, 5 years in Denver, and 3 1/2 years in Columbus. The figures cited in your link give no references, but it still would not note the on-and-off welfare recipients.

  9. Sean
    April 8th, 2011 at 19:02 | #9

    “So they abuse marriage – and that therefore this makes SSM somehow valid?”

    I’m not sure what it means to “abuse” marriage but I said nothing about same-sex marriage. I was simply pointing out that many women have children with more than one man because they’ve been married to more than one man. And many men have children with more than one woman because….wait for it….they’ve been married to more than one woman. I thought you religionists were all for unimpeded sexual activity, leading to children, within the confines of marriage? No?

  10. April 8th, 2011 at 20:43 | #10

    Sean :
    I was simply pointing out that many women have children with more than one man because they’ve been married to more than one man. And many men have children with more than one woman because….wait for it….they’ve been married to more than one woman. I thought you religionists were all for unimpeded sexual activity, leading to children, within the confines of marriage? No?

    Wow, I’ve come from two comments by Sean on adultery and divorce. I suggested he sum up his view point as “Neutered marriage is no worse for families than divorce!”

    But here, Sean is saying it again even more outright. For these families where a mother has had multiple husbands (divorce, death?) is supposed to be considered at least as okay as neutering marriage for those families?

    Okay, I’ll buy that estimation.

  11. Sean
    April 9th, 2011 at 05:47 | #11

    OnLawn, divorce if far more harmful to families and children than neutered marriage! When marriage was neutered sometime after WWII, there were both positive and negatives effects. But legalized no-fault divorce obliterated families, sometimes on little more than a whim.

    I don’t condemn people, generally, but I certainly don’t condemn someone who has remarried and had children with his or her second spouse. I don’t understand the reaction at this website: there’s something wrong with having children with the man you married after your first husband died, or you got divorced from your first husband. I thought religionists were all about sex is sacred, should be unimpeded and should result in a baby whenever possible, within the confines of marriage.

  12. April 10th, 2011 at 05:55 | #12

    @Sean Divorce IS NOT more harmful than SSM to children. I am a child of divorce and know hundreds of children from divorce and while they have suffered emotional harm, none has been brainwashed into accepting a misuse of human sexuality as normal. Again, citing the abuse of marriage by divorce as an excuse to neuter marriage is reprehensible. YOu really need to quit referring to “religionists,” because you are also one. And you misrepresent Christian beliefs in your assignment of the term “religionists.”

  13. Sean
    April 11th, 2011 at 15:55 | #13

    OMG, divorce is way more harmful than having same-sex parents! Seeing the two people you consider your parents go separate ways is excruciating for a child! Having loving same-sex parents is a gift!

    Religionists are people who selectively choose religious rules and regulations to manage their lives but also interfere in the lives of others. Homosexuality is normal human sexuality, for God’s sake. There’s not a non-religious medical authority who says it’s not normal.

  14. Betsy
    April 11th, 2011 at 16:27 | #14

    “Having loving same-sex parents is a gift!”
    What about when they divorce?

  15. April 11th, 2011 at 18:43 | #15

    @Sean Well, I and my four siblings are victims of divorce and I have many friends, relatives also victims of divorce, as well as having friends who are divorced, and every one of them would say you are dead wrong. No same-sex couple can give a normal life to any child.

    There are tons of medical authorities who say homosexuality is not only abnormal, but dangerous to one’s health! You deny the evidence the way you deny the evidence for God – it doesn’t suit your morality so therefore it doesn’t exist.

  16. April 11th, 2011 at 23:01 | #16

    @Sean
    What Betsy and Glenn said.

  17. Sean
    April 14th, 2011 at 17:59 | #17

    “No same-sex couple can give a normal life to any child.”

    This is just your personal opinion, one that becomes no more convincing through repetition. I believe no devout Christians can give a child a normal life. I know, I lived with one and it was hellish. I still have nightmares. But as irresponsible as you think some adults are, all adults have a pretty basic right to procreate and raise children. Accept that. And then think what, in the circumstances, is in the best interests of children. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the children of same-sex couples would be better off if their parents could marry, and create secure relationships.

  18. Sean
    April 14th, 2011 at 18:01 | #18

    “There are tons of medical authorities who say homosexuality is not only abnormal, but dangerous to one’s health!”

    No there are not. No reputable medical authority believes homosexuality is anything but normal and morally neutral. Religionist doctors are a small minority, and they violate their Hippocratic oath to “first, do no harm” when they claim that homosexuality is, in any way, unnatural or harmful.

  19. Betsy
    April 14th, 2011 at 20:10 | #19

    “the children of same-sex couples would be better off if their parents could marry, and create secure relationships.”

    You don’t have much faith in homosexual couples if you think they need to get married in order to have a secure relationship.

  20. April 15th, 2011 at 05:37 | #20

    @Sean My opinion about same-sex couples not being able to give a normal life to children is based on facts. Same-sex unions are unnatural and being a part of one would never allow the child to have a normal view of human sexuality, would never allow the child the insights from a father or mother, etc.

    If your childhood with Christians was as you say, all I can tell you is that those so-called Christians weren’t practicing the Christian faith.

    Sean you are denying factual evidence. I can send you to hundreds of links by medical practitioners who will tell what devastating effects homosexual behavior is. Lifespans of homophiles are greatly reduced. HIV/AIDS is rampant. Other sexual diseases are rampant. Bodily injuries are rampant. Emotional/psychological damage is rampant. Deny the facts but they still exist.

  21. April 15th, 2011 at 05:38 | #21

    @Betsy OUCH!! Touche!

  22. Sean
    April 15th, 2011 at 16:29 | #22

    “My opinion about same-sex couples not being able to give a normal life to children is based on facts.”

    Define your version of the word “fact.” There are no “facts” to support your opinion about same-sex parenting. My goodness, what does it say that all 50 states allow same-sex couples to given children an “abnormal” life??? What kind of country is the US of A?

    “Same-sex unions are unnatural”

    Define “unnatural.” Because if you’re gay, they seem to come pretty naturally, like gay sex.

    “If your childhood with Christians was as you say, all I can tell you is that those so-called Christians weren’t practicing the Christian faith.”

    Few, if any, self-proclaimed Christians are practicing the Christian faith. When was the last time you heard of someone giving up all his possessions to the poor, to walk with Christ? Today’s Christians actually think God wants them to be rich!
    “Sean you are denying factual evidence.”

    Not at all. Show me the factual evidence and I’ll reconsider my position.

    “I can send you to hundreds of links by medical practitioners who will tell what devastating effects homosexual behavior is.”

    But these are just religionist websites usually. Reputable medical practitioners don’t believe that being gay causes any problems. It’s the suffering that accompanies living in a homophobic society that damages gay people.

    “Lifespans of homophiles are greatly reduced. HIV/AIDS is rampant. Other sexual diseases are rampant. Bodily injuries are rampant. Emotional/psychological damage is rampant.”

    Any health concerns are based on the trauma related to living in a homophobic society. If America weren’t so homophobic, gay people could live openly and honestly, in legalized relationships, and raising their children in more secure, healthier environments.

  23. Sean
    April 16th, 2011 at 16:59 | #23

    “You don’t have much faith in homosexual couples if you think they need to get married in order to have a secure relationship.”

    I have the same faith in homosexual couples as I have in heterosexual couples, who appear to lack staying power in their relationships, even WITH the benefit of marriage!

  24. Betsy
    April 16th, 2011 at 20:30 | #24

    Okay, then why did you say they need to get married to have a stable relationship?

  25. April 17th, 2011 at 06:07 | #25

    @Sean You have been provided with many facts and evidences that it is harmful to children to be raised in homophile unions. You can choose to deny them but they exist nevertheless.

    As noted on the other post, states are more interested in getting kids out of the system than they are about the environment they put them into. I have been dealing with the state system since 1997 and I can tell plenty of horror stories. And the reason is because liberals are in charge of the system.

    Defining oneself as natural is reasoning in a circle. Biology says same-sex unions are unnatural. Common sense says the same.

    You really need to quit citing the Bible because every time you do you demonstrate your ignorance. We are not called to give up every possession, nor give all our money, to be a Christian. God may or may not permit wealth – after all, he made Solomon the richest man in the world.

    You won’t reconsider your position no matter how many facts are given to you; this has been proven by the amount of facts many people here have provided which you continue to deny exist.

    The links I suggested to demonstrate the medical hazards are not “religionist” sites – they are medical sites. No reputable medical professional would deny the health hazards of homophile sex. There is no “homophobic” society – no one is afraid of homophiles.

    Your excuses playing the victim card do not change facts – don’t blame people (none of which fear homosexuality) for behavioral-caused diseases and emotional problems.

Comments are closed.