Topic: Wisconsin Senator introduces a bill saying that Single Parenting = Child Abuse

[Sel Nar]

Link here.

http://www.defendwisconsin.org/2012/03/01/sen-grothman-introduces-bill-that-would-label-single-parenthood-as-contributing-factor-to-child-abuse/

I'll dig up additional information as I can, but there's some solid links there already.

So, when did the US political establishment collectively shit its brains out?

[Callie Del Noire]

Link here.

http://www.defendwisconsin.org/2012/03/01/sen-grothman-introduces-bill-that-would-label-single-parenthood-as-contributing-factor-to-child-abuse/

I'll dig up additional information as I can, but there's some solid links there already.

So, when did the US political establishment collectively shit its brains out?

Looks at his successful, rich, and quite happy older brother. Who was all but left without a father for most of his first decade. The dear Senator Grathman has shit for brains in my opinion. Contributing factor my ass.

Abuse isn't something you can link to a single parent. I'd say you need to pull your head out of your butt senator. Why don't  you go out and find a way to encourage resposibilty to the negligent parent rather than make it hard for the one that IS taking care of their child?

Oh yeah.. that's INTERFERING with peoples liberties..

[Oniya]

Not to mention, there might be a very good reason that the single parent isn't with the non-custodial parent.  Domestic abuse, criminal history of other sorts - even death.  Is this guy saying that if a man's wife dies in childbirth, or a pregnant woman's husband gets hit by a car, that the surviving spouse should be punished?

[Hemingway]

I'm no expert on this type of legal language, but it says "nonmarital parenthood", and I have to ask ... doesn't that suggest that it's abuse even if you have both parents taking care of the kid, as long as they're not married?

What's with this trend of horrible, draconian laws relating to family issues and values?

[Strident]

Hmm.

I feel a logical Fallacy here.

Smokers are less likely to get Alzheimer's disease...

From which we should conclude that Smoking protects you against Alzheimers?

Nope. It just means you die of lung cancer first before you become old enough to GET Alzheimers.

Likewise, statistically, I'm prepared to accept that there may be a higher reported frequency of child abuse amongst single parent families....(although I've not seen that statistic myself)

But even if that's the case, that doesn't lead to the conclusion that single parent families are a CAUSE of child abuse...if that's what this guy is trying to say then he's a bit of a clown. But of course, it may be misreported.

[Oniya]

Excellent, Strident - correlation does not imply causation.

As far as misreporting, here's the text of the bill itself:  https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/sb507

An Act to amend 48.982 (2) (g) 2., 48.982 (2) (g) 4. and 48.982 (2) (gm) of the
statutes; relating to: requiring the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board
to emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and
neglect.

(The rest of it is at the government link I provided - it's fairly short as bills go, about a page once you dispense with headers and oversized font for titles.)

[Caela]

As a single mother I think I am very glad to NOT be in Wisconsin at the moment. You will not find a LESS abused child than mine lol. She is one of the happiest, politest three year old girls you could hope to meet. She's a good kid (most of the time, everyone has bad days lol) and smart as a whip, her language skill are off the chart and we work on them by playing games and practicing spelling and reading signs.

It would have been abusive to try and keep her sperm donor in her life. He flat admitted that if he didn't think he'd make a good father and that he would find it tempting to screw with any kid mentally. Something I am NOT willing to allow into my child's life. We are happy and content without him, he's never seen her and she knows that while she doesn't have a Daddy, she has a Mommy, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins that love her very much. She's started to ask and make comments about a "Daddy" but when I tell her she doesn't seem to care. We've talked about the fact that not all families are the same, that some kids live with a mom and dad, some live with just a mom or just a dad, some live with their grand parents, some have two moms or two dads etc but that what's important is that she has LOTS of people who love her.

To have someone say she is more likely to be abused, or that I am more likely to be a bad mother, because it's just the two of us pisses me off! I don't need her SD in her life and to that end he is not on her birth certificate, I don't go after him for support, and he stays away from MY child. It's the best resolution for everyone. When she's 18 (and thus a legal adult) if she wants to go find him and ask him questions I will give her his name and the last known address for him and let her search.

Why can't politicians stay the hell out of my parental decisions? There is enough wrong with the country at the moment that they really should have more to do then denigrate those parents who are just trying to do the best for their children under less than ideal conditions.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Perhaps reading the entire bill will alert observers to the facts rather than the editorialized innuendo of the so-called journalists offering an opinion.  The bill does not state anywhere that single parenthood is child abuse.  It is simply making it law that when state funds are being requested or allocated for programs dealing with child abuse and neglect notice is to be given to the fact that children in single unmarried parent homes are a category that requires particular focus.  Unmarried usually does not included the terms widowed or divorced but I have no information of the glossary for this bill.

Oniya linked to the bill in question and I'd appreciate it if anyone could point me to the phrase or phrases that state single parenthood in any form is child abuse.  I may be missing it.

[Oniya]

I was personally rather put out by this phrasing, which is repeated throughout and seems to be designated as the amended text:

In promoting those campaigns and materials, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.

The words 'emphasize' and 'contributing factor' stand out to me.  'Contributing' implies that a causal link exists.  'Risk factor' would be less inflammatory, but I still don't much like it.  If I were to change it up a bit: 

In promoting those campaigns and materials, the board shall emphasize Goth fashion as a contributing factor to self-harm and depression.

We'd all be scoffing at the idea that Goth fashion has anything to do with self-harm and depression.  True, some people who are depressed and engage in self-harm wear Goth fashion, (just as surely as some children in single parent households are abused and/or neglected), but the fashion does not contribute to the risk of depression and/or self-harm.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I'm still looking for statistics as a high-percentage of children in CPS coming from single parent or single unmarried parent homes, i.e., a higher percentage than other groups or the highest percentage over all can be perceived as a causal factor.

Considering that the bill is merely trying to include a group in the funding of services by using specific language whether or not it's palatable some objectivity about the concept might be a good thing.

[Oniya]

I'm still looking for statistics as a high-percentage of children in CPS coming from single parent or single unmarried parent homes, i.e., a higher percentage than other groups or the highest percentage over all can be perceived as a causal factor.

*shakes head*  Perception would be wrong.   There might be a high correlation, but that doesn't mean that the number of parents has a causal link to those reports.  I'd be more inclined to look at the economic status (tight finances -> less money for necessities -> potential neglect) or substance use (substance use -> loss of inhibitions -> potential abuse) of the parents rather than basing it on the number of parents.

[Valerian]

Well, this is the same senator who just co-authored a bill that would repeal Wisconsin's equal pay act, the act which allows people to sue employers who illegally discriminate against them based on protected class status.  He's not the brightest bulb.

http://www.defendwisconsin.org/2012/03/01/sen-grothman-introduces-bill-that-would-label-single-parenthood-as-contributing-factor-to-child-abuse/

[Grothman's] premise is that the “Left and the social welfare establishment want children born out of wedlock because they are far more likely to be dependent on the government.” He supports this argument by claiming that single mothers are much better off financially staying single, due to programs like low-income housing assistance, food stamps, and day care, than they are married. He concludes that the rise in single motherhood has therefore been driven by all the great financial benefits single, low-income mothers receive, rather than a complex interaction of changing society, evolving cultural norms, earlier sexual activity among teens who use birth control sporadically, systemic discrimination, and other factors. According to Grothman’s “logic,” because social programs are available to the poor, liberals want people to be poor and use them.

My theory is that he just doesn't like women, since he's also on record as saying that men are under attack. 

[Serephino]

So, men are under attack because women want to/need to work and get decent pay for it?  I knew it, their plan to fix unemployment is to make it to women have to stay home barefoot and pregnant so men can have all the jobs.  While it might work, it'll set womens' rights back a hundred years.  I thought we were supposed to move forward...

[Callie Del Noire]

So, men are under attack because women want to/need to work and get decent pay for it?  I knew it, their plan to fix unemployment is to make it to women have to stay home barefoot and pregnant so men can have all the jobs.  While it might work, it'll set womens' rights back a hundred years.  I thought we were supposed to move forward...

[sarcasm]
Well hell, that is just foolish talk don't ya know?
[/sarcasm]

The problem is that some folks are still culturally stuck in the 50s (or further back). Growing up I met folks like this. It's kinda scary at times.

What I find intersting is these folks are the same ones that have made it all but impossible to be in a single income family these days (unless you're like my older brother and are a senior partner in a well banked law firm, but it could be argued that since he is invested (money and time) in four other businesses and a bank.. he's not single income either)