I take issue with the idea that "out-of-wedlock births are a national catastrophe". I believe the national catastrophe is a lack of accountability. I think that single parents raising childred without the support of the absent parent should be looked at as "deadbeat parents are a national catastrophe". The parents remaining with the children are most often doing the best they can with whatever resources they have to give their children the best life possible. If the non-custodial parent is helping with parenting responsibilites (both financial and actively involved), the chances of the children succeeding in life are greatly increased. Marriage is only desirable when both parents feel fortunate to have the other. I know very few people who prefer to live single to married, but I know even fewer men who want to be committed to a woman or a child or held accountable for the responsibilities of parenting or partnership in the long term. It seems that mothers are too often blamed for their financial circumstances, as if they should have known from the beginning that men claiming to want to be married and have families were only saying that in order to get laid...silly women...shouldn't get pregnant, and if they do, they shouldn't have abortions, or children, or if they do, it's their own fault, and they shouldn't need assistance from anyone, because no matter what happens, somehow the mother is to blame...well, as a single mother, I assure you all that I'm aware of the judgement that is passed on me constantly by married people, and everyone else who feels smarter and superior for their own circumstances, and it is this sort of thing that makes me feel destined to remain single, because I know that poverty is not the worst thing that could happen to my daughter and I. Introducing a "father" who may or may not improve our situation, remain committed, or provide stability is a gamble I am not comfortable with. And for the record, children are not stressed by poverty unless other people bring poverty to their attention. It's time for our society to realize that money doesn't make you rich...LOVE does...

Who said it was guaranteed? No one. What the studies do show is that the odds are improved. My guess is that this has to do with bonding and this leads to a stronger commitment.

A man is more likely to remain loyal and in 'love' once he bonds to a family unit. Of course one does NOT have to be married to have this family unit.

I've read 20 responses to this article and yours was the first to really point the finger back at the dead-beat non-custodial parent. My saying, dating back to my early years as a single-mom, when defending single moms was "lets not forget who made her both of those things: single and a mother." We did not procreate by ourselves, the dead-beat dad was certainly there for that event. And as the article states, many women try to get their boyfriends to marry them, but again, we can't force a man into matrimony any more than we can force him to care for his children. We are single moms because we were involved with a man who is not responsible. But his irresponsibility cannot be blamed on us - we are too busy trying to be responsible for the children.

I am college-educated, and I had my children within marriage - but their dad didn't stay and barely helped to support them once he was gone. The stress and financial hardship was enormous. I couldn't earn enough, even with a college degree and years of work experience, to pay for child-care for 3 kids so I could work full-time. But neither would the courts make him pay more to support his children in the lifestyle he was living. I often wondered over the years how women with less resources, education, and assets could possibly do it - I was one of the lucky ones. Our systems - legal, education, health and social services - are all failing children. Parents, of both genders, must be held responsible for their children and I'm not sure how to make this happen. But you are absolutely correct that the problem is not solved by blaming the remaining parent for the circumstances of the children - the problem will be solved when our society figures out a way to socially, financially and legally punish those who do not contribute to their children's upbringing - or bet yet, finds a way to make them support their children. I lived with the same judgement you spoke of - those looks, those pitying remarks, the insinuations that their must be something wrong with me if I couldn't keep a husband around. Rarely were there disparaging remarks about him, why he left a wife and 3 kids. Very few people over the years (my children are nearly grown now) recognized the enormous effort and sacrifice I made for my children. No one ever sat and counted the sheer hours of work I did because I did not have a husband - yard work, bills, dishes, laundry, driving to soccer, meeting with attorneys and insurance agents, teachers, school plays, all while earning most of the money that came into my household (I did get child support). I did all the jobs of two parents running a household with 3 kids -but I was one person. And yet, like you, I was to blame. But unlike you, I did it "the right way" (college and marriage first) and it still turned out to be rough for my children and me.

You are correct to not bring a new "father" into your daughter's life unless it is a choice you are 100% sure about. I remarried and it was good for a while - the best standard of living we've ever had, and some of the best times. He loved my kids and took good care of them - until he got tired of it. Too much work, ungrateful teenagers, too much stress from his ex and the feeling that somehow loving my kids would detract from being committed to his kids (they all lived with us) - and now he's gone! Again, I'm left holding the bag except I don't have child care issues, I have a solid career to rely on and twice burnt I know that no matter what, I am all my children will have in life until they go on to create their own families. Bottom line, not all men are bad, but men can walk away from families and children and women cannot.