Legal Status and Effect on Children

One of the haunting claims of each poor, unmarried mother in Edin and Kefalas\u27 Promises I Can Keep is that at least she can guarantee she will love her child, even though she cannot promise to make a lifelong commitment to a mate. That love, each young mother says, will be a sustaining gift both to her and the child. Similarly, in work done by sociologists McLanahan and Garfinkel to counteract the claim that it was not single parenting that made children\u27s prospects dim, but poverty, sociologists have found that many of the bad effects of single parenting go away when wealth is taken into account. So, is love the answer here, or is it wealth? Does a legal marriage (let alone a two-tiered marriage) even matter, at least insofar as children\u27s welfare is concerned? My recent empirical work with sociologist Steven Nock indicates that in fact love, measured in terms of parental warmth, is important to children\u27s psychological well-being. We are using the Child Development Survey portion of the PSID (from the University of Michigan), which contains nearly 2700 children in a nationally representative sample. Love continues to remain important both in terms of impact and statistically though other variables are added. Wealth, measured in terms of total family wealth divided by the census needs standard for a family of that size, initially seems important to child wellbeing (on measures of depression, acting out, self-esteem and self-efficacy). However, unlike love, wealth\u27s significance entirely disappears once family structure and particularly legal status like marriage and adoption comes into play. \u27Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all., wrote Tennyson, and, we find, better to have married even if the marriage does not work out than never to have married. Children do better if they are in two parent, married homes, but are worse off in homes where their mothers never married even than in cases where the mother married, divorced, remarried and was widowed. Similarly, children do better where their fathers are living in the home, but less well with stepparents unless the stepparents adopt them. Children who live with relatives (let alone foster parents) do less well than those who are adopted by third parties. These rather dramatic findings suggest that law and public policy (as an instrument of law) should encourage and support marriage, particularly marriages that last. (They also suggest supporting adoption rather than foster care, though that is not the subject of this conference.) Law can do this in part merely by leaving well enough alone - by NOT adopting domestic partnership laws that equate unmarried, cohabiting couples with those that are married, and by NOT getting rid of special privileges enjoyed by the married when academics clamor that such benefits are not fair. Law ought also to make pre-marriage counseling and skills building more attractive and affordable, as some states have done through lower license costs, and some sort of real counseling effort requisite to divorces on non-fault grounds, as the covenant marriage movement suggests. Laws can be written to require mutual consent for divorce, or to become two-tier on the birth of children, so that the waiting period for no-fault separation and divorce lengthens. Families, children, parents, norms, race, love, status, marriage, adoptio

How Much Does Legal Status Matter? Adoptions by Kin Caregivers

Virtually all the legislation dealing with families that include children begins with a best interests of the child premise.\u27 Most, if not all, of the litigated results at least seem to maximize the outcomes for adults. This discrepancy should not be surprising, for both substantive and procedural reasons. The substantive reason, as even the Supreme Court has noted, is that most of the time, what is good for parents will also be good for children. Moreover, having parents who possess many rights allow them to better exercise their parental responsibilities. From a procedural perspective, adults are usually the named parties in suits involving children. Children are not themselves legally capable of bringing most actions;6 lawyers and guardians are expensive and therefore beyond the means of nearly all children; children may not know what rights they do have; and all these mouthpieces replicate the child\u27s voice, as in a telephone game, imperfectly. Because adults usually bring lawsuits, it is not surprising that the adult perspective is foremost. Because the adult perspective gets the most attention, makers of social policy may fail to consider serious implications for children\u27s well-being. We argue here that a single change in an adult\u27s legal status-from kin caregiver to adoptive parent-may have large effects on children\u27s welfare, particularly for groups lacking traditions of resorting to extended families in times of trouble

Legal Status and Effect on Children

One of the haunting claims of each poor, unmarried mother in Edin and Kefalas\u27 Promises I Can Keep is that at least she can guarantee she will love her child, even though she cannot promise to make a lifelong commitment to a mate. That love, each young mother says, will be a sustaining gift both to her and the child. Similarly, in work done by sociologists McLanahan and Garfinkel to counteract the claim that it was not single parenting that made children\u27s prospects dim, but poverty, sociologists have found that many of the bad effects of single parenting go away when wealth is taken into account. So, is love the answer here, or is it wealth? Does a legal marriage (let alone a two-tiered marriage) even matter, at least insofar as children\u27s welfare is concerned? My recent empirical work with sociologist Steven Nock indicates that in fact love, measured in terms of parental warmth, is important to children\u27s psychological well-being. We are using the Child Development Survey portion of the PSID (from the University of Michigan), which contains nearly 2700 children in a nationally representative sample. Love continues to remain important both in terms of impact and statistically though other variables are added. Wealth, measured in terms of total family wealth divided by the census needs standard for a family of that size, initially seems important to child wellbeing (on measures of depression, acting out, self-esteem and self-efficacy). However, unlike love, wealth\u27s significance entirely disappears once family structure and particularly legal status like marriage and adoption comes into play. \u27Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all., wrote Tennyson, and, we find, better to have married even if the marriage does not work out than never to have married. Children do better if they are in two parent, married homes, but are worse off in homes where their mothers never married even than in cases where the mother married, divorced, remarried and was widowed. Similarly, children do better where their fathers are living in the home, but less well with stepparents unless the stepparents adopt them. Children who live with relatives (let alone foster parents) do less well than those who are adopted by third parties. These rather dramatic findings suggest that law and public policy (as an instrument of law) should encourage and support marriage, particularly marriages that last. (They also suggest supporting adoption rather than foster care, though that is not the subject of this conference.) Law can do this in part merely by leaving well enough alone - by NOT adopting domestic partnership laws that equate unmarried, cohabiting couples with those that are married, and by NOT getting rid of special privileges enjoyed by the married when academics clamor that such benefits are not fair. Law ought also to make pre-marriage counseling and skills building more attractive and affordable, as some states have done through lower license costs, and some sort of real counseling effort requisite to divorces on non-fault grounds, as the covenant marriage movement suggests. Laws can be written to require mutual consent for divorce, or to become two-tier on the birth of children, so that the waiting period for no-fault separation and divorce lengthens. Families, children, parents, norms, race, love, status, marriage, adoptio

Bregman Voronoi Diagrams: Properties, Algorithms and Applications

The Voronoi diagram of a finite set of objects is a fundamental geometric structure that subdivides the embedding space into regions, each region consisting of the points that are closer to a given object than to the others. We may define many variants of Voronoi diagrams depending on the class of objects, the distance functions and the embedding space. In this paper, we investigate a framework for defining and building Voronoi diagrams for a broad class of distance functions called Bregman divergences. Bregman divergences include not only the traditional (squared) Euclidean distance but also various divergence measures based on entropic functions. Accordingly, Bregman Voronoi diagrams allow to define information-theoretic Voronoi diagrams in statistical parametric spaces based on the relative entropy of distributions. We define several types of Bregman diagrams, establish correspondences between those diagrams (using the Legendre transformation), and show how to compute them efficiently. We also introduce extensions of these diagrams, e.g. k-order and k-bag Bregman Voronoi diagrams, and introduce Bregman triangulations of a set of points and their connexion with Bregman Voronoi diagrams. We show that these triangulations capture many of the properties of the celebrated Delaunay triangulation. Finally, we give some applications of Bregman Voronoi diagrams which are of interest in the context of computational geometry and machine learning.Comment: Extend the proceedings abstract of SODA 2007 (46 pages, 15 figures

Why alternative teenagers self-harm: exploring the link between non-suicidal self-injury, attempted suicide and adolescent identity

Background: The term ‘self-harm’ encompasses both attempted suicide and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). Specific adolescent subpopulations such as ethnic or sexual minorities, and more controversially, those who identify as ‘Alternative’ (Goth, Emo) have been proposed as being more likely to self-harm, while other groups such as ‘Jocks’ are linked with protective coping behaviours (for example exercise). NSSI has autonomic (it reduces negative emotions) and social (it communicates distress or facilitates group ‘bonding’) functions. This study explores the links between such aspects of self-harm, primarily NSSI, and youth subculture.<p></p> Methods: An anonymous survey was carried out of 452 15 year old German school students. Measures included: identification with different youth cultures, i.e. Alternative (Goth, Emo, Punk), Nerd (academic) or Jock (athletic); social background, e.g. socioeconomic status; and experience of victimisation. Self-harm (suicide and NSSI) was assessed using Self-harm Behavior Questionnaire and the Functional Assessment of Self-Mutilation (FASM).<p></p> Results: An “Alternative” identity was directly (r ≈ 0.3) and a “Jock” identity inversely (r ≈ -0.1) correlated with self-harm. “Alternative” teenagers self-injured more frequently (NSSI 45.5% vs. 18.8%), repeatedly self-injured, and were 4–8 times more likely to attempt suicide (even after adjusting for social background) than their non-Alternative peers. They were also more likely to self-injure for autonomic, communicative and social reasons than other adolescents.<p></p> Conclusions: About half of ‘Alternative’ adolescents’ self-injure, primarily to regulate emotions and communicate distress. However, a minority self-injure to reinforce their group identity, i.e. ‘To feel more a part of a group’