1) it�s not divorce �per se�
2) it�s process, not structure
3) it�s poverty, not structure
(...and when all else fails)
4) it�s really just about oppressing women

"A lot of research like this is just about patriarchal power and trying to frighten women into staying in unhappy and often abusive relationships."

[A] spokeswoman for One Parent Families said, "It is not about the shape of families - it is about poverty. There is long standing evidence in this country to show that poverty is linked to poor health and one parent families are at greatest risk of living in poverty in the UK."

And Ms Jones, a former deputy director of equal opportunities in Wales, said, "What is often forgotten in this country is the one crucial difference between children in lone parent families and those in two parent families - children from single parent families are nearly always poorer."

To review: It is not about the shape of families � it is about poverty. Yet children from single-parent families are nearly always poorer.

If children from single-parent families are almost always poorer, how is it not about the shape of families?

[Dr. Stephen Scott] said that in previous studies, once researchers have adjusted their results to eliminate the influence of bad parenting, any increased risk of emotional problems shrinks markedly. This, he said, indicates it is not so much single parenthood but the quality of parenting that is at issue.

''The kind of people who end up as single parents might not have done well by their kids, even if they hadn't ended up alone. They tend to be more critical in their relationships, more derogatory toward other people,'' Scott said, adding that it is also harder to be a warm, non-critical parent when you're bringing up a child alone.

Who�s stigmatizing single parents now? But look at this logic: It is not so much single parenthood but the quality of parenting that is at issue. But it is also harder to be a warm, non-critical parent when you're bringing up a child alone.

Sara McLanahan alludes to this point:

However, other specialists questioned the financial influence, saying Swedish single mothers are not poor when compared with those in other countries, and suggested that quality of parenting could also be a factor.

''It makes you think that what you're seeing is just the most dysfunctional families having these problems, rather than the low income. The money is really an indicator of something else,'' said Sara McLanahan, a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University, who was not involved in the study.

''If you really thought that it was the income that makes the difference, you would think that Swedish lone mothers would do a lot better than the British or those in the [United States], but they look very similar,'' she said.

[Researchers] add, though, divorce per se is not the cause for the health problems suffered by the children.

They say children often feel more secure and happier after their parents divorce.

Children growing up in single-parent families are twice as likely as their counterparts in two-parent families to develop serious psychiatric illnesses and addictions later in life, a Swedish study has found.

The Sydney Morning Herald adds:

[T]heir findings stood even when they adjusted for socioeconomic status and other confounding factors such as parental addiction or mental illness.

With laws passed in December, divorcing couples can split a breadwinner's superannuation asset, with substantial tax benefits. Couples who stay together, however, will continue to have their asset treated as if it belongs solely to the breadwinner.This change, and earlier decisions to treat other assets similarly, infer that partners who stay together are really individuals while those who separate are really partners. What a ridiculous concept from a Government that supposedly prides itself on being pro-marriage!