The traditional family is usually defined as legally married male and female raising children under the age of eighteen[1]. The traditional, or nuclear, family reached its all-time high in 1960, when sixty percent of the population was part of a nuclear family. Today, the percentage of Americans living in a nuclear family has dropped below twenty-five[2]. America has re-defined family. As a result of higher teen pregnancy rates, higher divorce rates, and more sexual freedom, what was once traditional is now somewhat abnormal.

There are several statistics about children being raised in non-traditional families that are alarming. Children in single mother homes are more likely to do poorly in school. Children without two married parents tend to have more discipline problems. Children living with non-married parents are apt to have emotional problems later in life. As a matter of fact, these statistics are true and mostly accurate. However, they lead to the common misconception that children in non-traditional homes are worse off. This is not necessarily true. Single-parent status by itself does not significantly affect a child’s performance. The problem is that single parents tend to be less educated and make less money annually, which are the factors that really affect the child’s outcome. In a study done by RAND’s Institute on Education and Training, it was found that “The most important family characteristic influencing student performance is parents' education.”[3] Barbara Nordhaus, an assistant clinical professor of social work at the Yale Child Development Center, says:

“We don't have any information about family structure. We have information about deprivation, poverty, malnutrition, disease, unemployment, drug addiction of parents -- those kinds of things aren't good for kids. But it's not about the structure of the family. That's a prejudice, a bias.”

In reality, the statistics that ‘prove’ children are worse off in non-traditional homes really only prove that children are better off with well educated, highly paid parents- whether they are married, divorced or single. The only other thing we know for sure is that conflict has a highly detrimental affect on children.

Imagine this: a child is being raised in a traditional home, by a legally married mother and father. Dad works eight hour days at the office, mom doesn’t work so that she can be there when little Susie comes home from school. It seems like a happy picture; and little Susie is most likely a happy child. However, by changing a few more details, the picture of our happy traditional family can transform dramatically. What happens when Dad doesn’t come home from work but goes out drinking and comes home drunk, hours later, after little Susie is already asleep? What if Mom becomes clinically depressed because she doesn’t enjoy being a stay at home mother and is no longer emotionally there when Susie comes skipping home from school? What if Susie’s nights are spent with a pillow over her head because Mom and Dad are fighting so loudly that she can’t sleep? The scenario is no longer quite as happy. It’s common sense that a child is not better off in a home filled with conflict, whether or not it is a traditional family. A study by researchers at the John Hopkins Institute found that the percentage of children living with single parent declined from 57 to 54 during the course of the study. However, most of the children living in “two parent” households were living with unmarried parents- for instance, their mother and a live-in boyfriend. In a follow up study, most of these live-in situations and several marriages had broken up. Andrew J. Cherlin, an author of the study, claims that such “churning” can have a negative effect on children.[4] Conflict in families is detrimental to the development of children. Should an emotionally or physically abused mother stay with her husband just so her children can be part of a traditional family? Should a single father marry a woman he doesn’t love just so his children can be part of a traditional family? Should a well adjusted child be taken away from loving grandparents who are raising them so they can be adopted into a traditional family? Too many children are being forced to continually live in conflict and unhappiness just for the sake of having a traditional family. As appealing as the picture of a traditional family is, there are some scenarios where a child is better off in a non-traditional family.

The truth is, many non-traditional families are quite happy and successful. In fact, in some studies, children being raised by single fathers and gay or lesbian parents score as well or better than children being raised in traditional homes.[5] Surprising as this sounds, it makes a lot of sense. Single fathers and gay or lesbian parents tend to be a minority, and they also face a lot of negative stereotypes. It’s not a surprise that these parents may work harder to provide stable, loving homes for their children.

The responsibility of a family is to provide love and support while raising the child. If it is possible for a married mother and father to do this, than that is wonderful. But if it takes breaking up a nuclear family to make sure the child is loved and supported and not exposed to conflict in the home, then that is more important the preservation of a traditional family. The main focus should be the importance of committed relationships and the involvement of both parents (when possible) in raising a child, whether the parents are legally married or not.[6] The most important issue at hand is providing a loving atmosphere for the child, not presenting a picture-perfect traditional family.

I can vouch for the positive aspects of being raised in a non-traditional family. My parents divorced when I was in eighth grade, which is a tough time for any teenage girl. When my dad moved out of our house and in with his girlfriend, it was the hardest experience of my life. However, as I’ve matured, I’ve been able to see the situation for its positive influences on me. Life with my parents when they were married was extremely tough on my brother and I. There was a lot of fighting, my mom struggled with depression, and my dad was alcoholic and then manic depressive. Even though we were the classic “traditional family”, none of us was happy. After my dad moved out, he stopped drinking and took medication for his manic depression. My mom got counseling. My brother and I got to see my father whenever we wanted, and the time that we spend with him was positive, because everyone was under less stress and so much happier. I’m close with both of my parents as well as my dad’s girlfriend, and I honestly believe that my family was better off after the divorce. I can only imagine what I would be like today if my parents had tried to salvage our traditional family instead of getting a divorce. My father would probably still be drinking, if he hadn’t managed to get himself killed in a drunk driving accident yet. I wouldn’t be close to him at all. My mom would still be struggling with depression, and I wouldn’t have much of a relationship with her either. My brother and I would still be dealing with the emotional effects of living in a house filled with conflict. I realize that not all divorces are as amicable and work out as well as my family. But if the only other alternative is a miserable group of people attempting to be a traditional family, then divorce is a reasonable choice.

The typical American traditional family is a pretty picture. Dad’s at work, Mom’s in the kitchen cooking, and little Susie is adorable and well loved. But in today’s society, this picture isn’t always practical or truthful. The desire to attain this fantasy nuclear family in real life shouldn’t come before the well-being of a child. It is more important for the child to be raised by loving individuals than to be part of a traditional family. In the end, the most important thing to consider is what is best for the child.

[1] “Changes in the American Family” Jerilyn Watson. This is America #1067. National Public Radio. 4 June 2001. Transcript.

[2] Benfer, Amy. “Nuclear Family Takes a Hit”. Salon. 7 June 2001.

[3] Student Performance and the Changing Family. Grissimer, David W. Kirby, Sheila. Berends, Mark. Williamson, Stephanie. RAND’s Institute on Education and Training. 15 June 2003.

<www.rand.org/publications/RB/RB8009>

[4] Toner, Robin. “Two Parents not Always Best for Children, Study Finds” New York Times 21 Feb. 2002.

[5] Benfer, Amy. “Nuclear Family Takes a Hit”. Salon. 7 June 2001.

[6] Fobres, Nancy. The Invisible Heart: The Economics of Family Values. New Press, 2001.