In today’s day in age, there are many things that set children apart from each other. For example height, gender, age and etc. One difference that is not as visible to the eye is how many people the child has at home. This is very overlooked difference, in which the amount of parents and/or guardians the child has determined how they will grow into the person they are to become. Many children today are living with one parent whether that be the reason for divorce, a death or the parent left prior to the birth. However, a multitude of people believes that children under these living arrangements are subject to disadvantages that those under the roof of both parents. Many single-parent homes are run by mothers. Since father figures are absent in these homes, there is an extremely higher chance the income is lower than if the father were to be present. In partnership with income levels, parenting skills are related. These two topics cause many things to come into question such as are two parents more capable of providing for a consistent parenting or is the marriage that the spouses share in a general matter most? Many people have looked into these questions and two people whose theories stick out, in particular, are Kimberly Howard and Richard V. Reeves. They have concluded: Today, better-educated, higher-income adults are much more likely to marry. That means their children benefit from the marriage, and the income, and the education of their parent. Howard and Reeves also point out that the same skills that make marriages work (like commitment and patience) also come in handy for good parenting. (Badger) This shows that maybe it is not the parents in particular that influence the children most while growing up but the marriage bond that their parents take part in. There have been a multitude of studies by Howard and Reeves that show just how well those being raised by both parents are succeeding more than those who are not. Children who have mothers married their whole life make much higher incomes than those are not apart of the same lifestyle. Along with more money, two-parent homes have more time. This time can be spent with the children playing games, doing homework, going on vacation or even school trips. Engagement of the parents truly plays a key role in the formation of the child. When Reeves and Howard compared a few more characteristics along with parenting and income they realized, “…at the same time, along with a few other characteristics like race and the age of the mother, that 14 percentile difference shrinks down to a little more than four percentiles.” (Badger) The above example shows that single-parent homes show that 14 percent of these homes are capable of doing ‘regular’ family activities such as watch television together or eat dinner as a family. Along with financial advantages, children growing up in a two parent home also have educational advantages. There are two cases in which the education of a single-parent could be changed. Those two cases depending on whether or not the other parent is sending money to the parent the children coincide with. When the other parent does not send money, this forces the mother to work harder and more likely just have met ends meat. With these cases, the mother is not always home or at the child’s right hand to help complete homework or see how the child is doing in school. On the other hand, if the other parent is to send money: …the single parent raising the child, it would help free up time for that parent to spend it with children. When the children have the emotional support of the non-custodial parent, they often end up doing better in school when compared to children who do not have contact with the other parent. (“Single-Parent Children Behavior”) This goes to show that even if the parents are not together and that may cause problems on its own for the child, the minimal help that is given in the example earlier can help solve some of those problems in the smallest but in an efficient way.