A week or so ago, I read a book review in the Wall Street Journal. The book was titled "Cuz." It was written by the aunt of two cousins. It chronicled the development of those two boys, I'll call them Bill and Jim, from young children to adulthood.
The author suggests that the major difference in the development of the two nephews was that Jim had a father in the house whereas Bill did not, although his father was alive but absent from the household. Bill's mother got along mostly on welfare payments.
While there were lots of differences in the environments in which Bill and Jim grew up, the author cites the absence of Bill's father as a major difference. Increasingly, the children of a large segment of our society are growing up in fatherless households.
Today, our welfare system encourages fatherless households, destroying the family unit. More and more of our children are growing up in fatherless households - to their detriment.
This is not to suggest that a single mother cannot successfully rear her children, but it is a tough row to hoe.
Perhaps it is time to make welfare payments contingent upon there being a father in the household, except in very unusual circumstances.
James R. Thomen Montchan
Ms. Allen [the older of the two cousins and author of the book], we learn, was raised in a stable home with a mother and successful father who consistently emphasized the importance of education. She didn't end up in Michael's shoes, she explains, because she was blessed with "resources, decent character, and luck," acknowledging that her "father and mother gave me the first two items from that treasure chest." Michael, by contrast, was the youngest of three children whom his mother bore to a man she never married. Like many single mothers, she was left alone to keep her children housed and fed. This all-consuming responsibility, plus persistent poverty, meant that Michael was left unsupervised in dangerous neighborhoods. "Cuz" and the distance between them, Meghan Kruger, Wall Street Journal,1/8/18.