"In truth, what we need to do is to stop taking children from their fathers. We know from years of research that the one thing that can bring child abuse under control is the presence of a father."

well that's a load of crap if i've ever heard one. i wonder, has the author spent any time studying abusive single fathers? apparently not, because that wouldn't support his "blame the mother" theory.

he speaks of deducing "the real causes" of child abuse but does not mention a single tangible piece of evidence to support his theory. what a ridiculous article.

from the articles you cited:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1115.cfm

"The safest environment for a child--that is, the family environment with the lowest risk ratio for physical abuse--is one in which the biological parents are married and the family has always been intact." I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that. I know I won't.

"The rate of abuse is six times higher in the second-safest environment: the blended family in which the divorced mother has remarried." Okay, so a remarried mother is second-safest, yet the chance of abuse is higher that a family unit. Still won't argue with that.

"The rate of abuse is 14 times higher if the child is living with a biological mother who lives alone." So, children are more likely to be abused by a single mother than a remarried one.

"The rate of abuse is 20 times higher if the child is living with a biological father who lives alone." Yet, children are even more likely to be abused by a single father than by a single mother.

"The rate of abuse is 20 times higher if the child is living with biological parents who are not married but are cohabiting." The rate of abuse is even higher if the parents are living together, yet divorced.

"The rate of abuse is 33 times higher if the child is living with a mother who is cohabiting with another man." So, it's even more dangerous if the mother is living with someone but not married.

I ask again, where is the data for fathers? In comparing single moms with single dads based on the data you've linked, single dads are more dangerous. So, where is the data for fathers who are cohabitating but not remarried? The study you cite did not even bother to ask the question.

Again, I say the author is off his freaking rocker.

Anna, we may be talking past one another here. I don't think there was any claim that a single father is better than a single mother - in fact, the evidence is to the contrary. The point is that when you remove the biological father, abuse increases by a lot - especially when you introduce another man.

If it's true that "the most likely physical abuser of a young child will be that child's mother", then when you analyze the above statistics it becomes obvious that the presence or absence of a married biological father is the controlling factor in abuse. He is a protector and a stabilizing force. If you remove him (or worse, replace him), the situation deteriorates badly.

we may indeed be talking past each other. =) my point is that the author seemed to conclude (and based on the evidence presented it backs him up) that the mother is most dangerous. i just feel the data is incomplete, and that the question of the father is left out. i wonder what the comparable statistics would be about cohabitating fathers. seems to me that might make this a more balanced study. =)

i should learn to use that preview button, heh.

based on the data presented, single mothers v single fathers, the single father is more dangerous. based on the data presented, a cohabitating mother is most dangerous based on the data presented. i'd like to see the stats for cohabitating dads thrown in there for comparison. personally i don't feel that proves that the father is a stabilising influence, but i do agree that the two-parent household is best for children. blah! okay, i think i got it now. =)

that the mother is most dangerous

That is absolutely the claim, and there is data presented to back that up. You are right that the data presented by the papers is not complete, but I have not looked at the source data either. It may be more complete than the summaries presented online.

I don't think anyone is making any particular claim as to whether it is better for a child to be in the sole custody of a single mom or a single dad. The only two claims I see are (1) Women commit more abuse and (2) When you take the married, biological father out, things get bad quickly.

You could make the point that "when you take the married, biological mother out, things get bad quickly". But this rarely happens - how many men are awarded sole custody? It's quite unusual.

personally i don't feel that proves that the father is a stabilising influence
the two-parent household is best for children

Actually your second statement is too general. A two-parent household in which the biological parents are married is best. June and Ward Cleaver, or even Marge and Homer Simpson. Any deviation from this represents a dramatic increase in the incidence of abuse.

Couple that with the fact (it's stated as a fact in many places and I don't feel up to challenging or defending it) that most abusers are women. Add the fact that generally, women get custody. The conclusion is inescapable. In the non-Cleaver situations, the abuser is usually the woman. And the thing that changes in that woman's life is the presence or absence of her husband. That is the controlling factor!

Here is the logic more formally:
1. Abuse increases in the absence of married biological parents. (Given)
2. Most abusers are women. (Given)
3. Most abusers in "broken families" are women (from 1 and 2).
4. Women usually get custody. (Given)
5. Most children in broken families live with their biological mother. (from 4)
6. In most cases, the difference between a traditional family and a "broken family" is the presence or absence of the married biological father. I'm defining the family as whoever has custody of the kids here, because that's what we're discussing. (from 5)
7. The presence or absence of the married biological father is the controlling factor in whether or not a child will be abused in most cases. (from 1, 5, and 6).
8. The abuse prevented by the presence of the married biological father would usually be perpetrated by the mother. (from 2 and 7).

This addressed the majority of cases - the majority of abusers are women, and women almost always get custody. The effect of the presence of the married biological mother is certainly significant in the minority of cases when the father has custody, but because those are the minority of cases it cannot be considered as the controlling factor (since it is not a factor at all in most cases).

This doesn't speak to the relative merits of either the father or the mother, but the relative merits of the situation and what typically happens when the situation deteriorates. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise; I didn't mean to. I don't think women are vicious monsters that would all kill their children were it not for the valiant husband restraining her. I'm not trying to paint anyone as the villain or the hero.

okay, let's think about this then, going off the data that's presented, leaving out the cohabitating father.

single mother v single father = single father is more dangerous

if this is the case, were more fathers to be awarded custody, we can logically conclude that more abuse would be committed by the fathers. statistically, it would far surpass the number of abusive single mothers as long as they were disproportionately awarded custody (like mothers are today).

but again, i can't really look at this without wondering where the data on fathers is. just because they're awarded custody less often than women, that doesn't mean that there aren't enough of them our there to study.

i certainly don't think you're implying anything or trying to paint anyone as the villian. rather, i feel the author of the article is trying to do that. i do agree with you that the biological unit is more healthy for a child, so i hope you don't feel i'm trying to argue that.

maybe i'll see if i can dig up some statistics on abusive fathers.