Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjs_ac | Hacker News Reader

> Considering outcomes of children that grow up in a single parent scenario are well-known to be much better when it is the father rather than the mother

I've never heard this and would be very interested in a source.

View on HN

Not the same person, but here's something. Just to note, the income portion mention might be lacking additional investigation as child support is typically not accounted for in income numbers.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-single-father-households-...

The buried lede in that link is that mothers who don't have custody of their children are more likely to remain in close emotional contact with their children than fathers are when in the same position. So children living with dad still benefit from having both parents involved in their upbringing. Which undermines OP's assertion that this child would be better off without their mother around.

Yes, involvement from both parents seems to be the major factor regardless of sex. There is likely additional research needed on why fathers disengage more when the mother has primary custody. With a majority of single parent households being headed by mothers, it seems another area ripe for research is how unlikely it is that the majority of fathers are disengaged to create such a large effect on the whole single mother cohort. Likewise, with the way custody tends to be grated in court, you would expect single father households to have a higher percentage of unengaged mothers due if it was determined that the mothers were the lesser choice for child welfare. I would guess looking at outcomes where one parent died would mostly control for that support mechanism.

Just google it.

Better outcomes all around when the father is the only parent as opposed to when the mother is the only parent.

The burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion. Why should anyone else have to do the work that he/she/they didn't bother with?

"Why should anyone else have to do the work that he/she/they didn't bother with?"

Because they are curious (consistent with the culture of this site). They would also be more likely to trust their own sources, I assume.

Trusting sources because they are your "own" is just asking for bias to be ingrained.

Yet it's well known that if you want someone to change their mind it's most likely to occur if they think it's their own idea/doing. You're more likely to argue with me than if you just read sources you found and independently came to the conclusion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com