Foreign Literature

In the United States, the effects of single-parent family life on children fall into two
categories: (1) those attributed to the lower socioeconomic status of single parents and
(2) the short-term consequences of divorce that moderate over time. Four factors are
predictive of U.S. children’s adjustment to the divorce of their parents: the passage of
time, the quality of the children’s relationship with their residential parent, the level of
conflict between parents, and the economic standing of the children’s residential family.
In the first few years after a divorce, the children have higher rates of antisocial behavior,
aggression, anxiety, and school problems than children in two parent families. However,
some of these problems may be attributed to a decrease in available resources and
adult super-vision; many of the negative effects disappear when there is adequate
supervision, income, and continuity in social networks (McLanahan and Sandefur 1994).

In mother-only families, children tend to experience short-and long-term economic and

psychological disadvantages; higher absentee rates at school, lower levels of education,
and higher dropout rates (with boys more negatively affected than girls); and more
delinquent activity, including alcohol and drug addiction. Adolescents, on the other
hand, are more negatively affected by parental discord prior to divorce than by living in
single-parent families and actually gain in responsibility as a result of altered family
routines (Demo and Acock 1991). Children in single-mother homes are also more likely
to experience health-related problems as a result of the decline in their living standard,
including the lack of health insurance (Mauldin 1990). Later, as children from single-
parent families become adults, they are more likely to marry early, have children early,
and divorce. Girls are at greater risk of becoming single mothers as a result of
nonmarital childbearing or divorce (McLanahan and Booth 1989). Although the research
findings are mixed on long-term effects, the majority of children adjust and recover and
do not experience severe problems over time (Coontz 1997).

A common explanation for the problems found among the children of single parents
has been the absence of a male adult in the family (Gongla 1982). The relationship
between children and non-custodial fathers can be difficult and strained. Fathers often
become disinterested and detached from their children; in one study more than 60
percent of fathers either did not visit their children or had no contact with them for over
a year. The loss of a father in the family can have implications beyond childhood
(Wallerstein and Blakeslee 1989). However, the lack of a male presence may not be as
critical as the lack of a male income to the family. The economic deprivation of single-
parent family life, in combination with other sources of strain and stress, is a major
source of the problems experienced by both parents and children. 1Religious
Involvement and Children’s Well-Being: What Research Tells Us (And What It Doesn’t)
According to Lisa J. Bridges, Ph.D., and Kristin Anderson Moore, Ph.D., Prosocial and
Moral Values and Behavior Research findings from early adolescence are consistent in
supporting a positive association between religiosity and socially beneficial (or
“prosocial”) and altruisticattitudes and behavior. Religions and religious organizations
generally promote the ideas of helping others and concern for the greater good by
providing opportunities for community service.

Moreover, acceptance of the moral tenets of a religious faith may be instrumental in the
development of a healthy sense of responsibility and even guilt that may lead
adolescents to avoid wrongdoing or to make amends when they have done wrong.

Other findings seem less clear-cut. For example, one study found a somewhat stronger
association between religious involvement and altruistic behavior than between
religious involvement and altruistic values.

This may be due, in part, to the frequent inclusion of service activities within religious
education and youth fellowship programs. For some adolescents, altruistic behaviors
(such as participating in charity events, and donating time and effort to helping others)
may reflect participation in a group (such as a church youth group) in addition to, or
rather than, a personal commitment to helping others. In other words, religious activities
may represent a pathway to prosocial behavior.

Personality and Mental Health

Research is thin on the relationship between adolescents’ involvement in religion and

personality and mental health. Theoretically, religiosity is expected to be linked to better
mental health and emotional well-being. Religious beliefs can serve as a resource for
coping with life’s difficulties (“The Lord never gives you more than you can bear”);
moreover, belief in God’s love and feelings of acceptance within a religious community
may enhance one’s sense of selfworth. Relatively few studies have been conducted in
this area, however. And those studies that do exist find that the association between
religious involvement and belief and adolescents’ self-esteem (the most frequently
examined topic) is generally small and frequently not statistically significant.23

However, while the evidence that being religious has a positive effect on adolescents’
mental health and personality tends to be fairly weak, there is no indication in research
studies of negative effects of religiosity on any aspect of well-being.

Methodological Concerns

Current measures of religiosity in childhood and adolescence are inadequate. As noted

earlier, most studies of religiosity in adolescence (and the very few studies of religiosity
in childhood) use “snapshot” measures of religious practice and beliefs, which do not
allow for tracking behavior or making comparisons over time. Further, no measures of
religiosity unique to younger children were found in our review, which explains our
emphasis in this brief on adolescents. In the rare studies that do include preadolescent
children, measures tend to be adaptations of the same measures used with older
adolescents and adults. The almost exclusive reliance on responses to questionnaires
represents another limitation of existing research studies on religiosity and wellbeing.
Moreover, the questions used to tap religiosity vary widely across different surveys,28
suggesting that the research literature would benefit from greater standardization of
terminology and measures (although, given the inadequacy of current measures, it is
too soon to determine which existing measures, if any, may be most useful). Also,
frequently the questionnaires used include only one or a few questions (for example,
how often respondents attend religious services or how central they consider religion to
their life). Information derived in this way may not be able to capture the varying levels
of religious belief and practice or the complexity of the religious experience in
respondents’ lives. The lack of longitudinal studies limits understanding of the
importance of religiosity in childhood and adolescence in a number of ways. In order to
fully address the individual, family, and community influences that predict religiosity – or
to examine the extent to which religiosity in childhood and adolescence promotes
future well-being – studies are needed that follow individuals across time. The dearth of
such long-term studies means, for example, that we currently cannot say that
participating in religious activities when an adolescent is 13, for instance, is related to
how well – or how poorly – that adolescent will do at age 21 on varied

measures of well-being. Few studies have used multivariate analyses that take account
of confounding factors that may be associated with both religiosity and outcomes.
(Multivariate analysis is a method for examining three or more variables at the same
time.) Lack of consideration of such factors may lead researchers to overestimate the
effects of religious involvement on well-being. For example, being involved in religion
may be affected by family and neighborhood factors, such as family structure, risks in
the neighborhood, and poverty. These can influence proximity to houses of worship and
the capacity to attend services frequently and become actively involved. Few studies
have considered possible differences in the impact of religious involvement on
subgroups of adolescents. The strength of the effects of religious involvement on
adolescent well-being may be influenced by gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or
neighborhood characteristics. However, few studies to date have systematically
evaluated the effects of the characteristics of adolescents and their environments.
Failure to do so may lead to over- or underestimation of the importance of religion for
different groups of adolescents. For example, in a study described earlier, it was found
that religion had a stronger positive influence among adolescents living in distressed
neighborhoods than among adolescents living in more stable neighborhoods. 6

The responsibility of raising the children alone carries the stigma of a failed marriage.
The chances of succeeding professionally let alone attaining a position of leadership
seemed difficult to imagine.

According to Reyes it was more advantageous to be a solo parent, in the sense that
there is more harmony in their home. To them, there is only one policy and one
discipline they were following. Being solo parent is a tough job, he said. The
responsibility of shouldering the double burden can be physically and emotionally
draining. For other people, being a solo parent may be disadvantageous especially on
financial side.

In addition to what Reyes started, many parent with financial problems, find them
overworked, tired, and as a result become more easily upset and irritable.

Bringing up children is a delicate issue; one has to go by instincts in dealing with them.
For example, one policy may work for one child but not for the others. Some children
can be easily persuaded or motivated while others need to be intimidated, so others
usually play it by ear.

For some parenting tips Pijuan advised that parent should let their children know that
they loved. So that no matter how angry the parent are, no matter how much discipline
those parents tried to instill, they will understand that it is for the sake of discipline and
not because parents hate them.

According to Robert Kilpatrick (1992), he was simply showing love for his daughter,
giving her his time and trying to see the world through her eyes.

Mothers, fathers, bring a unique presence, a special strength to raising children, says Ray
Guarendi, a clinical psychologist and a writer of books entitled Back to the Family.
Guarendi’s book (1993), shows that traditional values, rooted in the bed rock of mutual
trust, truth and unconditional love, are still the keys for successful childbearing, and in
this setting, fathers bring special gifts to parenting.

Sometimes fatherly instincts come easily; sometimes, they have to be cultivated. Culled
from real life experienced, is what kids need most from a dad. Someone who shows his
love for them. Someone who will spend time with them.Guarendi noted that some of
the most important memories kids latch on to about their parents evolve from routine
moments in family life. Someone who can see the world through a child’s eyes. This is
one of the most overlooked rules for a father. Someone who will set limits. Parents
reluctant to discipline their children have forgotten an intuition that kids have about
discipline and freedom.

Furthermore, Liza Ang(1994) said that fathers and mothers can best promote the
development of their children in three major ways:

Understanding a child’s basic needs;

Motivating the child behavior and;

Serving as models of appropriate behavior.

In the study made by Elizabeth Adeva (1994) on the parenting behavior of parents, there
should be a better understanding between parents and children, researching out must
come both ways. Parents should continually be interested in their children’s welfare.

On the other hand, Grace Estanio (1994) found out that parents who show genuine
concern for their children’s emotional welfare may find it relatively easier to open lines
of communication in the home.

Another related study is that Elizabeth Ortega (1995) she pointed that a common
parental crime is the lack or even absence of respect for children’s feelings. High regards
for our youngsters’, sensibility ought to be given prime consideration.

In the study made by Nord (1982), after separation, the solo parent is usually glad to
have the children with him or her.

Everything else seems to have fallen apart, but as long as solo parents have their
children, they retain their parental function. Their children’s need for them reassures
them of their own importance. The mother’s success as a parent becomes even more
important to counteract the feelings of low self-esteem that result from separation.
Feeling depressed, she knows she must bounce back for her children. Yet after a short
period the mother comes to realize that her children do not fill the void by her
separation.

When a man separates his wife, or vice versa, a family is being broken apart. And when
children are a part of that family, it’s not just the adults who suffer. It has long been
recognized that the initial impact of separation can be extremely traumatic for children
of all ages. But on the other hand, popular opinion also held that since children were
resilient by nature, after the initial shock they tended to adjust or bounce back very
quickly. As a result, most professional studies concentrated on the long-range effects
separation had on the parents. Recently that trend has changed- it is now recognized
that the greatest victims of the separation experience are the children.

Kelly (1989), stated that is you are a solo parent your children have a right to love,
stability and a future. You are still a family. You are not somehow less of a person
because you are in a new role.

To provide the environment of success for your children, you have to know you can
make it. Nothing breeds confidence like success.

One of the biggest problem to a mother is being depressed, worried, and self-concern.
Second problem having a lowered standard of living. The concerns of being a mothers is
directly affected their children. They can’t able to provide the care and other necessities
of their children as they felt they should. The study found that with women, earning
capacity proves to be a direct determinant of happiness and well-being. Women who
did not reach college and who are in the lowest income group are approximately twice
as likely to become depressed as the problem of child-raising as those who are
educated and hold high-paying, professional jobs, blue-collar women earning low
income are three times more apt to complain of lowered standards of living than those
in the higher bracket. High wage-earners, on the other hand, have a different problem.
Almost a third of them claim that their involvement with members of the opposite sex is
the most trying part of solo parenting.

Who are in process of divorce is a one of the hardes situation to be in. sometimes
happeni between couple, that concerns most people. Somehow divorce is hurtful on
both partner to those who undergo, the children end up with the greatest amount of
problems. This is a challenge to a child that can develop and not always seen by the
naked eye, and do not always come to the surface right away.

Sometimes children try to stop the divorce of their mother and father, but some of it will
just accept what happened. Some of the children will tell that they are happy for what
the decision they had. This is not really the case, as one would see if he or she talk with
the child for a while. There are lot of things that divorce does to a family, and there are
lot of things that can affect to their children. In some situation the effect are rarely
positive and helpful in the perception of others. Divorce has many negative effects on
the psychological and social aspects of a child’s life.

There are lot of psychological aspects on a child’s life that can change when their
parents undergo to a divorce. As previously mentioned by the researcher a child may
not appear initially how they feel about the divorce, but the real feelings of that child
will appear in some time. The researcher in an article of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry says, “children incorporate repertoires of hatred, impulsive,
and violent behavior into their own behavior as a result of observing their parents’
responses to rage and frustration”. A lot of children who are really the witness in the
process of divorce of their parents. It will become natural to a child . The child naturally
looks to their parents for the example of how to handle certain situations and emotions.
In the process of divorce there is so much bitterness and aggression that is expressed by
one of them or both parents of that child. To a child who witness this situation is not
healthy for them for several reason. The main reasons is that the child can develop some
attitudes that is not appropriate. For example being angry and aggression to their
parents situation. One of the tools of a child in solving their problems is being angry
and the aggressive felt by.. The child becomes like the parents and it has negative
impact to others because of not knowing or understanding how to control these
feelings. They may often violently lash out to those around him or her that can affect
these feelings to occur.

It really affect the child’s behavior it can result to the next psychological problem that
divorce has to their. One of the major effect of divorce is depression.

Based on the study conducted by Hetherington, Stanley-Hagan & Anderson, they

emphasized that there is a greater effect on children the way their parents interact with
each other rather than the actual divorce itself. In fact, it is hard to distinct the effects of
divorce from a broken relationship. In this way, the bad effect of divorce may be traced
back in the individual’s differences before the divorce itself, unfortunately these negative
effects is related to emotional conflicts and separation which can proceeds to legal
divorce.

In general, individuals who have experienced a family conflict have a more difficult time
catching up with their studies and their extra-curricular activities in school rather than
individuals who have a complete family or blended families (Carlos, 1995). However,
every child has a different way on adjusting to parental divorce or separation. In some
circumstances, children that is a product of a divorce family show only a small negative
effect that last for a short period of time; and in few circumstances, some children
exhibit a poor adjustment to the negative effects of parental divorce. According to
Dacey and Travers, not all children from a broken family exhibits negative effects, some
of them grow strong and healthy and later they are the one who supports their family.

On what way children become more successful in adjusting to parental divorce? Based
on studies conducted by Carlson and Hines, they concluded that children can easily
accept the reality of having a broken family if the parents provide continues and
coordinated parenting, this can be done if they continue to monitor and discipline their
children. This new parenting role requires a problem solving approach, in this approach
both the separated parents hide their own problems and conflicts to their children and
avoids having disagreements or criticizing each other in front of their children.

Accepting the idea of having a broken family can cause some emotional problems to
children, this problem sometimes end up of having trouble in meeting their academic
and social expectations at school. Simons, Gordon, Conger and Lorenx said that
emotional aspects of divorce include feelings of anxiety, depression, guilt and
aggression. In most cases, parental separation affects children’s sense of well-being and
lowers their self-esteem.

Many studies had conducted and reveal that a great number of couples planning to
have a divorce refuse to believe that divorce can cause a negative effect on their
children.

A study conducted by the Institute of American Values that was released in 2002 reveals
that unhappily married adults who end up in a divorce doesn’t exhibit any emotional or
psychological improvements compared to those couples who stayed married for the
rest of their lives.

According to several studies, divorce doesn’t improve your emotional health but instead
it makes your emotional health worse. This is due to the stress and financial burden a
couple is facing during the divorce process.

These are some of facts about divorce you might not know….

1. A study created by the Institute for American Values reveals that eight out of 10
couples who don’t continue on the idea of divorce become happy couples five years
later.

2. Almost half of American children see their parent’s break up in person. Then half of
them will also witness the breakup of their parent’s second marriage.

Many couples engage in divorce and then end up remarrying another individual without
knowing the true reason of their marriage problem with their first marriage. This is the
main reason why second marriage divorce rate is higher compare to the first marriage.
Foreign Studies

According to the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,teenagers that is raised by a

single-parent or in a blended family are three times more likely to seek a psychological
help within a given year.

These are some of the other outrageous statistics about the effect of divorce on
children:

According to Dawson (“Family Structure and Children’s Health and Well-being” Journal
of Marriage and the Family), twenty to thirty-five percent of children who are living with
both biological parents are physically healthy than those from broken homes. Children
who have divorced parents have greater possibility to experience injury, asthma,
headaches and speech defects than those children whose parents are intact.

According to Wallerstein (“The Long-Term Effects of Divorce on Children” Journal of the

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 1991), after six years of parental
marriage separation, a study of children revealed that even though many years have
passed, these children still feel “lonely, unhappy, anxious and insecure”.

According to McLanahan and Sandefur (“Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts,
What Helps” Harvard University Press 1994), Children who have divorced parents are
approximately two times more expected to drop out of high school than those children
whose parents are intact.

According to Angel and Worobey (“Single Motherhood and Children’s Health”), fifty
percent of children with divorced parents are more probable to develop health
problems than those with intact parents.

According to Fagan, Fitzgerald and Rector (“The Effects of Divorce On America), fifty
percent of those children who are born this year with both parents, before reaching
their 18th birthday, they will experience the divorce of their parents.

Hopefully these statistics may ultimately cause you and your spouse to sincerely
consider all the cost of divorce before you make the final choice.

Based on these statistics, it becomes clear that children need secure, loving homes with
both parents. There is, of course an omission to every rule, and in this case it is
households where violence is taking place. Children should under no situation remain in
a violent ambiance that is unsafe for them.
If both of you have just “grown apart”, or fell out of love and if there is no violence
enchanting place in your marriage, for your children’s sake, I advise you to seek out help
for your marriage before you give up completely.

It has been expected in the United States today that almost half of all couples that walk
down the aisle will rashly have divorce, but how about the clause “until death do us
part?”

Over time, there have been many theories obtainable as to why divorce occurs and why
these tolls have enlarged so radically over the last 30 years. Some think that the country
may take part in a role; others suppose that the span of the courtship plays an
significant piece; cohabitation preceding to wedding “increases” the chance that
separation will result; or not cohabitating prior to marriage may add as the evolution era
is too stressful; still others think that the separation progression is too simple; if laws
were stricter and divorces were further hard to get, these divorce statistics would get
better over era. At this era, although elevated, the separation tempo has decreased to
some extent lessening the minds of the American public. There is still small hope that
these information will ever diminish completely.

In this fast paced civilization that we exist in nowadays, it must to be simple for us, the
American public, to be aware of this phenomenon. The standard “American Family” has
both parents in the place of work, financial stress, job discontent, children in school
activities and sports, “high demand” lifestyles and generally small time to center on the
family’s group cohesiveness. Although Waite and Lillard (1991) viewed that children,
especially young children, present and improve marital steadiness, environmental
stressors and everyday labor are often more than a parental relationship can endure.
These “standard” stressors alone can make much chaos, turmoil and in time lead to
marital damage, argument and divorce.

There is a current data which supports that stress in a broken family is mostly affecting
the children. Divorce is seen, as the cause of the negative events and psychological
distress to the youths. One explanation purposed by Katherine

Effects on Adult Relationships

Many studies show that family conflict was typically a strong precursor to divorce and
lead children from divorced families to rate their relationships as having greater family
conflict. Those from intact families reported more cohesion, expressiveness, sociability,
and idealization and less conflict than those from divorced families. However, coming
from a divorced family did not affect young adults’ self-esteem, fear of intimacy, or
relationship satisfaction, but it did affect fears and expectations for divorce (Kirk, 2002).
In-depth studies strongly indicate that the attitudes surrounding marriage and success
in marriage is transmitted between generations in divorced families. Men and women
from divorced families tend to score significantly lower on several measures of
psychological well-being and more likely to be divorced themselves (Franklin, Janoff-
Bulman, & Roberts; 1990). This trend has the potential to have social impact on our
culture because the evidence suggests that adult children of divorce have relationship
problems that lead to divorce in their marriages as well, which could lead to a perpetual
cycle of this phenomenon.

Perhaps the greatest problem associated with divorce is that it does appear to be a
cyclical phenomenon. An estimated 40% to 50% of children born in the U.S. in the
1980’s experienced parental divorce (Fine, Moreland, & Schwebel, 1983). Women who
experience parental divorce have a 60% higher divorce rate than their counterparts;
while men whose parents divorced have a 35% higher rate of divorce than men whose
parents remained married (Glen & Shelton, 1983). It seems clear that people from
divorced families are more likely to be divorced themselves and therefore convey the
impression that marital dissolution is more acceptable. Amato (1987) states that adult
children of divorce feel more pessimistic about their chances of life-long marriage and
evaluate divorce less negatively than do other young adults.

Students experiencing post-divorce conflict were more likely to have engaged in

premarital sexual intercourse, their satisfaction with their current relationship was lower,
and they showed a decline in the parent-child relationship. These adult children of
divorce also expressed more difficulty in finding people with whom they could establish
relationships (Morris & West, 2001).
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The lack of supervision and the absence of close relationships between the teenager and his or
her parents are factors that influence delinquency. A Mullens found that children from
biologically intact homes have a lower incidence of illegal behaviour that is paralleled by their
lower rate of susceptibility to peer pressure to commit deviant acts. The study suggests that
there is a link between juvenile deviance and family structure. The study also suggests that
juveniles who are charged with more serious acts of delinquency are from incomplete homes
than juveniles charged with lesser acts of misconduct. A family may influence a person‟s
behaviour either negatively or positively both at childhood and adulthood. An intact family can
be said to be a functioning union between a mother and a father, so when a break up exist, the
turmoil may affect a child to a greater extent. A functioning family is beneficial to a child than a
dysfunctional one. Family separation was a great contributor of child neglect which generally
leads to child deviant behaviour. For example, leaving homes and addicted to vices and the like
from parental and family neglect, lack of supervision and guidance. Many family characteristics
and family environments influence juvenile deviant behaviour such as the number of people in
a family, inconsistent parenting, family problems, child neglect and children‟s attachment to
parents.180 If violence encompasses all emotional environmental aspects of a juvenile‟s life, he
is more likely to engage in 54 delinquent activities.181 In a study by H. Juby and D. Farrington,
182 delinquency rates were found to be higher among the children who live in permanently
disrupted families compared to those living in intact families. The same pattern was found in
case of intact but high-conflict families. Cohesiveness of the family successfully predicts the
frequency of delinquent acts for non-traditional families. The lack of supervision and the
absence of close relationships between the teenager and his or her parents are factors that
influence delinquency.184 A. Mullens185 found that children from biologically intact homes
have a lower incidence of illegal behaviour that is paralleled by their lower rate of susceptibility
to peer pressure to commit deviant acts. The study suggests that there is a link between
juvenile deviance and family structure. The study also suggests that juveniles who are charged
with more serious acts of delinquency are from incomplete homes than juveniles charged with
lesser acts of misconduct. A broken home is a factor in personality mal-adjustment. For males,
the largest proportion of crimes brought to the attention of the court was the petty theft
offenses. The female delinquents were referred for running away from home and involved in
some type of sexual deviancy. Certain types of delinquency are related to broken homes (e.g.
runaway, truancy and fighting). Juveniles from broken homes according to A. Mullens186 are
2.7 times more likely to run away from their family than children living in intact homes. The
core belief is that a broken home has an imbalance and as a result is detrimental to a child‟s
socialization and personality adjustment. As a result, a child may be more susceptible to
negative peer pressure and may ultimately commit 55 acts of delinquency not committed by
children from intact homes where there is a balanced structure of man and women who act as
good role models in child acquiring proper roles. While examining the relationship between
family structure and juvenile delinquency, it was found that proportionately more juvenile
offenders come from family arrangements other than the two-parent family home. .

Mugo and K. Kamau188 say that various reasons such as poor marriages, lack of parental
controls, ineffective parental behaviour and failure to provide a natural and loving environment
attribute to the rise in delinquency. A family has a greater effect on individual‟s trait acquisition
and development. A broken home is a factor in personality mal-adjustment. For males, the
largest proportion of crimes brought to the attention of the court was the petty theft offenses.
The female delinquents were referred for running away from home and involved in some type
of sexual deviancy. Certain types of delinquency are related to broken homes (e.g. runaway,
truancy and fighting).

Juveniles from broken homes according to A. Mullens186 are 2.7 times more likely to run away
from their family than children living in intact homes. The core belief is that a broken home has
an imbalance and as a result is detrimental to a child‟s socialization and personality
adjustment. As a result, a child may be more susceptible to negative peer pressure and may
ultimately commit acts of delinquency not committed by children from intact homes where
there is a balanced structure of man and women who act as good role models in child acquiring
proper roles. While examining the relationship between family structure and juvenile
delinquency, it was found that proportionately more 56 juvenile offenders come from family
arrangements other than the two-parent family home. M. Mugo and K. Kamau say that various
reasons such as poor marriages, lack of parental controls, ineffective parental behaviour and
failure to provide a natural and loving environment attribute to the rise in delinquency. A family
has a greater effect on individual‟s trait acquisition and development.

Ngale (2009) explored the relationship between family structure and juvenile delinquency. The
analysis revealed the following significant relationships: the moral education of juvenile
delinquents is undertaken more by others than their biological parents; most delinquent
children come from the lowest socioeconomic stratum of society; about two-thirds of the
juvenile delinquents come from homes where 7 persons and above live under the same roof;
most parents of our respondents have low paid jobs which keep them for long periods away
from their children. A growing number of parents need additional socioeconomic support,
development of vital skills of responsible parenting, in order to adequately manage periods of
rapid social change and simultaneous multi dimensional challenges. A.K. Kimani (2010)
investigated the causative relationship between family unit structure and juvenile delinquency.
The research revealed that there was a strong correlation between murder and a child having
come from an intact family. For a single parent family parenthood, there was a strong
correlation between street life, sex and defilement offences. Children brought up in a step
parent home had a strong inclination towards substance abuse but the correlation was even
greater for stealing and refusing school. For children having come from a children‟s home, they
had a strong correlation towards substance abuse and street 57 life but showed a negative
strong correlation with refusing school. For children brought up in a grandparent family
structure, the correlation was strong for substance abuse and the highest for stealing. Murder
was the least committed offence while refusing school and street life were the most dominant.
This research concludes that single parenthood families were the most significant for all
offences in the study except murder. In another study by K. Sanni and others (2010) the results
indicated that three family variables namely: family stability, family cohesiveness and family
adaptability impact strongly on juvenile delinquency among secondary school students in
Nigeria. E. Obioha and M. Nthabi (2010) investigated the social background patterns of juvenile
delinquents to ascertain their contributions to juvenile delinquencies in Lesotho. The results in
the main corroborated what exists in literature that most delinquents come from broken
homes; most delinquents are males; delinquency is at a higher rate in urban areas compared to
the rural areas and that most delinquents are part of peer groups who engage in delinquent
behaviours. The most committed offence across the country was robbery. Another study links
parental care with high levels of psychological distress, which leads to delinquency. J. Chambers
and others198 found that high parental control, such as in an authoritarian parenting style,
leads to a faster first arrest. They also discovered that low parenting care, such as in a
permissive parenting style, is related to high levels of distress in adolescents. These finding
would also indicate harmful results from being reared in a permissive or authoritarian home. 58
The major area within juvenile delinquency and families is single parent households versus two
parent households. K. Klein and R. Forehand suggest that the prediction of juvenile delinquency
in early childhood depends on the type of maternal parenting skills that are imposed upon the
child during early adolescence. In addition, highly active children and children who frequently
and intensely experienced negative emotions had less constructive conflict with their mothers,
involving less resolution, more aggravation and less justification, than children who did not
have these qualities. Attachment security was not related to the frequency of conflict between
mothers and their children, but to the quality, the study found. Mothers and children who had
secure relationships had constructive conflict involving high levels of resolution, compromise
and justification. In sum, both the quality of children's relationships with their mothers and
children's personality types were found to shape the nature of conflict between mothers and
their children at age two. A 2008 study by UNICEF claimed that mothers who went back to work
less than a year after giving birth were gambling with their children‟s development. Father
involvement is positively correlated with children experiencing overall life satisfaction, less
depression, less emotional distress and fewer expressions of negative emotionality such as fear
and guilt. According to Rogers (1959), self concept governs individuals behaviors and
adjustment He found that the self concept is viewed as the way an individual perceives himself
and his behavior is strongly influenced by the way others perceive him. 59 K.N. Wright and K.E.
Wright194 suggest positive parenting practices during the early years and later in adolescence
appear to act as buffers preventing delinquent behaviour and assisting adolescents involved in
such behaviour to desist from delinquency. Research indicates that various exposures to
violence are important sources of early adolescent role exits, which means that not only can a
juvenile witness violence within the family but on the outside as well. D. Gorman-Smith and P.
Tolan195 found that parental conflict and parental aggressiveness predicted violent offending;
whereas, lack of maternal affection and paternal criminality predicted involvement in property
crimes. Familial characteristics suggesting familial antisocial behaviour or values such as family
history of criminal behaviour, harsh parental discipline, and family conflict have been among
the most consistently linked. D.G. Myers196 identified one reason why people believe so
strongly in the nurture assumption is that they can see parents influencing their children. They
observe the child of permissive parents being obnoxious and the child of abusive parents
looking cowed and fearful, in the presence of their parents. The fundamental attribution error
causes observers to assume that these children will be obnoxious or fearful in other social
contexts too. In another study conducted by D. Gorman-Smith and her colleagues197, data
show that children are more likely to resort to violence if there is violence within relationships
that they may share with their family. Bishop, Sue M & Ingersolls, Gray M. (1989), state that
effects of marital conflict and family structure on the self concept of pre and early adolescents.
60 Cox & Cox, 1979 also have stated that warm, loving parents tend to create a secure and thus
learn environment in which they can be more readily socialized and thus learn more
appropriate behavior. Robert (1998) found that adolescents living in single family are more
prone to behavior problems like school dropout, running away from home and engaging in
premarital sexual activities and family structure remained a salient factor in the prediction of
these problems. The impact of parental death on the process of separation - individuation in
adolescence was examined by Elder and Sandra (1995) showed that adolescents from the
father – deceased group who were more attached to mothers showed less autonomy according
to their scores on the emotional autonomy scale. Single parent children were found to have
significantly more problem areas of discipline/self-control than those from intact families.
Spigelman, Spigelman and ingles son (1991) and Hodges, Buchsbaum and Tierney (1983) hold
that hostility and aggression are found in higher levels in children from divorced homes. Adam
(2002) revealed that visit the separation from parent, adolescents shoed higher levels of
adjustment problems on an index measuring cognitive, emotional and behavioral functioning.
Allen (2002) observed more feeling of abandonment, helplessness, powerlessness, anger, guilt
and conflicts among children of divorced parents. Sons tended to report closer relationships
with their father than do daughters (King, 2002). Mueller (2003) reported that boys showed
several emotions in response to parental divorce, including loneliness, sadness, fear, shame or
embarrassment and anger. jain and Rathore (2006) 61 reported that children of single parent
families significantly feel more insecure in comparison to children of intact families.
Researchers debate when self-concept development begins but agree on the importance of
person‟s life. Tiedemann (2000) indicates that parents‟ gender stereotypes and expectations
for their children impact children‟s understandings of themselves by approximately age 3.
Leflot (2010) Others suggest that selfconcept develops later, around age 7 or 8, as children are
developmentally prepared to begin interpreting their own feelings, abilities and interpretations
of feedback they receive from parents, teachers and peers about themselves. Marsh (2011)
Trautwein (2009) Despite differing opinions about the onset of self-concept development,
researchers agree on the importance of one‟s self-concept, influencing people‟s behaviours
and cognitive and emotional outcomes including (but not limited to) academic achievement,
levels of happiness, anxiety, social integration, self-esteem, and life satisfaction. Moreover,
Ayodele (2007) stated that the environment where a child finds himself/herself goes a long way
in determining his learning ability and ultimately his academic performance in school. The
influence of sex (gender) on academic performance has also been an issue of concern to most
researchers. This is because „gender‟ appears to have some powerful effect on learning.
According to Fauto-Sterling (2005) and Friedman (2005) suggest no significant difference in
cognitive ability between males and females. Although research results vary widely the
following conclusions have been drawn. Males are more abstract learners, females have more
anxiety about study success, males are more 62 instructive, and females are more analytical
and organized (Bielinskia & Davison 2003). Okoye (2008) postulated that sex differences may
have little or no effect on academic performance, rather, he submits that eventual achievement
by learners is predicted more on personal effort than sex variable. However, the overall picture
suggests that males and females may learn differently. In the same vein, socioeconomic
background is another factor that may affect academic performance of students. This
background refers to the parent‟s educational attainment, occupation, level of income and
social class placement. When a child‟s needs are not properly addressed, his learning ability
could be affected due to lack of motivation. Igbinosa Victor Omoruyi (2014) This study
investigated the influence of broken homes on academic performance and personality
development of the adolescents in lagos state metropolis with particular focus on the Kosofe
Local Government Area of Lagos State. In carrying out the study, three null hypotheses were
tested. The sample for the study consisted of two hundred (200) adolescents randomly selected
from four public senior secondary schools in Kosofe Local Government Area of Lagos State. The
instrument used for data collection was a self – developed questionnaire. The data collected
were analyzed using both independent t-test and Pearson Product Moment Correlation
statistical methods. The results were held significant at 0.05 alpha level. The results revealed
that: i. There is a significant difference between single- parenting and academic performance of
the adolescents. ii. There is a significant difference between parental socio- economic status
and academic performance. iii. There is 63 significant relationship between adolescents from
broken homes and academic performance. The majority of children in intact families have
never experienced a marital disruption and live with both biological parents. This family
structure has been theorized to have several benefits for children. First, children have easy
access to both biological parents. One study based on mothers‟ reports found higher parental
involvement, more enjoyable parent-child interactions, and the fewest disagreements between
children and parents among intact families (Acock and Demo, 1994). Intact families, however,
may not be free of parental conflict (Simons et al., 1996), and the physical presence of parents
does not ensure emotional presence (LaRossa, 1988). In other words, more time together does
not necessarily mean high-quality time together (Acock and Demo, 1994). McLanahan and
Sandefur (1994) argue that intact twoparent families create a system of checks and balances for
parents to act in appropriate ways. Parents can put pressure on each other to spend time with
the children, have a good relationship with their children, and monitor each other‟s discipline
of the children. Thus, having two biological parents in the household, who care about their
children, makes each parent more likely to be involved with their children. Second, parents in
intact families are likely to have higher levels of psychological well-being when compared to
parents in other family structures (Acock and Demo, 1994; Gove, 1972). Married parents have
also been shown to be less antisocial. For example, substance abuse, delinquent and deviant
acts are less prevalent among parents within intact families (Simons, Johnson, 64 and Lorenz,
1996). And third, two-parent families generally have higher household incomes. The average
family income for intact households is $49,491, as compared to $10,512 for never-married
families and $20,262 for divorced families (Acock and Demo, 1994; McLanahan and Sandefur,
1994). Children from divorced and separated families have obviously experienced or are
experiencing a marital disruption. For the purpose of this research, these children live in a
single-parent household with their biological mother, which is the most common custody
arrangement. I have combined divorced and separated family structures in this section of the
literature review for two reasons. First, research specifically on separated families is limited,
and second, the family processes and socioeconomic characteristics within these structures are
very similar. However, based on the crisis model of divorce, I imagine that individuals in
separated families experience more difficulties with family processes and more socioeconomic
problems than divorced families. Separated individuals are likely to be in the initial phase of a
marital breakup. According to the crisis model of divorce, the effects of marital disruption are
most influential during the divorcing years and the years immediately following divorce. The
effects, however, decrease and eventually disappear over time (Amato and Booth, 1991).
Divorced families have several disadvantages and difficulties to overcome. First, conflict is more
likely to occur between parents going through a divorce (Emery, 1982; Mechanic and Hansell,
1989). One study, based on parents‟ responses, reported that 50% of divorcing spouses
engaged in frequent verbal fighting, an additional 30% reported occasional verbal fighting, and
one in five 65 reported physical abuse (Furstenberg, 1991). In another study, 51% of children
whose parents had recently divorced reported that frequent verbal fighting occurred in their
home. The differences in conflict between intact and divorced families, however, are small and
conflict within divorced families typically 10 subsides over time. Thirty-six percent of children
from intact families report frequent verbal fighting between their parents, and only 40% of
children whose parents divorced over a year ago report frequent verbal fighting (Mechanic and
Hansell, 1989). Although some conflict subsides over time, conflict can be a continuing
problem. Former partners may have old anger based on the reasons for the divorce and are
likely to develop new anger from the divorce, especially over settlement issues (Wallerstein,
1989). For example, men think they pay too much support, while women find payments to be
very inadequate (Wallerstein, 1980). Disagreements such as these can create lasting conflict
between parents (Furstenberg, 1991). Second, divorce can lower the quality of parent-child
relationships, especially for the non-custodial parent. Parents adopt a different image of
parenting after divorce, and some find it difficult to maintain their parental role (Furstenberg,
1984). In addition, adults who are absorbed in their own problems may be less affectionate and
communicate poorly with their children (Hetherington, Cox and Cox, 1982; Wallerstein and
Kelly, 1980). Divorced parents sometimes have lower levels of parent-child interactions than
parents in intact families (Acock and Demo, 1994; McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994), and are
more likely to engage in inept parenting. Inept parenting consists of inconsistent and harsh
punishment, less monitoring and more hostility toward children 66 (Simons and Johnson,
1996). Poor parenting practices, however, are usually only temporary (Hetherington, Cox and
Cox, 1982; Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980), and many parents are able to maintain proper
parenting practices after martial disruption. In some cases, divorce may result in a closer
relationship between custodial parents and children. Divorced mothers report having more
private talks with their children (Acock and Demo, 1994; McLanahan, 1994). In addition, divorce
may separate children from an abusive parent. Interactions with nonresidential parents may be
advantageous only if these interactions are positive, supportive and nurturant (Barber
&Thomas, 1986; Rollins and Thomas, 1979). If they are strained, sporadic, or conflicted, they
may hurt children‟s well-being (Cooper, Holman, and Braithnaile, 1983; Demo et al., 1987).
Some researchers suggest that diminished parental involvement of the nonresidential parent
has no affect on children‟s well-being (Clingempeel, & Segal, 1986; Furstenberg & Nord, 1985).
The non-residential parent-child relationship is more difficult to maintain than the custodial
parent-child relationship. Two-thirds of non-residential fathers have no contact with their
children over a one-year period, and the more time that elapses since the divorce, the less
involved fathers become. Many aspects of the visiting relationship make it difficult for a quality
parent-child relationship to be sustained after the physical separation of divorce. One
important factor is fathers‟ emotional state and attitude. Many fathers feel unappreciated,
rejected and isolated from their families (Furstenberg, 1991). In addition, they are apprehensive
about their abilities as fathers (Hetherington, 1989), because mothers usually provide a
mediating link between fathers and their children. When 67 this link is severed by divorce,
fathers find it difficult to relate to their children (Furstenberg, 1991). As a result, for some
fathers visiting can become emotionally difficult (Hetherington, 1989). Gradual disengagement
is the frequent consequence of the visiting situation. Since fathers are outsiders, it is very easy
for them to fade away (Furstenberg, 1991). Another important factor is how close
geographically fathers live to their children. With divorce, however, residential moves are likely
and on average, fathers live about 400 miles away from their children (Acock and Demo, 1994).
Non-residential fathers, however, can maintain close relations with their children if they were
close to their children before the divorce and if they make the effort to maintain the
relationship. Empirical evidence suggests that even parents who infrequently see their children
can maintain close relations with their children. For example, only a moderate 12 correlation
exists between children feeling close to their father and the amount of time fathers spent with
their children (Furstenberg, Morgan and Allison, 1987). Marital disruption alone does not lead
to less closeness between non-residential fathers and their children. Children‟s perceptions of
their father‟s not making an effort to be a part of their life or providing for them financially
perpetuates these feelings (Arditti, unpublished paper; Stevenson and Black, 1995). Thus,
closeness can be maintained between nonresidential fathers and their children. In fact, 21% of
children in one-parent families reported higher levels of paternal emotional support than
children from intact families (Amato, 1987) A never-married family is created when mothers do
not marry the biological father of their children. This family structure 68 faces many of the
same difficulties as divorced mothers in terms of lower levels of parental involvement,
inconsistent discipline of children, lower levels of psychological well-being, and low income, but
to a higher degree (Acock and Demo, 1994; Lempers, 1989; McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994).
For example, they are the poorest and have the lowest levels of psychological well-being. In
addition, continuously single mothers are often young, have little education (Acock and Demo,
1994), and their children may never have established relations with their biological father.
Mother-partner families have rarely been included in comparisons of family structures, but I
hypothesize that the family processes and socioeconomic characteristics of these families are
very similar to stepfamilies. Stepfamilies and mother-partner families are very complex family
structures. Children in these families could have previously been in a intact family or a
continuously single family before entering into the stepfamily. Thus, they would be exposed to
all the possible problems and benefits of these family forms prior to forming their new
stepfamily. Stepfamilies and mother-partner families face unique difficulties, but they also have
some benefits over divorced and single families. First, remarriage affects the parentchild
relationship in many ways and the effects depend on which parent is remarried: the custodial
or the non-custodial parent. When the custodial parent remarries, children sometimes feel like
an outsider in their own home (Hetherington, 1989). The more positive the marital relationship
between the newlywed couple, the worse the parentchild relationship will be (Hetherington,
1989). Remarriage may make children feel rejected, because the newlywed couple wants time
alone (Wallerstein, 1989). Children in stepfamilies 69 spend less time with their biological
parents and stepparents, and the time they do spend with their parents is less enjoyable than
children from homes (Acock and Demo, 1994). In addition, the remarriage of a custodial parent
may cause a residential move (Furstenberg, 1984; McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994).