Shepherd Smith is founder and president of the Institute for Youth Development, a non-partisan, non-profit organization that promotes a consistent, comprehensive risk-avoidance message to youth for the leading harmful risk behaviors. His articles appear in newspapers across the country. Read other OpEd's by Shepherd Smith

Recently Margaret LaMontagne, a domestic policy advisor to President Bush, was asked on C-SPAN about census data showing a decline of children living in two parent family homes. Her response was, "I don't know what the President would say, but my response is: So what?"

So what! This decline should evoke a response of "that's tragic." In case Ms. LaMontagne has not been following events of the last few decades, I think it important that she be brought up to speed as to what constitutes reality today.

One of the core principles of the Republican Congress' welfare reform message is to reconstitute the nuclear family, acknowledging that children born out-of-wedlock and children in single parent homes do less well than children in two parent families. Even former President Clinton and his Secretary of Health and Human Services repeatedly bemoaned the tragedy of children being born out of wedlock, and living with single parents. So here is "the what" that Margaret LaMontagne should take into account the next time she is asked about this decline.

Young people who have only one parent to care for them are at a decided disadvantage for future life opportunities. They attain less academically, less economically, and overall suffer more in respect to health and well-being compared to children living in married couple households.

The National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health (Add Health) showed that the most protective environment for young people to grow up in is the two biological-parent family. In respect to early sexual debut, kids living with two biological parents are far less likely to become sexually active at an early age versus their peers living with only one biological parent.

That same study showed that regarding alcohol, tobacco, drugs, and violence kids are more apt to participate in these behaviors when they are not loved and cared for by two parents.

The belief that one parent is as good as two makes little common sense. In today's busy world it is virtually impossible for a working parent to be at home as often, give guidance as often, or share love and caring feelings as often as two parents living together can with their child. The Add Health study also showed that parental presence and parent/child connectedness are highly protective for kids regarding a host of risk behaviors including emotional distress and suicide. If these are not important elements to consider when we look at family structure then I don't know what is.

So what? That is so outrageous, and so unexpected to have been heard from someone that works for this President. It is difficult to comprehend. When someone high up in the White House does speak, they do, in fact, speak for the Administration and for their President. I cannot believe or accept that President Bush holds these same views.

It is critical we as a nation recognize that the census data Ms. LaMontagne so casually dismissed is potentially very harmful to the future of our country, and to the well-being of the young people in this nation. We need to reverse this trend, and it needs to happen immediately. The family is the core element of every community and every community represents the fabric that binds this nation together. This country is too important for such a glib, and harmful, answer as "so what."

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Media Services

Copyright 2004
The Institute for Youth Development
P.O. Box 16560, Washington DC, 20041 703-433-1640