Family Coping as a Protective Factor for Poor Children

This study examined family influences on coping and adjustment among 90 low-income Latino middle school children (46% Female; Average age = 11.38, SD = .66) and their primary caregivers (93% Female; Average age = 36.12, SD = 6.13). All participants identified as Hispanic/Latino, with 75% of families identifying as Mexican-origin Latino, 77% of parents identifying as immigrants, and 32% of children identifying immigrants. All children participating in the study were receiving free or reduced lunch, a poverty indicator. Hierarchical linear modeling analyses revealed that family reframing is related to fewer symptoms of psychopathology and that familism enhances the protective effect of family reframing, while passive appraisal is linked to worse functioning. Path analyses showed that family reframing also has indirect effects on symptoms through child primary control coping. Additional analyses identified family mobilizing support and family ethnic socialization as potential contributors to child secondary control coping. Family mobilizing support may also be helpful for single-parent families, while family spiritual support is helpful for immigrant families. Qualitative findings from an initial focus group and from the larger sample are also discussed. Results are discussed with regard to the implications of this research for preventive interventions with families in poverty. Understanding the protective links of family coping and cultural strengths to mental health outcomes of poor children can influence intervention or prevention programming and policy targeting at-risk youth and families.

Mitigating Risk For Anxiety Among Preschool-Age Children Living In Poverty: Evaluating The Impact Of Adult-Provided Social Support On Autonomic Stress Reactivity

Poverty increases children's exposure to stress, elevating their risk for developing patterns of heightened sympathetic and parasympathetic stress reactivity. Repeated patterns of high sympathetic activation and parasympathetic withdrawal place children at risk for anxiety disorders. This study evaluated whether providing social support to preschool-age children during mildly stressful situations helps reduce reactivity, and whether this effect partly depends on children's previously assessed baseline reactivity patterns. The Biological Sensitivity to Context (BSC) theory proposes that highly reactive children may be more sensitive than less reactive children to all environmental influences, including social support. In contrast, conventional physiological reactivity (CPR) theory contends that highly reactive children are more vulnerable to the impact of stress but are less receptive to the potential benefits present within their social environments. In this study, baseline autonomic reactivity patterns were measured. Children were then randomly assigned to a high-support or neutral control condition, and the effect of social support on autonomic response patterns was assessed. Results revealed an interaction between baseline reactivity profiles and experimental condition. Children with patterns of high-reactivity reaped more benefits from the social support in the experimental condition than did their less reactive peers. Highly reactive children experienced relatively less reactivity reduction in the neutral condition while experiencing relatively greater reactivity reduction in the support condition. Despite their demonstrated stability over time, reactivity patterns are also quite susceptible to change at this age; therefore understanding how social support ameliorates reactivity will further efforts to avert stable patterns of high-reactivity among children with high levels of stress, ultimately reducing risk for anxiety disorders.

Are We Family? Lesbian Mothers and the Decision to Make Contact with Their Children's Donor Siblings

The current study examines the experiences of three lesbian families who have made contact with their children's donor siblings: a single mother by choice, a couple and a mother who had children in the context of a relationship that has since ended. It builds on prior research that has addressed this topic, but has primarily utilized survey methodology. Participants of the current study shared their experiences via focus group and individual interviews. A narrative research approach was used to analyze and present the findings.

Post-Conflict Maternal Communication, Children's Understandings, and Child Functioning in Violent and Non-Violent Families

The last two decades have been marked by a growing public awareness of family violence. Research by social scientists has suggested that family violence is widespread (Gelles and Straus, 1988). It is estimated that every year 1.8 to 4 million women are physically abused by their partners (Novello, 1992). In fact, more women are abused by their husbands or boyfriends than are injured in car accidents, muggings, or rapes (Jaffe, Wolfe, and Wilson, 1990). A recent prevalence study by Fantuzzo, Boruch, Beriama, Atkins, and Marcus (1997) found that children were disproportionately present in households where there was a substantial incident of adult female assault. Experts estimate that 3.3 to 10 million children are exposed to marital violence each year (Carlson, 1984; Straus, 1991). Until recently, most researchers did not consider the impact of parental conflict on the children who witness this violence. The early literature in this field primarily focused on the incidence of violence against women and the inadequate response of community agencies (Jaffe et al, 1990). The needs of children were rarely considered. However, researchers have become increasingly aware that children exposed to marital violence are victims of a range of psychological maltreatment (e.g., terrorizing, isolation;Hart, Brassared & Karlson, 1996) and are at serious risk for the development of psychological problems (Fantuzzo, DePaola, Lambert, Martino, Anderson, and Sutton, 1991). Jouriles, Murphy and O'Leary (1989) found that children of battered women were four times more likely to exhibit psychopathology as were children living in non-violent homes. Further, researchers have found associations between childhood exposure to parental violence and the expression of violence in adulthood (Carlson, 1990). Existing research suggests that children who have witnessed marital violence manifest numerous emotional, social, and behavioral problems (Sternberg et al., 1993; Fantuzzo et al., 1991; Jaffe et al, 1990). Studies have found that children of battered women exhibit more internalizing and externalizing behavior problems than non-witnesschildren (Hughes and Fantuzzo, 1994; McCloskey, Figueredo, and Koss, 1995). In addition, children exposed to marital violence have been found to exhibit difficulties with social problem-solving, and have lower levels of social competence than nonwitnesses (Rosenberg, 1987; Moore, Pepler, Weinberg, Hammond, Waddell, & Weiser, 1990). Other reported difficulties include low self esteem (Hughes, 1988), poor school performance (Moore et al., 1990) and problems with aggression (Holden & Ritchie, 1991; Jaffe, Wolfe, Wilson, & Zak, 1986). Further, within the last decade, researchers have found that some children are traumatized by the witnessing experience, showing elevated levels of posttraumatic stress symptoms (Devoe & Graham-Bermann, 1997; Rossman, Bingham, & Emde, 1996; Kilpatrick, Litt, & Williams, 1997). These findings corroborate clinical reports that describe many exposed children as experiencing trauma reactions. It appears that the negative effects of witnessing marital violence are numerous and varied, ranging from mild emotional and behavioral problems to clinically significant levels of posttraumatic stress symptoms. These incidence figures and research findings indicate that children's exposure to violence is a significant problem in our nation today and has serious implications for the future.

Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children in Support of Petitioners in Obergefell v. Hodges

Supreme Court precedent establishes that the government may not punish children for matters beyond their control. Same-sex marriage bans and non-recognition laws (“marriage bans”) do precisely this. The states argue that marriage is good for children, yet marriage bans categorically exclude an entire class of children – children of same-sex couples – from the legal, economic and social benefits of marriage. This amicus brief recounts a powerful body of equal protection jurisprudence that prohibits punishing children to reflect moral disapproval of parental conduct or to incentivize adult behavior. We then explain that marriage bans punish children of same-sex couples because they: 1) foreclose their central legal route to family formation; 2) categorically void their existing legal parent-child relationships incident to out-of-state marriages; 3) deny them economic rights and benefits; and 4) inflict psychological and stigmatic harm. States cannot justify marriage bans as good for children and then exclude children of same-sex couples based on moral disapproval of their same-sex parents’ relationships or to incentivize opposite-sex couples to “procreate” within the bounds of marriage. To do so, severs the connection between legal burdens and individual responsibility and creates a permanent class or caste distinction.