A Quote by Bill Flores

The single best indicator of whether or not a child is going to be in poverty or not is whether or not they were raised by a two-parent household or a single parent household.
While having two biological parents at home is, the statistics tell us, best for children, a single-parent household is almost as good.
Coming from a single parent household, I witnessed firsthand the strength and courage of the single mother. I always had my father in my life but my household was run by my mother and my grandmother. As a result, I have always had the utmost respect for women and have chosen to strongly convey that in my music.
Child care can almost bankrupt a family, even a two-parent household in which both parents are working. That keeps a parent from being at ease and it really stifles the social and economic growth of a family. Women are hit hard across the board, but particularly in homes where the mother is the head of the household and the only wage-earner. It hurts her, and it hurts her children.
I was one of six kids in a single-parent household.
I was a solo parent. Not a single parent as far as I was concerned. Single parent implies that the other parent is around somewhere.
The best antidote to poverty remains simple - a paycheck. Policies like paid family leave, workplace flexibility and affordable quality childcare can make the difference for two-parent or single-parent working families who struggle to make ends meet.
My family comes from Panama, and I grew up in a single parent household with my mother, who barely spoke English. She couldn't get a good job, yet there were four of us for her to raise.
Conservatives highlight the primacy of family and argue that family breakdown exacerbates poverty, and they're right. Children raised by single parents are three times as likely to live in poverty as kids in two-parent homes.
Any child who has lost a parent probably knows every single photograph in existence of that parent.
Look at the political base of the Democratic Party: It is single mothers who run a household. Why? Because it's so tough economically that they look to the government for help and therefore they're going to vote. So if you want to reduce the Democratic advantage, what you want to do is build two parent families, you eliminate that desire for government.
Compared to other parents, remarried parents seem more desirous of their child's approval, more alert to the child's emotional state, and more sensitive in their parent-child relations. Perhaps this is the result of heightened empathy for the child's suffering, perhaps it is a guilt reaction; in either case, it gives the child a potent weapon--the power to disrupt the new household and come between parent and the new spouse.
I was raised in Washington, DC in a household where one parent was a Republican and the other was a Democrat, so I got both sides.
Children that are raised in a home with a married mother and father consistently do better in every measure of well-being than their peers who come from divorced or step-parent, single-parent, cohabiting homes.
I mean, when you grow up in the inner city and you grow up in a single-parent household, that's - those are humbling times, you know?
But a married spouse at whatever income level is almost always going to improve the economy of a household over a lifetime, whether that spouse is adding the proceeds of a minimum-wage job or the inestimable value of being a stay-at-home parent while the other one works.
I came from a single parent household. And I had a bad example of what a husband and father could be and how irresponsible a father could be. So because of that, I didn't want to get married or have kids.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!