Good for you Melissa. I guess I would like to know where he gets his facts from. I think he needs to sit down and do some serious research.

I would welcome Senator Grothman into my house to do research any time.

Every time Glenn Grothman opens his mouth something even stupider comes out. He should just keep it shut.

You have my admiration for making a difference in your son's life.

Way to go, Melissa! You raise valid points about adoption and bringing kids out of foster care into love and stability. Rock on, my friend.

Actually, Grothman does have statistics that back up his assertions, however, what he fails to realize is that those numbers fail to address the true causes of child abuse - such as drug abuse, alcohol abuse, inability to hold down a job, gregarious relations, etc.

While his heart and mind are in the right place, he's obviously going about this in the wrong fashion by attacking a red herring classification.

This is definitely a situation where Grothman needs to think a little harder before coming back to the table!

Except that he's not talking about you at all. He's talking about out-of-wedlock births. Not adoptive parents, not someone who ends up caring for their child alone because of divorce. The numbers show that children born into a single parent family are more at risk. So why shouldn't that be one of many concerns, one of many things to give us pause and pay more attention to their situation?

Jeff, we should be concerned about all children and all parents. Parenting's hard work no matter what your circumstances. It's true that going it alone makes it harder. So why push social agendas that make it harder still for those who are working against the greatest odds?

I don't believe identifying children who are at risk based on historical evidence to be a bad thing. I don't believe this should target hard working parents who are doing their best to take care of their children. But I believe it is important to make potential parents aware of the odds they are up against having a child out of wed lock.

Thanks Melissa. I have many single parent adoptive parents as friends I take my hat off to them daily. Being a single parent is hard but their lives are so beautiful They have chosen to have a family. There is no greater gift nor calling. I see an abundance if family values being taught daily; love, forgiveness, sacrifice, patience, endurance. My adoptive friends are role models to me.

Statisically Grothman is right, take a ride through any urban city in the US and talk to the social welfare folks.

Personally I think we need to bring back the terms of 'out of wedlock' and 'bastard' to discourage dysfunctional families and encourage two parent functional familys...there is 2000 years of history that shows that the mom-dad-kids nuclear family is better for everyone in society, just saying.

Wow Alfred. I guess my son is a "bastard?" I have some words for you, but I have more class than that.

Your son is only a bastard if you chose to have him outside of wedlock, if he is adopted, the term doesn't apply. You seem very happy with your choice and I applaud you for it, but I think you are the exception and society's dysfuction is the rule.

Randy i do a lot of work in the central city of Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha so I know what I am talking about, in addition to working rural areas of Wisconsin so this problem of illegitmate children is not a racial problem but a societial. My personal belief is that government has replaced the father/husband as the prime bread winner, coupled with horrible morals and we are plagued with a class of 'feral' human beings who act more like packs of wolves than human beings. But that is only my opinion based upon what I see.

* NEW * LOCAL ABUSE! MOM ALLOWS IT because she values the PENIS MORE!

RACINE — A case of alleged physical abuse of a child has led to charges against the child’s mother.

In September of last year a worker from the county’s Human Services Department told Amanda Schurman that her boyfriend, Michael E. Westman, was not to have contact with her children and that the conditions of his court bond forbade him from having any contact with children, said the criminal complaint filed in court.

Westman is facing a homicide charge. The state says that in 1999 he shook his 4-month-old daughter so hard that she suffered fatal brain injuries. That case is still pending, and in late February Westman was accused of beating Schurman’s 4-year-old son for soiling his pants while being potty trained.

Schurman, 26, of the 3500 block of Meachem Road, allowed contact with Westman on more than one occasion, the complaint said. She now faces charges of obstructing an officer and failing to prevent bodily harm to a child, the complaint said. If convicted of both crimes she faces a maximum penalty of six years and nine months in prison or a $20,000 fine, or both.

Read more: http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/mom-faces-accusation-of-allowing-abuse/article_e13e48b8-691a-11e1-8440-001871e3ce6c.html#ixzz1ofbsWK5s

@Tim - either stop swearing or stop posting. It's that easy.

Why do you think you have all of the answers Melissa? Your son is young, you have experience in raising a teenage and young man, why do you handicap your son by purposefully being single?

Melissa, these are men who care more about some abstract (and often confused) notions they have than they do about real people -- at least when they are hiding behind their anonymous personae. They will have more outlier examples on their side to "prove" their point than you should bother to summon to prove yours. The bottom line is when you use examples of the worst to be found on the other side while thinking only of the best on your own side, you paint a false picture, not a true one. And that serves no one. Don't bother with trying to set them straight: they don't want to consider other sides, other possibilities. The important thing is to love your boy.

Randy no, a widow is not purposefully single, that is thrust upon her. It is difficult to raise children and to set out to do it alone is very selfish and is not in the best interest of the child. There is 2000 years of precedence and common sense on my side.

@ Melissa - Again, your whole premise is wrong, as his recommendation has nothing to do with your situation. Have you even read the actual recommendation that's referred to in the article, that everyone seems to be using to pursue their own agenda instead of the actual situation? You talk about education & it's what this is all about! It concerns a state board that "conducts various activities relating to the prevention of child abuse and neglect...1. Awarding grants for child abuse and neglect prevention programs...2. Awarding grants to family resource centers that provide parenting education...3. Administering statewide projects...4... promoting statewide educational and public awareness campaigns and materials". And the verbiage the senator wants included? "In promoting those campaigns and materials, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect." Not the only factor, not the major factor, just a contributing factor, and that based on historical evidence!

I applaud your decision to foster and then adopt. I wish more people & families would do the same. It's difficult to raise a child/children in our society (I have two), and it's even more difficult in a single parent household. Many people don't choose to be in that situation. Others don't realize how difficult, and what challenges their children will face, based on past history. That's what this is trying educate people about.

@ Meiissa - You have every right to disagree on matters of policy, but when you make it personal instead of dealing with issues you only diminish your credibility. You did that when you posted "I wonder if he has ever had sex....out of wedlock. He could have gotten someone pregnant that way! Just saying..."

Melissa here is in a weird way promoting single parenthood as more virtuous than the nuclear family.....not good to normalize the dysfunctional of society, look at the out of wedlock birth in Milwaukee, it is close to 75% of all births....

I think too many people here are talking cross-purposes and are too concerned with who's "ox is being gored". Remove your own personal experience from this and try to look at the larger picture. A large, significant number of children born to a "non-traditional" family end up in dangerous situations. While children born in "traditional" families can also have problems, significantly more problems are associated with children in non-traditional situations.

Thank you Randy

Hi Melissa...you should be commended for taking a child into your home to love. That makes you a hero in my book.

That being said, I strongly believe most of the problems in our city can be traced back to a lack of fathers in the home, and statistics show that it has become a rare occasion in this city to actually have a child within a committed marriage relationship. That's really sad to me, and maybe this bill isn't the answer. But we need to encourage people to have children within marriage where they have greater means to support and teach their children.

I agree with part of what you said. However, I think a lot of the issues going on has to do with lack of discipline...period. I would like for my son to have a father some day, but do I think he will be in jail because of not having one? No. I discipline. Have you ever watched most parents my age (28) parent? Most ask a child to do something multiple times. No...Ask once, then if they do not do it follow through. My child is not hit, he is not abused, he is disciplined by following through on what I say, and meaning what I say.

Alfred - Would you rather see a child in an orphanage in a third world country, little food, no medical attention,no education,no basic human rights, or life in a single parent home, given all of those things plus all the love and attention that any child could hope to have? BTW- Child Abuse is a serious charge to be throwing around to a whole group of people.

I think there are two problems with the senator's wording. "non-marital" is too broad. Much of the debate here illustrates that. But "chosen single parenthood without adequate monetary resources" might be a bit cumbersome. Also "emphasized" rather than simply listed.

Secondly, the waters get muddied not only with personal perspectives but also with how many of us regard Sen. G. and so read more into his language than exists there in and of itself.

And, fwiw, Jeff, it's "whose" not "who's". :-)

Maybe being a single parent increases the likelihood of child abuse? What if a mom or dad choose to get a divorce in an effort to leave an abusive spouse and get the children out of a volatile situation? In that case, being a single parent is preventing abuse. This isn't the 1950's. I think it is a disservice to children for moms and dads to stay in a marriage where there is no love or there is abuse. Really, what is the purpose of Glenn Grothman's bill? How will his "choice of words" affect real change? I think G.G. is trying to make a position statement and exert his archaic views on everyone. He should concern himself with creating bills that really "do" something. Sounds like he is venting, because times aren't like they used to be. As a woman, I'm glad I wasn't born in the 1950's. Some things in society are getting worse, but things are better, too. As a woman, I have a lot more opportunities than my mother or grandmother ever had.

The Centers for Disease Control list single parenthood as a "risk factor" for "childhood maltreatment". I think too many people aren't reading the actual proposed changes and are projecting lots of their own false interpretations.... http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/childmaltreatment/riskprotectivefactors.html

Further information from the CDC:

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/global_campaign/en/chap3.pdf - p. 67, "Physically abusive parents are more likely to be young, single, poor and unemployed"

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/chapter3.htm#living
"In the 22 States that reported living arrangement data, approximately 26 percent (25.5%) of victims were living with a single mother." This was more than any other category.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/preventing/programs/whatworks/report/report.pdf
Lists "single parent" under "Common Risk Factors for Child Abuse and Neglect"

None of this is pretty. None of this makes me or anyone else happy. But you can't use your own situation as what's typical. It goes counter to what your and everyone's goal should be - the safety of children. You can't put your head in the sand and ignore it.

All this bill does is focus the funding for the CANPB to the education and prevention of child abuse to the area of greatest risk which appears to be non martial parenthood. It doesn't mean that all single parents are child abusers.... but the research shows that children of non marital parents have a higher risk of being abused. It's about using the funding what is available to get the most effective outcomes. It's like why would you promote programs for Sickle Cell to white people? or another would be to promote voting for Hispanics in non Hispanic neighborhoods? It's really only about target marketing in my opinion....

Found this quote from Sen. Grothman on a local radio station website - ""I know a lot of single mothers. They're very wonderful people. I'm not going to be critical of the average single mother, but I am going to say that it is a risk factor (for child abuse), and I don't think any honest person would say that's a good thing."

It would seem that you've taken several lines from a bill and inferred incorrectly what was meant.

@ Melissa
"Do not punish them for what they COULD do." - I don't see anything in the bill that does that.
"but this would affect me if it went through." - How does the state board that this bill is about affect you?
"I have nothing to do with the issue" - I said that from the beginning. Yet you act like this bill has your name in it.
It's about those potential single parents who by their own choice could be bringing a child into a dangerous situation because of being uninformed.

@Melissa
"No Jeff, I love Senator Kohl." - I'm happy that is the case. That's why we have a government in place.
"but he needs to mind his business when it comes to raising a child...especially when he has not raised one." - But then you are wrong for the reason you give. You just think you disagree with him, even though it's clear from statements he's made he's not referring to you or your situation.

@Randy1949
I never called Melissa selfish or neglectful. To the contrary I said "I applaud your decision to foster and then adopt."

Let's look at this from a couple of different perspective. Senator Grothman is highly critical of those who he sees as non traditional. He also has very archaic views concerning societal values and morality. He has constantly attacked the poor on morality and a lack of personal responsibility. This latest move on his part is no different than what he has been doing all along.

Senator Grothman refuses to acknowledge that the single largest contributing variable to child abuse and neglect is poverty. In correlation studies, poverty far outweighs all other contributing variables.

He could not get the advisory board to go along with this proposal and now he is using his position in the state senate to pull an end run around the board.

Finally, the discussion of "bastard", "illegitimate" is moot. These terms are archaic and have no longer any legal standing. Single parenthood occurs for a number of reasons. It is not illegal for consenting adults to engage in "out of wedlock" sexual relations. Secular values and morality no longer support social sanctions for people to participate in legal adult behavior and as such, children born of wedlock or non wedlock couplings hold the exact same status. Children don't have a choice about their parent's marital status. The vast number of single mothers are white and find themselves in the circumstance due to divorce. Senator Grothman refuses to accept reality and wants to focus on his own biased views.

He is are linking ALL single parents together. You are linking me in with child abusers, yet I am the opposite...I am a mandated reporter.

The factors that lead to abuse are:

Single parenting-Well, do something about the dads and moms not stepping up
to their responsibility as parents and leaving one parent to do all of the parenting.
Don't punish the one left doing all of it! I do not know any
single parents that CHOSE to do this on their own besides myself or other adoptive parents. Even my son's birth mom...she was 13 when she got pregnant. I highly doubt she CHOSE to get pregnant.

Unemployed-Do something about this. This IS his job. Not telling parents
how to parent when he is not even a parent himself!

Poor-Get education and job skills to the people to help them get jobs!

Get prevention methods and education out to the people to help prevent
unwanted pregnancies and if people are abusing the system by having
multiple children on their own then cut off their food stamps, etc. That
will stop it.

You do not link one entire group of people together. In that case...we are going back in time. Statistic show that crime is higher in the African American community and at night, so should we go back to curfew for African Americans? No...I don't think so!

It does not hurt my "feelings" (Really?!?!). This man just needs to wake up. I get he is trying to help but this is NOT the way

Single parent households are the main contributing force behind much of the dysfunction in todays problem children. Sen Grothman is spot on, keep it up sir.

I disagree that I'm being arrogant. I asked a question that is it..... I am glad your parents survived their marriage at a young age but most don't.

I don't know what the bill cost there is no data that I can find about it. No matter what it cost you know it cost something to have its written up and voted on. I just believe there is no reason for this..... No reason that's it.. LIKE I SAID BEFORE YOU CAN WRITE A BILL ABOUT ALL SORTS OF STATISTICS. WE JUST DON'T

NOT YELLING FOR SOME REASON TALK TO TEXT WAS ACTING CRAZY.. STILL IS