Book Review: “Them Before Us” by Katy Faust and Stacy Manning

12 Serious Problems with Them Before Us by Katy Faust and Stacy Manning

As a Christian, I really wanted to like this book by a Baptist pastor’s wife, Katy Faust and her friend, writer Stacy Manning. The title is fantastic. “Them Before Us” is a great motto and it sounds so promising. Parents and society in general should put children first. The slogan is fantastic.

But, sadly, that’s not what Katy Faust is saying. What she’s saying is profoundly disturbing: That only married biological parents can be trusted to bring up children. In the first 100 pages, divorce is described as something only self-centered people do, with no exceptions for serious reasons. 

I will explain 12 problems with the premise of this book and give exact quotes from researchers:

1. Katy Faust acknowledges that married parents *can* be abusive but gives no anecdotes of abuse or neglect by biological parents, only for single parents, stepparents, romantic partners, etc.
   
2. She calls divorcees selfish, yet half of U.S. divorces happen for serious reasons like abuse, infidelity, or addiction. Many are lifesaving. See the evidence below.
   
3. Faust is wrong about the findings of some major researchers, avoiding their real conclusions. See below for the researchers she quotes.
   
4. Faust misrepresents the 2002 Institute for Family Values Study, which found that while 2-in-3 unhappy marriages became happy in 5 years, the remaining 1-in-3 marriages (often those involving abuse, addictions, or adultery) did not. In fact, 4 out of 5 people in the study who divorced and remarried were happy.
   
5. She misinterprets the famous Dr. Judith Wallerstein, who believed divorce was the best choice for children in abusive homes. See quotes from Dr. Wallerstein below.
   
6. Faust incorrectly suggests that researcher Dr. Alan Hawkins agreed that the “top reason for divorce” was a “lack of commitment”.  (Page 111, Kindle) But she is incorrect. Dr. Alan Hawkins found that roughly 40-70% of divorces were for serious problems such as adultery, addiction, violence, etc. See below for his exact findings.
   
7. Faust paints a frightening picture of step-parents, by relying on the Cinderella Effect theory to describe step-fathers and boyfriends as highly dangerous and extremely homicidal toward the children of single mothers, suggesting that mothers are always safest being married to the biological father of the children.
   
8. Faust exaggerates differences between family types, promoting a doom-and-gloom narrative for divorcees.
   
9. She quotes Dr. Paul Amato, but fails to mention his key insight that children’s well-being improves up to 10 times when parents leave toxic marriages. See his quote below.
   
10. Faust omits two crucial ACE Study findings on the harm to kids: including that serious harm is done to children who witness the abuse of their mother (or father) in the home. See below for the two ACEs she left out.
    
11. Faust also distorts no-fault divorce, failing to acknowledge that prior to 1970, judges and juries often forced victims to stay with their abusers, leading to increased suicide, violence, and homicide. See Item 11 below for the study published by Harvard, which gives evidence that no-fault laws have saved lives.
    
12. Faust wrongly suggests that marital abuse is easily addressed through counseling—ignoring that not only is abuse pernicious, but it is also unethical and sometimes unlawful to do couples counseling in abusive relationships because the counselor often accidentally sides with the abuser.
    
    

1. KATY FAUST ADMITS THERE CAN BE ABUSIVE MARRIED PARENTS BUT SWEEPS IT UNDER THE CARPET

Although Faust admits that a biological parent might be abusive (p. 52, Kindle), throughout the rest of the book she never gives one anecdote where the abuser is a biological parent. 

And that’s just not realistic. A wedding ring on the finger doesn’t instantly make people good, emotionally healthy, loving, and kind. And even pro-Christian research organizations found that 1 in 4 highly religious couples in the U.S. have experienced serious abuse in their current relationship. As a Christian divorce recovery leader in Evangelical churches since 1998, I’ve seen it a lot of married people who look good on the outside; they may even claim to be devoutly Christian but are abusive behind closed doors.

Them Before Us engages in double-speak: The author states on page 54 (Kindle) that the majority of stepparents and romantic partners are not abusive or neglectful, but for the next two pages she tells horror stories: one about an evil stepmother who favors her daughters over the stepdaughter, then another where she says that stepparents secretly hate their stepchildren (p. 55, Kindle). Later she uses a study on murder to convince us that step-parents are universally risky. 

2. FAUST DESCRIBES DIVORCEES AS SELFISH, BUT HALF OF U.S. DIVORCES ARE FOR SERIOUS REASONS

Faust tells her story right up front (p. 20, Kindle). Her mother and father divorced (but she is silent about the reason). Later her mother fell in love with a woman and the two have been partners ever since. Faust describes her mother’s home with her partner as “stable and conflict-free.” She and her mother’s partner are friends, and she loves her. She describes the divorce as a difficult rollercoaster of losses and transitions.

Throughout the book, Katy Faust describes divorcees as self-centered, self-absorbed people who just aren’t committed, and don’t care about their children. They are seen as people who choose “self” over family. They’ve been affected by Hollywood’s moral decay. They are viewed as people who don’t take their marriage vows seriously and don’t have the grit to keep their promises made before God. The suggestion is that they are quitters who want the quick way out. 

The truth? About half of U.S. divorces are for serious things: adultery, sexual immorality, violence, emotional abuse, family-crushing addictions, criminality, child abuse, or neglect and abandonment. Here are 4 studies that show this. 

She may view her own parents’ divorce as “selfish” (she doesn’t say), but that doesn’t mean all divorces are initiated by selfish parents who put their whims ahead of their children’s best interests. (p. 48) About half of U.S. divorces are for serious reasons. (See #6 below.)

Although Faust views divorce for direct child abuse as morally acceptable, she does not admit until page 111 that some homes are so toxic that 1 in 3 divorces involving children is physically and emotionally beneficial for them—truly life-saving. And by page 111, it is “too little, too late,” as she has spent almost the entire first half of the book shaming and stigmatizing people who divorce.

Faust seems to have turned out well despite her parents’ divorce. I didn’t find any description of substance abuse, binge drinking, teen pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, or dropping out of high school. She’s happily married to a Christian leader today.

This young woman — a child of divorce — is successful. She is also typical. Nearly 8-in-10 kids of divorce turn out “average, very well, or outstanding,” with no lifelong psychological, emotional, or social problems. Yet she has an entire chapter dedicated to ending no-fault divorce, which would make it even harder for abuse and betrayal victims to get away and find relief and safety. 

3. FAUST IS WRONG: MOST MAJOR RESEARCHERS SHE QUOTES found that divorce was better for children where there is abuse.

The author claims to have studies that prove her view.  But she is spinning half-truths. She omits the conclusions of many of the researchers she quotes. Those researchers (Dr. Paul Amato, Dr. Sara McLanahan, Dr. Linda Waite of Institute for Family Values, the ACE Study’s Felitti, and Dr. Judith Wallerstein) did give warnings about divorce and its effect on children. But their conclusions don’t support Faust’s overarching doom-and-gloom message that divorce is putting “us before them.” These researchers found that divorce was likely better for children where there was violence, hostility, or high conflict, regardless of whether the divorced parent stayed single or remarried. 

Dr. Judith Wallerstein quote: “Children raised in extremely unhappy or violent intact homes face misery in childhood and tragic challenges in adulthood.” -Judith S. Wallerstein, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce (New York: Hyperion, 2000), p. 300.

Faust mentions the 2002 study by the Institute for Family Values (p. 122, Kindle), but the author of that study, Dr. Sara McLanahan, wrote in 2012, that divorce improves a child’s wellbeing, in some cases: 

“We have long known that while the average effect of divorce is negative, for some families it may actually improve family functioning and child well-being.” – Sara McLanahan and Elizabeth Thomson, Reflections on “Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Socialization,” Social Forces 91(1) 45-53, September 2012

Dr. Paul Amato Quote: “Our results show that if conflict between parents is relatively high, offspring are better off in early adulthood if their parents divorced than if they remained married.” – Paul Amato, Laura Spencer Loomis, Alan Booth, “Parental Divorce, Marital Conflict, and Offspring Well-being during Early Adulthood, 1995, p. 895

Even Brad Wilcox whom she quotes said, “In some cases, divorce may be the best option for husbands and wives in a difficult or dangerous marriage. Domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and infidelity—among other things—are certainly legitimate grounds…” (Brad Wilcox,“Three Reasons Not to Make This January Your Divorce Month.”)

And:“…In cases where children are exposed to high levels of conflict—like domestic violence or screaming matches between parents—they do seem to do better if their parents part.” —W. Bradford Wilcox, Institute for Family Studies, The Evolution of Divorce.

If you look at the footnotes and read the studies about step-parents and single parents, you discover that kids in these home fare about the same or only slightly worse than in a married two-parent home, on average. The differences aren’t as vast as Faust makes out. And they aren’t enough to tell an abused wife or husband they must stay in a harmful marriage to keep their children from being destroyed by divorce.

4. FAUST IS WRONG ABOUT THE 2002 REPORT’S CONCLUSIONS

By the way, Faust mentions on page 53 the 2002 report from the Institute for Family Values (a marriage-at-any-cost organization) conducted by Dr. Sara McLanahan (the author of a 1997 book criticizing fatherless homes).  Faust writes that the report “found two-thirds of unhappily married adults who chose to stick it out report happier marriages five years later. Conversely, unhappy couples who divorced were no happier, on average, than those who stayed together.”

But that’s not correct.

That report found that 4 in 5 people who divorced and remarried during the study were happier in their new marriage. 

Eighty-one percent of those second marriages were happy.” p. 12 of the report

“Marriages with high conflict and domestic violence were less likely to become happy five years later.” p. 11-12 of the report

“If the problem is marital violence, divorce appears to offer significant relief.”  p. 12 of the report

The report says that people who escaped unhappy violent marriages appeared to be greatly relieved to get to safety. I call that happy to be free. 

As I mentioned above, the author of that study, Dr. McLanahan, changed her mind and wrote in 2012 that she now agrees that divorce can be better for children than staying. Here’s the full quote:

“We have long known that while the average effect of divorce is negative, for some families it may actually improve family functioning and child well-being. Work by Amato (1993), for example, shows that in families with high levels of conflict, divorce improves child outcomes. More recently, Jaffee et al. (2003) have found that children are better off not seeing their fathers in cases where these men are violent or antisocial.” – Sara McLanahan and Elizabeth Thomson, Reflections on “Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Socialization,” Social Forces 91(1) 45-53, September 2012

Note: See my summary and links to Amato’s work and the Jaffee study, a large twin study in the UK, that found that biological fathers who have multiple anti-social traits and reside with their children increase the likelihood that those children will develop conduct disorders from 1 in 33, to 1 in 8. 

5. FAUST IS WRONG ABOUT DR. JUDITH WALLERSTEIN’S CONCLUSIONS. Wallerstein found that divorce was better for children than staying in a toxic marriage

Dr. Judith Wallerstein, whom Faust calls “the queen of divorce,” is mentioned on pages 109 and 112 (Kindle) as predicting terrible outcomes for nearly half of children of divorce. Indeed, it is true that Wallerstein was one of the most pessimistic researchers in the 1970s to 1990s. Why? In Wallerstein’s study, the children may have been normal, but 70% of the parents in her group had a history of moderate-to-severe mental problems before the beginning of her 25-year study, many with extensive psychiatric histories (Wallerstein, Surviving the Breakup, p. 328, 330). 

A fellow researcher, Dr. Andrew Cherlin, wrote about these mentally ill parents in Wallerstein’s study:

Although she [Wallerstein] screened out children who had seen a mental health professional, many of the parents had extensive psychiatric histories. Troubled families can produce troubled children, whether or not the parents divorce, so blaming the divorce and its aftermath for nearly all the problems Wallerstein saw among the children over 25 years may be an overstatement. — Cherlin, Public and Private Families, 2013 edition, p. 397 (emphasis mine)

But even with these impaired parents, Wallerstein stated that 7 in 10 children of divorce turned out fine. Wallerstein recommended divorce where there was conflict, hostility, or indifference. Wallerstein objected to religious voices that suggested that divorce was universally destructive to children.  Wallerstein said she wished judges knew that observing abuse had a powerfully negative effect on kids. But Faust and Manning don’t mention that.

Judith Wallerstein quote: “At the twenty-five-year follow-up we found that 30 percent of the participants in our study were doing poorly, with functioning significantly impaired and below average. Thirty-four percent were in the average range, and 36 percent were doing very well to outstanding in all areas of their life tasks.” -Judith S. Wallerstein, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce (New York: Hyperion, 2000), p. 333

Judith Wallerstein quote: “And I am, of course, aware of the many voices on the radio, on television, and in certain… religious circles that say divorce is sinful… But I don’t know of any research, mine included, that says divorce is universally detrimental to children.” -Judith S. Wallerstein, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce (New York: Hyperion, 2000), p. xxxix

Judith Wallerstein quote: “Many judges who deal with such families do not understand that merely witnessing violence is harmful to children; the images are forever etched into their brains. Even a single episode of violence is long remembered in detail. In fact there is accumulating scientific evidence that witnessing violence or being abused physically or verbally literally alters brain development resulting in a hyperactive emotional system.” -Judith S. Wallerstein, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce (New York: Hyperion, 2000), p. 90 

Judith Wallerstein quote: “Indeed divorce is often the only rational solution to a bad marriage. When people ask if they should stay for the sake of the children, I have to say, “Of course not.” All our evidence shows that children turn out less well-adjusted when exposed to open conflict, where parents terrorize or strike one another, than do children from divorced families.” —Dr. Judith Wallerstein, Second Chances: Men, Women and Children, A Decade after Divorce, p. 321-322  (Originally published 1989. Referenced Kindle edition, 2018)

6. FAUST IS WRONG ABOUT REASONS FOR DIVORCE. About half of divorces are not frivolous. They are for serious reasons. 

On page 111, Faust mentions Dr. Alan Hawkins of BYU, who listed an older national survey in a book he co-wrote. She says this survey states “that a whopping 73 percent of people cited lack of commitment as their reason for divorce.” But Hawkins was not endorsing the survey, or its results. He merely mentioned someone else’s survey, and pointed out that it was inadequate, as it did not answer the big question: How many divorces are for serious reasons? He decided to do his own survey of hard versus soft reasons for divorce. Hard reasons were defined as serious problems such as adultery, addiction, violence, etc. Soft reasons for divorce were problems such as growing apart, leisure activities, and problems with in-laws. 

Hawkins asked participants, “What were the important factors in your divorce?” The participants were given 20 options. They could choose multiple answers.

HAWKINS FOUND THAT 37% to 72% of Participants had HARD REASONS FOR DIVORCE
The participants could pick more than one reason for divorce. Hawkins didn’t tally the responses on an individual basis, so we have no idea of the overlap. For example, did some unfaithful spouses ALSO have problems with alcohol and ALSO hit their spouse? 

• 37% reported infidelity.
• 22% reported alcohol or drug problems
• 13% reported physical violence. (Apparently, emotional abuse, verbal abuse, and criminal behavior were not listed as options, which seems to be an oversight.)

So Faust’s idea that 73% of divorces are frivolous is just simply incorrect. (By the way, many studies have been done on this topic. It’s more likely that about half of U.S. divorces are for serious reasons. Here are links four significant studies.  

7. FAUST PAINTS A FRIGHTENING PICTURE OF BOYFRIENDS and STEPFATHERS to keep you in bondage to a genuinely abusive spouse.

The book says that nearly every stepparent or romantic partner (except a biological parent) is a significant risk to the children (p. 57). They might abuse and even kill your children. And Faust’s statement is partially true: a new romantic partner does represent a risk to a child. 

But what if you are currently with a dangerous abusive spouse?

You shouldn’t stay with someone who is DEFINITELY abusive just because you might date someone who is POTENTIALLY abusive. 

Quote from Faust’s book:

“Chillingly, research reveals that the question isn’t whether unrelated adults pose an increased risk, but rather how much risk they pose” (page 57).

Wow, that sounds scary, as if anyone unrelated to you is a threat to your child—like “stranger danger” on steroids. The authors push the Cinderella Effect theory, which suggests that biological parents are genetically driven, almost hard-wired, to protect their own children.

But many in my 6,000-member online Christian divorce group would laugh at that, as their abusive husbands certainly didn’t protect their kids from harm; they inflicted it.

If you’re in an abusive marriage you have more than two choices. You don’t need to remarry. You can stay single. I stayed single for 21 years after filing for divorce. I wanted to give my children a lot of quality time, and I was worried that adding a new person to the family would just complicate our lives. 

Should you choose to start dating (and many people do), it is important to be cautious, as there are many bad actors out there who are quite charming, and gravitate to single mothers as an easy target. A recently divorced person’s self-concept is at a low ebb, often feeling ugly, unloved, and rejected, making them understandably vulnerable.

And there does seem to be some sort of Cinderella Effect, even though genetics may have nothing to do with it. Boyfriends are more likely to commit homicide and so are stepfathers. So it’s important to do criminal background checks and always be able to walk away when you see signs of danger. However, the kind of fear-mongering in this book is over the top…convincing abused mothers (and fathers) that any divorcing would be even worse.

Faust’s fear-based message is likely to trap women in abusive marriages. They are whipping up women’s anxiety, playing on their fears, and using terror to influence their decisions. 

Eventually, after my kids were adults, I started dating. I rejected several men. Some men rejected me.  But I found a winner and remarried. We are very happy. My husband loves my adult children and they love him. For those of us who have remarried and have wonderful spouses, we can attest that there are some good potential mates out there. 

8. FAUST PORTRAYS THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FAMILY TYPES AS GREATER THAN THEY ARE

Faust’s book exaggerates the slight differences between children of married parents and children of single parents. Often the book doesn’t use real numbers when those stats aren’t very dramatic. Instead of showing us figures, the author uses the phrase “more likely to ______ [have some bad outcome]” dozens of places in the book, which sends the message that the difference is major. But it’s not.

For example, the graph on child abuse is misleading (p. 59 Kindle). It has been magnified by a factor of 50, otherwise, the reader might miss the differences in abuse rates between married parents, single parents, and stepfamilies. Only a handful of biological married parents and stepparents commit criminal-level child abuse. Dating partners are more problematic, on that we can agree. Most homes are good or at least good enough.

9. FAUST MISSES A KEY INSIGHT IN DR. PAUL AMATO’S CONCLUSIONS

Dr. Paul Amato, whom she quotes extensively (and accurately) on p. 110, also found that children whose parents divorced had 10 times greater well-being than children whose parent “stayed for the kids” in a highly toxic married home (compare -.37 to -.03 on a 1.00 wellbeing scale). This is why it is irresponsible to tell people that their marriage can be saved and that should be their goal, even when there is no long-term evidence of change. 

In interviews she conducted, Faust found some adults whose parents were so abusive, that they wished they had been raised in a single-parent or even in a loving homosexual home. Still, Faust dismisses their stories, giving them just a line, because they don’t conform to her ideology of children requiring two biological married parents. (p. 48). So ironically, Faust’s ideology enables and prolongs abusive marriages, regardless of the abuse and betrayal witnessed by the children. It appears she doesn’t care that much about kids’ safety. But she sure cares about her marriage-permanence worldview.

She also quotes some studies about children in heterosexual vs. homosexual parent homes but fails to reveal problems in those studies. That’s not my area of interest or expertise, but here is a fact-checking article on those studies and Faust’s use of them.

10. FAUST LEAVES OUT 2 ACEs from the ACE STUDY

After repeatedly categorizing most divorcees as selfish in the first 100 pages of the book, Faust finally mentions the ACE study (page 112, Kindle) and suggests it is okay to divorce if the ACEs are present. The ACEs are Adverse Childhood Experiences. I’ve listed them below. She lists all but two of the adverse childhood experiences:

1. Children living in a household with violence against the mother and
2. Children living with household members who are mentally ill.  

These are so important to mention. A child who observes or knows about the abuse of the mother (or father) has been traumatized. Children who’ve experienced more of the ACEs are likely to have poor behavioral and health outcomes as adults. 

 What were the 7 ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences) from the first 1998 ACE Study? (There were only 7 in the first study.)

• Psychological abuse
• Physical abuse
• Sexual abuse
• Violence against mother (later, all intimate partner violence was added)
• or living with household members who were substance abusers,
• or mentally ill or suicidal,
• ever imprisoned (had criminal behavior).

11. FAUST IS WRONG ABOUT NO-FAULT DIVORCE

Faust claims that at-fault divorce (the opposite of no-fault divorce) protects innocent spouses, but she is wrong.  At-fault divorce gives the legal advantage to abusers and cheaters by raising the expense and the burden of proof so high for victims, that only wealthy victims with severe physical injuries or proof of adultery can escape. Before 1970, divorce was slow, expensive, and filled with obstacles. In some states, certain types of abuse weren’t even considered valid reasons for divorce.

Faust has bought into the myth that abusers and cheaters are the ones who want to end the marriage. But those of us who have worked with thousands of domestic violence survivors over the years know that abusive spouses often prefer to stay married. They want to have it both ways—enjoying the benefits of marriage while continuing their harmful behavior. They want a partner who turns a blind eye, endures mistreatment, is silenced by threats, and tolerates betrayal. They want a committed spouse who keeps paying the bills, caring for the children, and holding the family together, no matter how badly they are treated. In other words, selfish malicious spouses want to have their cake and eat it too.

About half of U.S. divorces today are for serious issues: sexual immorality, adultery, physical violence, emotional/sexual abuse, addictions, failure to provide, criminal behavior, and severe neglect/indifference. It is expensive to go through an at-fault divorce trial that requires standards of evidence. Few abused wives would be able to afford either the time or money for a long drawn-out trial. And by that time, the children have already sustained serious damage by direct abuse or observing abuse. 

No-fault divorce empowers victims and allows them to escape before the abuse or betrayal escalates. And we have proof of that. Divorce saves lives.

As a Harvard Quarterly Journal of Economics article showed—

When no-fault divorce laws started passing one state at a time, starting with Governor Ronald Reagan in California in 1969, researchers wanted to see the effect. In states that passed unilateral no-fault divorce, they observed the suicide rate for wives drop by 8-16%. The domestic violence rate by and against both men and women dropped by 30%. The homicide rate of women murdered by an intimate dropped by 10%.

Source: Stevenson and Wolfers, “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress,” The Harvard Quarterly Journal of Economics (Feb. 2006): 267, 286.

If lawmakers repeal no-fault divorce laws and return to pre-1970 wording, it is reasonable to assume we’ll see suicide, homicide, and domestic violence increase.  

12.  FAUST CLAIMS THAT MARITAL ABUSE IS RELATIVELY EASY TO STOP

The authors claim the solution is simple—buckle up for their naive idea of how to stop abuse.

Faust suggests that an abused spouse can simply tell their chronically abusive and neglectful partner to snap out of it and start behaving for the sake of the kids. Really? A little “professional help and accountability” (p. 111) is all it takes!? Voilá! Why hasn’t anyone thought of this before? (Insert sarcasm here. She’s utterly out of touch about the dynamics of abuse and addiction and how hard millions of abused spouses have tried to end it.)

This is a boatload of wishful thinking. A person in church ministry ought to be a realist. It’s nearly delusional and irresponsible to promise change where there is a long-term pattern of abuse, betrayal, and selfish disregard for the safety of everyone else in the home, including the children. What’s even more surprising is that the board chair of her organization is a licensed mental health provider. 

In addition, doing couples counseling is often unsafe for the abused spouse. See why college textbooks warn against doing marriage counseling where there is abuse. 

By the way, 1-in-4 highly religious couples in the U.S. have experienced interpersonal violence in their current relationship, according to the pro-marriage conservative think tank, The Institute for Family Studies, and their senior researcher Bradford Wilcox, whom Faust repeatedly quotes in her book. And as the United States is predominantly Christian, Christian couples make up the majority of those. 

FINALLY, FAUST TRIES TO CUT OFF [ALMOST] ALL OPTIONS FOR MARRIED ABUSE VICTIMS

So by Faust’s standards, if you’re not married AND you’re not the biological parent of the child, you are not only substandard, you’re a risk to the child.

—Sorry, loving single grandparents!

—Sorry, emotionally healthy stepparents.

—Sorry, nurturing single mothers and single dads. (Note that Faust never mentions lambasts “widows.” Why not?) 

—Go away, caring boyfriends and girlfriends who are willing to fill the gap and sacrifice for the kids!

—Same for you, solo adoptive parents. You just don’t cut it.

The reality is that most single parents handle their parental responsibilities just fine. Any challenges they face often stem from carrying too much responsibility and lacking the time to help their kids with tasks like homework. So instead of marginalizing and demonizing divorcees, let’s focus on supporting them.

Rather than automatically viewing step-parents as dangerous or risky, we should shift our focus to teaching people how to assess character effectively. It’s important to equip individuals with the tools to evaluate the qualities of a potential partner—whether it’s in a blended family situation or not. Ultimately, it’s not the label of “step-parent” that matters, or their DNA, but the character and actions of the individual in question.

Here is Focus on the Family’s announcement:

Focus on the Family promotes Katy Faust, an author whose book won an award from an extremist hate group.

Katy Faust accepts “Book of the Year” award from an extremist hate group, the Ruth Institute. Book: “Them Before Us.”

In 2022, the board chair of Katy Faust’s organization was listed as Christian Bringolf of Burien Counseling of Burien, Washington, and Ellensburg Counseling in Ellensburg, Washington. If he buys into Katy’s views, I would suggest he may not be a safe counselor for anyone in a destructive marriage. Sometime before October 4, 2024, Katy removed all board member names from her website. They also do not appear on her public IRS 990 filings through ProPublica.