When is "too many?"

[Rapunzel]

My solution would be that if a parent has committed a crime then charge it as such. The entire idea of all of a seperate "family" court system should be done away with. Same thing with "social workers". Instead, have police investigate crimes like they're supposed to. If a person is found to have committed a crime then that person needs to have a trial and be locked up if found guilty.

If a person is found guilty of a crime against a child then that person needs to do hard time. If the parent is found guilty and sent to prison then they should automatically have their parental rights terminated. AND they should NOT be given "conjugal" visits while in prison.

Allow children whose parents' rights have been terminated (upon conviction of a crime requiring prison time) to be immediately put up for adoption *if* no competent adult relative can be found willing to legally adopt them.

There's no way to forbid the mentally ill or potentially mentally ill from having children. There was a "project" started on that in a portion of the United States many decades ago - a eugenics project to be exact where the mentally ill were forcibly sterilized. I don't think that would be in keeping with our concept of freedom in this country. My dad was raised by a schizophrenic so I know the damage they can cause to their own children. And, as you can imagine this is a topic that I've spoken with to my own father before. And, there's really not a good answer to that particular problem.

Jennifer

[DCJenn]

I completely agree, Jenn BUT- our foster care system is so screwed up and speaking as an adoptive parent, the kids that are in the system can be really adversely affected by the abusive or mentally ill or physically ill or whatever ill parent. and honestly, no one wants the older kids. Period. We could have had our choice of older kids (well, the white ones, DC won't consider allowing inter-racial adoptions of foster kids, rather stupidly I think) but we weren't sure that we wanted to go down that emotional road. (no, we went for the institutionalized Russian kid- and we got lucky there, too) and the question is, where do the kids go who have been removed from their home, have no relative who can or will take them, and no one wants to adopt?

I wish there were answers. I know that there are many, many successful adults who have come through foster care fine- and that there are a ton of great foster parents. The problem is that there aren't nearly enough of them.

Jenn

[houseelf]

I am by no means an expert in this area, but I have to add this interesting tidbit. Recently, I attended a continuing education on the topic of Child in Need of Protective Services (CHIPS) in which a family court therapist opined that removal, while often necessary, is always bad. She opined that in low level abuse situations, kids report that they are more traumitized by the removal from their known environment vis a vis a police cruiser rather than enduring the alcoholism or abuse or whatever within the home.

Kind of a different take on things.

Kelly

[Cumberland]

I just watched the doc on discovery health- 14 children and pregnant again! Wow, it was like watching the Anna Nicole show or something- it didnt feel right but I couldnt look away. Their children just seem like automatons- no individual thought or expression of their own identities. I think that if you try to force your child into being a certain way, then at some point their personality is going to take over and they are going to live their own life. Some of them may choose the evangelical christian way, but I am sure some of them are never going to step foot in a church again after age 18.

[Vanquisher]

Okay, I am going to preface this post by saying that the words herein are soley my opinion, and my opinion only. I do not wish to hurt anyone's feelings, but this is how I feel.

Zero children - Fine and wonderful. Some people are not meant to be parents. A lot of people are not meant to be parents, actually, and they shouldn't have them.

One child - Perfectly acceptable. I think it is only a minorly good arguement to have two children so that the first child can have a sibling. It is unecessary, in my opinion.

Two children - Perfect for me.

Three - Imaginable, doable, if only I did not have to be pregnant again, but even then questionable.

Four - Nuts.

Five - Crazy.

Six - Certifiably insane. I am sorry, but this is how I feel.

More than six, especially getting up there with the Duggars is, I feel, socially, morally irresponsible. It is bad judgement, and poor parenting. You cannot be the kind of parent that I think you ought to be with that many children. It just is not possible. You can not give individualized attention in the way that, I feel, that you should. Children become numbers and a chain in an industrial type of indentured servitude. Hey, somebody has to do all that laundry and all of those dishes. Not to mention the death issues, possible medical issues, and uncertainty that is exponentially compounded with that kind of, yes, breeding.

My mother is one of seven and my father is one of seven as well (although one died as an infant). My paternal grandfather died unexpectedly when my father and his twin brother were 13. Most of the other children were out of the house by then, but can you imagine if they weren't? My maternal granparents divorced when my mom was 18. She is the oldest. It left my grandmother in a really bad way.

I grew up in Utah, surrounded by large (6+ kids) families, and I think it is horrible. My BIL and SIL have four and I didn't think they could handle the three they had before the newest addition.

I also think that people tend to have their children too close together, but that's me also.

Yes, 16 kids is too many, far, far too many. You can do a good job with them as far as behavior, but that does not mean you were a good parent who knew your children as individuals and were able to give them your undevided attention in the way that they deserve. Love, I am afraid, can be spread too thin, especially from the parents. Also, we do not need to be expanding the population that much, and I am not even an environmentalist, and I find it "wrong" to add that much to the population.

I think I need to have Depo darts.

Knowing what it takes for me to be raising my own two, I would ALMOST agree with you, Heidi, but I think it's really a personal choice. I have a friend who is one of 8, and all of them have grown up to be very good people with interesting lives and career paths. All of them enjoy their big family, and not ONE of them did chores (crazy if you ask me). Their mom felt kids should be kids and she did EVERYTHING. And she is a happy woman. Her parents are lovely, kind, generous people - and I have no idea how they did it. When we were in high school I pretty much thought her mom was a nut (always smiling), and now I know there has got to be an organizational genius in there. She never looked stressed -- it wasn't a June Cleaver thing at all, either. her parents just made certain choices. They had awful carpeting b/c they wanted cheap and sturdy, they had ugly wall paper because they knew there were 4 boys and 4 girls tromping through, so why spend on the good stuff? They gave very small gifts - a $25 watch is what my friend got for graduation, and the kids put themselves through college - but all but one went! They all worked in high school and bought their first cars (but dad did pay the insurance). None are particularly materialistic, only one is divorced , and the maximum # of kids any of them have is 2. Interestingly enough - none of the girls had kids before they were 30, and only 2 of them are married (although 1 of the single ones is the divorced one).

Is it a life I'd want to live? No. But the kids all come home for weddings and family events, the girls all keep in touch regularly and the rest of the family via dad's email updates (which I'm honored to be included in). These two people raised an amazing batch of red headed kids -- I wouldn't do it, but I marvel at them.

[mommax3]

I just think that everyone needs to decide for themselves, and choose to have (or not have!) children based on what they feel they can handle, and not because of some arbitrary standard that a religion or a school of thought has put out there.

I once volunteered at a fund-raising event where I had to work at a booth with two other women, one my mom's age and one my age. None of us knew each other, so we were chit-chatting back and forth, and the woman my age asked me how many kids I had. I told her three, and she said that she had three also, and added that she didn't feel anyone was qualified to say they were a mother until they had at least three. (wth???) At this point, the older woman piped up and said that the fact that she wasn't a mother would be news to her two grown children. She was actually very gracious about the whole thing, and the other woman was mortified, but I have never forgotten that incident, because it was SO ridiculous to quantify mothering in that way. It really comes down to the person you are, the lifestyle that you want/have, and the personalities of your kids. A person can make just as many mistakes with one or two as she can with 6+, I think. SueAnne made the point that she thinks at least some of the Duggar children will reject their parents' value system when they are grown.....I think she is probably right.....BUT don't we all know children from smaller families who have done the same?

I know you have probably all heard this, but it has stuck with me that women don't regret the children they had, only the ones they didn't. That is poignant to me lately, because my days of having babies are behind me, and while it doesn't upset me that I will never be pregnant, give birth, or nurse another child, I am sad that I won't have the privilege to introduce another little one to our world. My days with little guys at home, while very frustrating at times, were also very fulfilling in a way that is hard to describe, as is the ache I feel in knowing that I won't get to experience that again, at least in the same way. I know if DH hadn't been in the military and hadn't chosen OB/Gyn, we would have had at least one more. So who am I to say that another woman is wrong when she and her husband feel that they have the resources to have another child? For me, giving birth to three boys was as far as I could go, but I can't judge someone else who makes a different choice, whether it is for more or less children than I have.

Sally

I think I need to have Depo darts.

A friend of ours said he wanted to be a Depo sharpshooter, hiding in the bushes outside of the neighborhood highschool

[SueC]

Yeah, I've been around some families that have 6+ and have been absolutely amazed at how it seems to work. I don't aspire to that or anything (I really don't dig pregnancy or breastfeeding so I wouldn't subject myself to an additional 4 years on top of the 8 I will have had by the time I'm done), but I wouldn't knock it either. There was a time when I felt a little smug about having just two kids (I have two hands, any car would work for us, zero population growth, etc.--two kids seemed to make sense), but I can't imagine not having my little Mitchell in my life, so that has all gone out the window. We're doing what works for us, and I suppose if others think we're putting too many damn kids on the planet, then I guess that's their problem.

[Rapunzel]

I think it all depends upon an individual's perspective and personal abilities and, of course, experience. I think this issue also hinges on what point in life a person is at as well as the individual's maturity level.

I completely think that for some people Heidi's "list" applies. I'd wager that the list is perfectly correct regarding how many children Heidi could handle. I think it's very good for each mother to do some serious soul-searching and be aware as to exactly what state her mental and physical health are in. By that I mean there is definitely a point where having a certain number of children can affect your mental and/or physical health. AND that number varies widely among individual women it seems.

My husband's family have done quite well having had eight. I went through his geneology books the other night (his grandmother published a few and he's got lines traced back to the 1200's ) and it's amazing how many of these families had oodles of children (and, by oodles of children I mean over six) and those kids almost always all seemed to turn out just great. I mentioned a couple of families I knew with 10 or more children that seemed to really struggle to keep their kids on track. But, I also mentioned and must reaffirm that I've known far more families with only one or two children that have seen their kid(s) grow up to be horribly mal-adjusted adults with varying degrees of neurotic and dangerous behavior.

I know there was a study done in the not so distant past that found that, for most Americans, having a large number of children caused a corresponding drop in the amount and quality of those children's educations. However, the one exception to those findings were the LDS (Mormons). Among that group the study found the level and quality of education did not correspondingly drop with progressively larger families - but, rather, it stayed at the steady, higher rate found in very small families. I'll see if I can find a link to that study....

Now, I do think that in our current society it is MUCH harder to have more than about three children. But, I think it's partly because there is such a harsh judgement against parents who have more than that many children. I know from personal experience that it makes my life a lot harder to have this judgement coming from strangers almost constantly. It HAS affected my life and I do have to deal with this judgemental attitude on almost a daily basis.

The zero population growth matter is another thing entirely. It's a myth based on opinion rather than reality. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the bias and hostility I encounter by just having a handful of children stems from that rather interesting belief system. I'm fairly certain there's a large number of adherents to it here in Boston at least....

Jennifer

[Rapunzel]

Found an article on the study:

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/sibsize1.htm

SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT DROPS IN LARGER FAMILIES -- EXCEPT FOR MORMONS
SAN FRANCISCO -- Previous research has shown that increasing the number of children in a family lowers the educational achievement for all the siblings. But a new nationwide study has found an intriguing exception among Mormon families.

Among Mormons, the addition of new children to a family doesn’t have the same negative educational effects seen in most of the population, according to a study led by Douglas Downey, assistant professor of sociology at Ohio State University.

“Our results suggest Mormons have found ways to devote more resources to their children as family size increases,” Downey said. “This helps their children continue to achieve academically.”

Downey conducted the study with Stefanie Neubauer, a graduate student at Ohio State. He will present the results Aug. 23 in San Francisco at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.

In a 1995 study published in the American Sociological
Review, Downey found that academic achievement among children dropped as family size grew because parents had less time and economic resources for each child. “Parents only have so much time and money, and we found that the more children they have, the more those resources are diluted,” he said.

This new study was designed to see if the “resource dilution” explanation held true for groups, such as Mormons, in which large families are accepted and even encouraged.

Downey examined data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, which included information from 24,599 eighth graders, 303 of whom were Mormons.

He examined student-reported grades and scores of standardized math and reading tests. He then correlated these findings with parents’ economic and interpersonal resources which might be negatively affected as family size increases.

The results showed that Mormon children didn’t display the significant declines in educational performance that other children showed as family size increased. And one reason may be that resources parents devoted to children did not decline as significantly among Mormons as they did among the rest of the population, Downey said.

For example, in most families, more children meant parents had fewer educational materials available in the home, were less likely to know their children’s friends, and were less likely to know the friends’ parents. However, in Mormon families there were no such declines.

Other resources -- such as money saved for college -- declined for both Mormons and others as family size increased. However, the declines were not as significant among Mormons.

Downey said the results suggest Mormon parents, more than others, are likely to pull resources from other parts of their lives as they have more children.

“It may be that Mormon parents spend less time and money doing things for themselves, such as exercising, reading or watching TV, as they have more children,” he said. “They simply allot a greater portion of their total resources to their children than do other parents.”

Mormon communities may also pitch in to help large families.

“Mormons are well-known for being pro-family, so parents with many children may receive substantial support from outside of their family,” he said.

Downey also looked at Jewish families and families living on farms -- other groups in which many children might be encouraged. The results were similar to those found in Mormon families, but were not as strong.

The study also examined whether family size had the greatest effect on educational achievement in high-income or low-income families.

Surprisingly, large families had the most negative consequences on children in high-income families. Downey said the reason may be that disadvantaged families have little resources to devote to education in the first place, so the addition of more siblings doesn’t hurt.

“Disadvantaged parents, for example, probably save little for their children’s education and so the addition of another sibling has little impact on these savings,” he said.

And, lest one think this means that LDS simply start out at lower levels of education therefore there's nowhere to go but up here are some Utah statistics (with LDS making up roughly three quarters of the population in recent times):

Families in Utah
Utah ranked highest in the number of married-couple families, with an average of 63.2 percent. (2)
Utah ranked highest in the number of family households, with 76.3 percent. (2)
Utah ranked highest in the number of persons per family, with an average of 3.57. (2)
Utah ranked first for the youngest total population, with nearly one-third of its population 17 years old or younger. (2)
Utah ranked highest in the number of persons per household, with an average of 3.13. (2)
Utah ranked third for the fewest number of single-headed households with children, with 7.7 percent. (2)

Education in Utah
Utah ranked fourth for the highest population of persons age 25 and over with a high school degree at minimum, totaling 91 percent. (3)
Utah ranked 11th for the highest population of persons age 25 and over with a bachelor's degree or higher, totaling 27.9 percent. (3)
Utah ranked fifth for the highest percentage of ninth-grade students who graduated within four years, increasing from 77.8 percent in 1999 to 82.3 percent in 2000. (4)

Health in Utah
Utah ranked first for the lowest prevalence of smoking, with 14 percent. (4)
Utah ranked first for the lowest risk for heart disease, and was 20 percent below the national average. (4)
Utah ranked first for the lowest number of cancer cases, with 239.5 cases per 100,000. (4)
Utah ranked first for the lowest number of work days missed within a 30-day period due to physical or mental illness, with an average of under three days per month missed. (4)
Utah ranked second for the lowest overall death rate, with only 5.6 deaths per 1,000. (3)
Utah ranked second for lowest number of heart-disease mortalities, and was the most improved state since 1990. (4)
Utah ranked third for best overall health in 2000, maintaining its high standing in this category during the past decade (second in 1994 and 1996; fourth in 1990; fifth in 1992, 1997 and 1998; and sixth in 1999). (4)
Utah ranked fourth for the lowest infant mortality, and fifth in the nation for lowest total mortality. Utah ranked ninth in the nation for lowest premature death (death before age 75). (4)

Crime in Utah
Utah ranked 12th for the lowest crime rate. (3)
Utah's index crime rate (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft and arson) decreased 12.6 percent compared to 1999, and 29.7 percent compared to 1995. It was 5.3 percent lower than the national index crime rate and represented a 21-year low. (5)
Utah's violent crime rate (murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) decreased 8.8 percent compared to1999, and 25.1 percent compared to 1997. Utah's rate was less than half the national rate and represented a 21-year low. (5)
Utah's property crimes (burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft and arson) decreased 12.8 percent compared to 1999, and 30 percent compared to 1995. Utah's rate was less than half the national rate and represented a 21-year low. (5)
Utah's burglary rate decreased 8.3 percent compared to 1999, 33.1 percent compared to 1997, and 56.9 percent compared to 1980. Utah's rate was 33 percent lower than the national rate and represented a 21-year low. (5)
Utah's larceny rate decreased 12.9 percent compared to 1999, and 30.4 percent compared to 1995. This represented a 21-year low. (5)
Utah's murder rate decreased 3.7 percent compared to 1999, and was nearly one-third of the national rate. This represented a 21-year low. (5)
Utah's aggravated assault rate decreased 15.1 percent compared to 1999, and 29.5 percent compared to 1995. This represented a 21-year low. (5)
Utah's arson rate decreased 18.3 percent compared to 1999, and 53.7 percent compared to 1992. Utah's rate was less than half the national rate and represented a 21-year low. (5)
Utah's robbery rate decreased 18.4 percent compared to 1997, and was less than half the national rate. (5)
Utah's motor vehicle theft rate decreased 20.1 percent compared to 1999, and 40 percent compared to 1997. Utah's rate was 71 percent lower than the national rate. (5)
Utah's adult (18 and over) arrests for index crimes decreased 13.4 percent compared to 1999; juvenile (10-17) arrests for index crimes decreased 7.1 percent. (5)
Utah's adult arrests for violent crimes decreased 16.3 percent compared to 1999; juvenile arrests for violent crimes decreased 18 percent. (5)
Utah's adult arrests for property crimes decreased 13 percent compared to 1999; juvenile arrests for property crimes decreased 6.1 percent. (5)

Other Utah Statistics
Utah ranked highest in charitable giving. (1)
Utah was the fourth fastest-growing state, with a 29.6-percent population increase during the past decade (from 1.7 million in 1990 to 2.2 million in 2000). Utah's growth rate more than doubled the nation's growth rate of 13.2 percent. (3*)
Utah supports 1,000 churches representing 67 religious denominations. (3**)
Over 75 percent of Utah's population are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (6)

Statistics found at: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html

So, for at least one group of people the idea that quality of life decreases correspondingly with number of children is wildly incorrect.


Jennifer

Just curious, Jennifer....do you think you know of more families that have only 2 children versus bigger families? That might be part of the reason for more of the "maladjusted" children. I say that only because I know a lot more families with fewer than more kids but realize that could be different for you being LDS.

I think another factor that plays into this is family size in the family of origin. Having three children might seem more daunting to me given that I come from a family of 2, same for my husband, and mostly the same for our cousins. My mom's bigger family -- and the work of caring for more children -- seems to have contributed to some of my grandmothers, ahem, problems and perhaps has a negative connotation for that reason. Probably a small consideration, as others mentioned and I have observed, that friends from bigger families have chosen to have smaller families or no kids....but just a thought. If we have three, I really wonder what each of my parent's reactions will be.

[Rapunzel]

Just curious, Jennifer....do you think you know of more families that have only 2 children versus bigger families? That might be part of the reason for more of the "maladjusted" children. I say that only because I know a lot more families with fewer than more kids but realize that could be different for you being LDS.

No. I grew up in Texas where there were proportionally very few LDS. The vast majority of the people I grew up with came from families with three or fewer children. I know maybe a couple of dozen families that had large numbers of children (ie over four). But, byfar most of the families I have known for long periods of time were "small".


I completely agree with you, Nellie, on the size of your family of origin. I feel most comfortable with around four children. I came from a family of four children and so did my mom (my dad has only one sibling). I think we learn parenting by example (ie the example set by our own parents) and it makes sense that our parents' (and their parents') comfort zones and experiences would profoundly affect our own. If we witnessed failure with a certain number of children I think it would be deeply ingrained within us. My husband comes from a large family of eight children and I know he's OK with us having as many children as I feel mentally and physically able to handle. And, I really think his experience of growing up in a large, happy family influenced his views in that area.

Jennifer

[Vanquisher]

I agree with you all that the family of origin makes a huge difference, and I like I said, for me greater than 6 kids is completely an insane proposition.

Do I think other people should be having that many? No. I am not beating down their doors telling them to stop either. I am not giving them dirty looks or asking them, for the love of God, why? Although I think that about the Duggars.

Yes, it is completely plausible for people with two children to have messed up kids. I don't think that can even be argued. As I said, I don't think a whole lot of people should be parents at all! Clearly, it is the quality of the upbringing that matters, and there are more factors than I can possibly name that contribute to the well-being of children.

I do think that families can turn out just fine that have 6+ children. I do think that they can grow up to be well-adjusted citizens. I do not think that the children in these families, however, can be given all of the individual time and attention from their parents that I think is needed and appropriate. I do not think it is appropriate for the children to have to work like crazy day in and day out such as the Duggar's do, nor do I think it is appropriate for the mother to do all of that work herself either. I think in a situation like this, the balance gets thrown out of whack, and elder children are often left with more resposibility than they signed up for, just by virtue of being born first.

6 or 8 kids is also a whole different world than 16. I think the problem exponentially magnifies with each child. There is not enough time for those kids to be kids.

For the Duggars, if their "system" were to stop functioning the way it does, and some of the kids decided they were not going to do their specific duties anymore, it would surely be chaos. I think there has to be some mental pathology here. I agree with them being "robotrons." I think that was the word someone else used. When is there time for self exploration, long conversations, individual interests, sports, art, dating, etc.? I for one, would be very suprised if most of the Duggar kids did not end up with a bushel of children. It is what they know, and as crazy as I think it is, I think very few of them will go on to do something different with their lives.

One thought about why large LDS families may have a better average of sending their kids on to college is BYU. A friend of mine (who is LDS) told me that the tuition there for LDS is very, very low. So the community supports their college, and therefore people from all walks of live can go to school.