The Case for Mom and Dad

Is the system of norms comprising traditional, natural marriage—featuring formally enacted, irrevocable, exclusive man/woman sexual union preceded by chastity—essential for children’s development and well-being, as Catholic teaching asserts? Review of an extensive body of diverse research finds that, compared to children continuously living with two parents, married parents, or their own biological parents, children in other family arrangements consistently experience lower emotional well-being, physical health, and academic achievement. Competing research has variously attributed this difference to a lack of married parents, two parents, complementary man/woman parents, or family stability, but these possibilities have not previously been studied in combination. To address this question, family structure differences and determinants of child well-being (reverse coded to show child distress) were examined using the 2008–2018 National Health Interview Surveys ( n = 82,635). Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) for child emotional problems were higher with less than two parents (AOR = 1.42, 95% CI 1.27–1.56), unmarried parents (1.46, 95% CI 1.31–1.61), unstable parents (1.55, 95% CI 1.27–1.76), or less than two biological parents (AOR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.55–2.87 for one biological parent; 4.77, 95% CI 3.95–5.77 for no biological parents). When combined in the same model, only the lack of joint biological parentage accounted for higher distress, with outcomes significantly worse without the biological father than without the biological mother (interaction AOR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.04–1.71). This evidence strongly supports the claim that maximum child development occurs only in the persistent care of both of the child’s own biological parents. Marriage benefits children primarily by ensuring such care. Implications are discussed. Summary: Children raised apart from the care of both natural parents consistently experience lower developmental outcomes. Traditional, religious marriage norms—a lifelong, exclusive sexual union between man and woman—benefit children by establishing strong conditions that promote such care. More than any other family arrangement, marriage assures to children the care of their own mom and dad.

Spitz was right. A Moroccan validation of the Alarm Distress Baby (ADBB) scale A comparison of social withdrawal behaviour levels between infants raised in children’s home and infants raised by their own families and a validation of René Spitz’s hypothesis on the causes of ‘hospitalism’ and ‘anaclitic depression’

Social withdrawal behaviour in infants is a key indicator of child distress and a risk factor for later pathologies. The present study provides results from a Moroccan study of the ADBB scale applied to two populations that were very different in terms of early separation experiences: babies living in a children’s home (n=46) and babies raised by their families (n=56). These 102 infants were assessed using the ADBB scale during routine paediatric check-ups between the ages of 2 and 18 months. Social withdrawal behaviour was significantly more marked among infants raised in a children’s home than among infants raised by their family, and more so among boys than among girls. This study comprising a control group confirmed the validity of Spitz’s description, which placed social withdrawal at the centre of anaclitic depression and of the causes of hospitalism, and attributed this withdrawal to the infants’ early and prolonged separation from their caregivers. The use of the scale stay therefore be recommended for systematic detection during routine paediatric check-ups or for the follow-up of children at risk, to enable appropriate early interventions to take place.