Posted on April 4, 2011

1 in 5 US Moms Have Kids With Multiple Dads, Study Says

Linda Carroll, MSNBC, April 1, 2011

One in five of all American moms have kids who have different birth fathers, a new study shows. And when researchers look only at moms with two or more kids, that figure is even higher: 28 percent have kids with at least two different men.

“To put it in perspective, this is similar to the number of American adults with a college degree,” says the study’s author, Cassandra Dorius, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. “It’s pervasive.”

Dorius’ study, which was presented Friday at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, examined data from nearly 4,000 U.S. women who had been interviewed more than 20 times over a 27-year period.


Dorius found that a multiple-father type of family structure was more common among minority women, with 59 percent of African-American mothers, 35 percent of Hispanic mothers and 22 percent of white mothers reporting children with more than one father.


24 responses to “1 in 5 US Moms Have Kids With Multiple Dads, Study Says”

  1. Istvan says:

    I hate this sort of study. They always refer to “single moms”. That term is an insult to every woman who had children and then suffered the misfortune of divorce or being widowed. There is a huge difference between a woman who has legitimate children with more than one husband and a “ho”. Lets filter out the woman whose husband passed away and then remarried from the tart who needs a genetic test to figure out who the “baby daddy” be.

    Many of the 22% of white woman who have children by more than one man may actually have had their children within wedlock. This is just another way the elites elevate bad behavior to the same level as good or moral behavior, just lump widows in with tarts and call them all “single moms”. I guess it make blacks feel better to know that whites are not perfect. And the more they can make us look as bad as them the better they feel. Sort of like listing Hispanics as “white” in crime statistics, to artificially inflate the white crime rate because ours is so low.

  2. Anonymous says:

    From the article: Further, this type of family structure can lead to a lot more stress for everyone involved, in part because the women need to juggle the demands and needs of more than one dad.

    I doubt that – these “dads” are mostly long gone.

  3. Non-African American says:

    White girls have made great strides toward equalizing themselves with the lower blacks and brown, but before we celebrate too much, we must remind ourselves that we have much more work to do.

    More sensitivity training and black history should do the trick. Oh, and if White girls attend any of the upcoming Civil War Sesquicentennial events, let’s make certain that they hear a black gospel choir, participate in a dedication of the slavery and civil rights monument, and then get taken home by the afrovoodoos for the full diversity treatment.

  4. RandyB says:

    “And when researchers look only at moms with two or more kids, that figure is even higher: 28 percent have kids with at least two different men.”

    What innumerate wrote this sentence?

    Headline should read “Only children less likely to have multiple fathers”

  5. james says:

    I feel that some of 22% of white women have 3% to 4% of black fathers and 1% to 2% of hispanic fathers and 16% to 18% of white fathers. May be, my wrong……..

  6. Tim Mc Hugh says:

    On a related note, I`ve noticed something about how White “families” are portrayed in the media. When I was a kid forty years ago, commercials would show a family two parents and four kids, all fighting over potato chips or whatever in the back seat. Lately, I`ve noticed White families portrayed as Mom and Dad up front and a single child listening to headphones and looking wistfully out the window… What it means I`m not sure. Are they trying to change numbers or just reflecting a new reality?!?

  7. Anonymous says:

    I have been saying this for years. I worked in an agency for 20 years that gave away taxpayer monies to these “women”. I saw where almost ALL of the ones who had different baby daddies were black and hispanics. They laugh at our (Whites) stupidity for giving them free money to keep on procreating, while we are diminishing in numbers! Race replacement anyone?

  8. Anonymous says:

    I wonder how much of the white 22% can be traced somehow to the influence of blacks, to their popular culture and the normalization of all things black by the media.

    Thanks to hip-hop and Hollywood’s glamorization of all things black, the concept of “baby mommas” and “baby daddys” are now familiar to people in the white middle class. This started back in the 90s, when the ghetto culture really found a foothold in the suburbs. That’s long enough for the effects to have percolated down and become evident in things like rates of single parenthood today.

    I’d speculate that a significant portion of the 22% of white children born out of wedlock today are born to parents who were influenced by black culture and the legitimization of the black family structure. And lets face it, single parent hood and families with children by multiple fathers is not an aberration amongst blacks, it is their preferred, one might even say natural, family structure.

  9. Anonymous says:

    It may intersect this issue to note that the best amalgam of

    relevant research indicates that about 6-8% of live births are sired by someone other than the mother’s husband and this estimate is rather even across social class strata.

  10. SKIP says:

    and 22 percent of white mothers reporting children with more than one father.

    I suspect the greater part of these White women are either divorced and remarried to another White man OR White women that bed blacks time and again. The woman who is dovorced and remarried to a White man will have a stready and likely long term relationship whereas the woman that beds blacks will have a long term relationship with welfare and many black male parasites.

  11. John Engelman says:

    Children raised to adulthood by both biological parents living together in matrimony tend to do much better in life than children raised in other situations. The fact that a much smaller percentage of children are raised this way than in 1959 is the ultimate cost of the sexual revolution.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Missing is the East Asian figure. Are many Chinese teens having illegitimate kids? Also, I wonder how many of the white illegitimates have non-white “fathers.” This should be viewed as shameful behavior for whites.

    As expected, the original article has a link to a commentary arguing that the study is probably a racist reflection on black women, and, besides, a woman and her baby do not necessarily need a man to make a “family.” What this “commentator” does not mention, is that if it is so, it is only possible because of the welfare state, mostly supported by whites.

  13. Anonymous says:

    How many of the white mothers have mutts?

  14. Howard W. Campbell says:

    Generally there is a world of difference between single moms and widows. The word widow connotes a woman in distress (In the Bible we are told to take care of widows and orphans). While this was done through direct charity in that era, today, my wife would collect on a very nice insurance policy if something happened to me.

    Now, we might expect to have such an appalling number of orphans if our standard of living were that of Dickensian England, but not anything here in the US since the 1920’s. My grandmother was widowed with 3 young children, but none of the three ended up being wards of the state.

    While in the Navy, one time I had a roving night watch with a fellow that had an Italian last name. However he had blond hair and blue eyes. I inquired as to this unusual circumstance. His biological father died in a car accident while he was still in the womb. Shortly before his third birthday, his mother remarried a man of Italian ancestry and his last name was changed soon thereafter. (His best comment that night was “I am personally about as Italian as a can of Chef Boy ar Dee”). With the new husband, the mom had four more kids. This man considered his stepfather to be his “dad”. I do not put his mom in the same category as Shaneiqua who has 5 kids with 4 different “Baby-Daddy’s”.

    “Certainly we know that women with higher education are delaying both marriage and childbearing for their careers,” she says. “Women with lower expectations for education and career don’t see that they will be in a significantly different place in 10 years. So there’s no reason to wait to have kids.”

    All of this nonsense subsidized by your tax dollars. Shutting off AFDC and SSI may not totally shut off the bastard children, but it would really slow it down. For a woman with a Forrest Gump IQ, there is no opportunity cost to having children and possibly a benefit if Uncle Sam is sending “crazy checks” (SSI) every month.

  15. John Engelman says:

    12 — Anonymous wrote at 6:09 AM on April 5:

    Missing is the East Asian figure. Are many Chinese teens having illegitimate kids?

  16. Anonymous says:

    Gee, I thought we had welfare reform, and this was supposed to solve this problem?

    Seriously, whatever happened to welfare reform?

  17. Jefferson says:

    Most White mothers with Mulato children are single mothers. I rarely see a White mother with Mulato children who is in a serious relationship or marriage to a Black man. Most Black men do not want a serious relationship with a White woman, they just want to hit it and quit it.

    The bright side is that that the majority of these White mothers with Mulato children look ugly, fat, and trashy. Meaning most of them look more like Roseanne Barr or Rosie O’Donnell. Most of them are not attractive like Christie Brinkley or Carrie Underwood for example. You rarely see a Black man with a gorgeous White woman.

  18. Whiteplight says:

    While I know there is truth to many of the comments here, I am afraid that I am a long time witness to a large number of white women who have babies with blacks, either married or not, and later marry white men and have white children with them.

    I used to know a white woman, attractive, reasonably intelligent, who tried to trap one husband with a pregnancy, tried it with another, and ended up with a third, having two children with him. Her mother had something like seven kids by several men. One of the steps had molested the woman when she was a young adolescent. The wonderful upbringing and experience made her both a feminist and a man exploiter. I knew her for years and I don’t think she ever loved any man she was with, investing emotionally in the children instead.

    A good friend of mine has three children. His youngest son just became a father to a son by an older woman. He was entangled by pregnancy. Face it, women hold all the cards when it comes to reproduction and sexual control. I don’t know how most white women will ever be able to find value in their race since it also entails rescinding a great deal of perceived power. Our mistake was giving into their constant complaints. But the horse is long out of the barn, so to speak.

  19. Anonymous says:



    Gee, I thought we had welfare reform, and this was supposed to solve this problem?


    Yes and no. There are supposed to be caps to welfare entitlements for mothers who continue to have children while on the program. Unfortunately, the Feds have largely devolved their role to sending checks to the states whose case workers then determine who is and is not eligible. Resulting in wildly uneven application of rules and provisos (how long, what work assistance you are required to undertake etc. etc.).


    Seriously, whatever happened to welfare reform?


    Seriously? Most of the problem was simply swept under the rug as AFDC and other welfare programs were either devolved to state and local level charities. Or transfered to SSI.

    There was also a massive effort to find ‘a job, any job!’ for these people which was of course doomed to crash the moment that the economy did and make-work positions dried up.

    Now you have migratory movements of people who, frankly, should never be expected to leave welfare because the are that far from the real world of responsible, adult, behaviors.

    And you have immigrants whose rights to things like medical and housing were first stripped and then added back to Clinton’s reform bill.

    And of course you have a laundry list of enablement agencies that fight for immigrant and lower class rights because that’s their bread an butter. Some of which is political, some of which is drugs, some of which is foreign interests and even corporate financed (big companies don’t care about transfer payments, so long as they don’t have to make them…).

    Here’s a pretty decent article-


    Supporters of the recent changes in welfare maintain that they will be good for the poor, bringing many of them out of subsidized poverty and into the world of work. Clinton has stumped hard for programs that would help welfare recipients get jobs, training, child care and medical care. He has also encouraged both the private and public sectors to go out of their way to offer jobs to welfare recipients.

    But the evidence suggests that getting the vast majority of welfare recipients into jobs will be difficult. While two thirds of welfare recipients are either on assistance only for a short time, or on-and-off, the remaining third have proven impervious to prior attempts to find them lasting work. For some, the problems are concrete and potentially addressable: lack of child care or transportation. For others, notably those who have never held a job, the problems are harder to tackle: poor health or lack of skills, desire or confidence.

    Will the new welfare system help or punish the poor? Even the results so far are in dispute. On the one hand, public assistance rolls continue to decline sharply – 12 percent in the year after the reform legislation was passed. That decline prompted Clinton to declare that “We now know that welfare reform works.”

    But critics attribute much of the drop to a robust economy. They worry about what will happen during the next recession, when jobs become scarce and local governments are looking for ways to cut their budgets.

    And they wonder whether some of the decline in the rolls consists of a new underclass, this one composed of people so disenfranchised and destitute that the government no longer even knows they exist.


    Myself, it would be easier and safer to go back to the old system of ‘blind fairness’ _if_ you could get these people into ordered lifestyles where a group-home level of macroeconomics could be applied and _if_ that level of assured support came with mandatory sterilization.

    The Projects were not as bad as some say, they were simply overbuilt for what they tried to do. With strict, onsight, security and a easy loss of residency privilege, we could still do a lot to keep things safer than the current roll-the-dice creation of a massive class of unknowables.

    Of course Milton Friedman’s rule also applies-


    About 43 percent of America’s “poor” own their homes, which, on average, is a three-bedroom, one-and-a-half-bath with garage, says the Census Bureau. About 80 percent of U.S. poor have air conditioning. It was only 1970 when merely 36 percent of the entire population enjoyed air conditioning. In the 1940s, my parents slept on the porch to cope with Illinois’ stifling summer nights.

    The Heritage Foundation tells us the typical poor American has more living space than the average person – not the average poor person – in Paris, London and other European cities.

    About three-fourths of poor Americans own a car, and almost a third have two. A whopping 97 percent of U.S. poor households have color TV, and more than half own two or more. Three-fourths have a VCR or DVD player, and 62 percent get cable or satellite TV. That’s poor in America today.


  20. Anonymous says:

    The percentage of white women whose children have multiple fathers makes sense, but they fail to mention that these women have multiple marriages and children in wedlock. The family structure were the parents are married comes naturally to whites and asians. Less so to Hispanics, and the number of out of wedlock babies in the black community is simply comical (well over 70%).

    The concept of a nucleur family is obviously foreign to blacks and quite frankly unnatural. The percentage was higher many decades ago, but that was when blacks were forced to act more like whites. After the civil rights movement (which I am totally for the equal treatment of all under the law) and the removal of forced social structures, their true African nature was allowed free expression and now we all have beautiful black culture to appreciate (gang rapes, 1/5th of black males in prison, gangster rap, baby mamas,

  21. Question Diversity says:

    16: SSI was the fastest growing Federal budget line item between the signing of “welfare reform” and 9/11, and now it’s growing quickly again. What happened is that many time limited AFDC clients simply made the lateral move to SSI.

    I think the only reason Clinton signed welfare reform, other than the political triangulation in advance of an election, was because he knew SSI would be there to “save the day.”

    BTW, the pretense that most former AFDC clients used to get on SSI was that their children are “retarded.” All the while they say there’s no such thing as race, no such things as IQ, and certainly no racial differences in IQ.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Another point to consider is how this is one more assault against the traditional family. If a woman can have children with multiple men, then what does this say about the importance (or lack thereof) of fathers in the community? Really, it is silly for conservatives to rail against homosexual marriage when marriage itself has disintegrated in so many communities, and has been replaced with a sort of reverse-harem situation, subsidized by taxpayers. It’s as if America is tearing down the civilizational institutions carefully built up over the millennia.

    Sam Francis had a lecture on this one. To stretch things a bit, it has been a radical truism that the family has been the “central institution of oppression” in bourgeoisie society (or patriarchal society, if we take the feminazi slant). By destroying the traditional family, the multicultists undermine one of the institutions which balances against the centralization of power. You end up with an atomized, rootless, dependent population, just the sort of “mass” which can be ruled by a centralized bureaucracy.

  23. Periapsis says:

    A white man especially is nuts to marry or father children with women who already have kids by other men. For one, he is one false accusation away from jail. Two he is enabling feminism, which is destroying the white race. That is encouraging white women to reject motherhood, and creating lost generations of white men who will never have the chance to form families and father children with white women. This only create further animosity between white men and women, which was created and egged on by our anti-white, genocidal ruling class. The phenomena of women having kids by different men is the result of women sex drives being allowed to run wild, while men’s are being curtailed at the same time. I bet many women have kids who also have the same father as those born by other women, it’s got to be happening because in some cities as many as 30 percent of live births to married women are the product of adultery. In other words, huge numbers of men are on the hook legally for children that are not theirs.

  24. Papa John says:

    Multiple-father type of family structure or multiple-sperm donor type of family structure ? There is a vast difference.