There are many different issues associated with the breakdown of a family, and various factors that contribute to the issues that arise from this. The cause of a breakdown could vary from mutual separation, financial stress, and poverty to domestic violence, abuse, imprisonment, or even death (Utting, 1995). Families vary culturally, financially, and geographically. Research into how such issues affect the well-being of a child suggests that, depending on a family’s makeup, it depends on how the issues associated with family breakdown affect them.
Some of the key issues identified from a family breaking down are the cost it has on society, a child’s wellbeing, mental health issues in children continuing into adulthood, severe anti-social behaviors, emotional and psychological stress, lack of educational achievement, and lack of social competence (Jeynes, 2002). Due to there being a vast array of issues, this artifact will review the issues of mental health, anti-social behaviors, lack of educational achievement, all with regards to children and the cost of family breakdown to society.
Demographic and social changes over the last three decades have resulted in a more diverse and complex family situation. There are many more couples choosing to cohabit and become parents nowadays instead of marrying. Due to there being a higher proportion of parental separation within this group, there is a higher probability of a child experiencing being part of a stepfamily or having a lone parent than was previously the case (Wallerstein, Lewis, & Blakeslee, 2002).
Over recent years, there has been growing interest regarding the impact this experience has on children. This is a key issue for policymakers since, although the government wants to support stable relationships between parents, where they break down, there is a responsibility to provide support to ensure positive outcomes for children (Miles & Stephenson, 2000).
Results gathered from a public opinion poll commissioned by the Children’s Society as part of their ongoing Good Childhood inquiry revealed in 2008 that mental health issues in children were increasing at an alarming rate. The report identified that 10% of boys aged 11 to 15 and 13% of girls had mental health issues at that time. This amounted to 300,000 young sufferers in total (Benson, 2010).
It is estimated by professionals that more than a million children between five and 16 have a clinically recognizable mental health disorder. When questioned as to what pressures were causing them distress, not only did the children identify family breakdown as a cause, but 29 percent of adults did as well. Also identified as being problematic were poor family relationships, emotional distress, and poor parenting, either by a lack of affection or the failure to show authority and set boundaries (UK failing to meet).
Children who are exposed to conflict between their parents prior to or following separation, or who feel themselves to be to blame for it, are particularly at risk of negative outcomes (Harne, 2011). There is some evidence that age and gender are variables that alter the impact of conflict on child outcomes, and that boys and adolescents are generally the most affected (Buchanan, Hunt, Bretherton, & Bream, 2001).
Children, as a result of such experiences, are more susceptible to having a higher likelihood of anxiety, behavior problems, or withdrawal. It is suggested that youth of today are forced into a situation of having to grow up too quickly due to family dynamics and demands of society. Jeynes (2002) suggests that as a result of these factors, child and youth anti-social behaviors and crime rates have dramatically risen. According to the Youth Justice Board, it costs the country on average 455 million pounds a year with regards to young offenders (Minister backs greater).
The Association of Teachers and Lecturers said chaotic home lives and poverty made children unable to learn. Due to this, some delegates of the association want a Royal Commission to investigate childhood unhappiness. This came about following ministers’ plans to tackle the poor behaviour of some children from difficult backgrounds. A Wiltshire teacher, Phil Whalley, said it was clear from research in Europe and the US that family stability, or the lack of it, was an important factor as to whether a child would have a positive educational outcome.
As there are already significant levels of social dysfunction and family breakdown within Britain, the problem needs to be addressed on a scale that is not only applicable to the ideal nuclear family, but also to the many different dynamics of Britain’s families, or the situation will progressively get worse. Those who underachieved in childhood are more likely to have dysfunctional lives and be unable to support their own children.
In short, as a society, we are in danger of creating an expanding, perpetuating, and toxic circle,” (Eason, 2008). It is also felt that if this is allowed to continue, society could reach that crossover point when no matter how much time, money, or effort is invested in education and no matter how hard schools and teachers try, they will not be able to overcome the negative impact of broken and dysfunctional families.
Current issues regarding family breakdown are acknowledged as being costly to society. Governments recognise the need to invest in educating families to maintain a happy, healthy environment for children to grow up in and learn from (Mooney, Oliver & Smith, 2009). This not only reduces the cost to society but also provides upcoming generations with the ability to succeed in raising families that benefit society.
However, there appear to be worrying levels of social dysfunction and family breakdown, often as a result of poverty. A family will dissolve, and as a result, a child’s wellbeing is affected by many variables, therefore creating further poverty (Forgotten Families, 2012). It is acknowledged that mental health issues alone cost society an estimated 105 billion pounds, considering mental health is seen as one of the biggest issues to affect adults and children as a result of a family breakdown.
However, governments are always in danger of presuming that there is a standard model of family life for which they can legislate. They make the assumption that most families do, in fact, operate in particular ways. In reality, it is very difficult to identify a standard model by what people do or by what they should do. The aim of policies should be to facilitate flexibility in family life rather than force it to be of a particular form. This then enables people to have the maximum opportunity to work out their own relationships as they wish, to suit the circumstances of their own lives. It is not the role of governments to presume that certain outcomes would be more desirable than others (Neale, 2000).
With regards to all of the issues related to family breakdown, including educational achievement, behavior, mental health, self-concept, social competence, and long-term health, there are significant differences between children who experience parental separation compared with children from intact families (Charles, Davies & Harris, 2008). However, although the difference between the two groups is generally statistically significant, the effect sizes are small. This is due to the fact that within both groups, children vary widely in their experiences.
Children from intact families can experience circumstances that are known to increase the risk of poor outcomes, such as poverty, parental conflict, violence, and poor parenting. Meanwhile, children whose parents separate may not experience these circumstances or may cope well. As a result, many children experience family breakdown and function as well as, or even better than, children from intact families (Ganong & Coleman, 1994).
While changing family dynamics place children at an increased risk of negative outcomes, the evidence shows that few children and adolescents experience long-lasting problems. Some children can actually benefit when it brings an end to a ‘harmful’ family situation, for example, where there are high levels of parental conflict, including violence (Featherstone, 2004). The significant differences within and across family types need to be considered before implying that one rule suits all family settings.
Stepfamilies, for example, where both the parent and stepparent have brought children into the new family, have been associated with more adjustment problems than in a stepfamily where all the children are related to the mother. In terms of outcomes, the differences between children within family types can be greater than across family types. This suggests that family functioning, and not family type, is of more significance (Salmon & Shackleford, 2007).
In summary, family breakdown is not an easy process. It involves a number of risk and protective factors that interact in a complicated way both before and after separation. Although children are at an increased risk of harmful outcomes following family breakdown, sometimes with negative outcomes continuing into adulthood, the difference between children from intact and non-intact families is small. The majority of children will not be affected in the long-term.
Children from both intact and non-intact families vary considerably when it comes to their experiences. The way in which a family functions appears to have a greater impact on overall outcomes for children than the type of family does. Outcomes for many children experiencing family breakdown are as good as, or even better than, children from intact families. Evidence indicates that there is no direct link between family breakdown and negative child outcomes. Instead, a number of factors such as parental conflict, the quality of parenting and parent-child relationships, mental health issues, and financial hardship play a key role in either increasing or limiting the risk of adverse outcomes following family breakdown.
Conflict and stress can affect the ability of parents, whether together, separated, or divorced, to parent effectively, which, in turn, impacts children’s well-being. Poverty and the stress it brings are both contributors to family breakdown and frequently consequences of it. Children from poorer backgrounds, whether from intact or non-intact families, generally do less well on a number of measures compared to children from more advantaged backgrounds.
