Family First is deeply concerned that 13,780 children in New South Wales are now wards of the state.

That’s the number reported in this week’s state budget, which includes a record $1.2 billion package for child protection — the biggest in NSW history.

It’s a similar picture throughout the rest of Australia, it’s just that the NSW budget put a spotlight on this growing national catastrophe.

While help for children in crisis is essential, this staggering figure should ring alarm bells.

It reflects a deeper social breakdown. Strong families are the first line of defence when it comes to protecting children — yet government after government has neglected the policies that encourage family formation and stability.

Most politicians these days can’t say whether a mother is always a woman, let alone define the family.

The reality is the social science has always shown that children do best when raised by their married mum and dad. Yet cohabitation is increasingly promoted as an equal or better option.

The data says otherwise. Children in cohabiting households are far more likely to experience instability, neglect, and even abuse compared to children raised by married parents.

The Australian Government’s Australian Institute for Family Studies researched this in 2012.

The resulting Parental Marital Status and Children’s Wellbeing study by Lixia Qu and Ruth Weston makes a clear case that children fare better when raised by married biological parents compared to those raised in cohabiting or sole-mother families.

The study found:

• Children in married biological families were far less likely to experience family breakdown than those in cohabiting families.
• Children with married parents… appeared to fare better in terms of social–emotional, learning and physical development, as reported by their primary caregivers and teachers.
• Cohabiting parents were younger, less educated, more financially vulnerable, more emotionally distressed and had lower relationship quality.

While there are always exceptions to the rule and many cohabiting parents and single mothers do a good job, the research is nonetheless clear and always has been.

If a greater emphasis was placed on pro-marriage policy rather than rewarding non-marriage arrangements through the tax and welfare system, would State government child protection budgets be ballooning?

It’s a challenging question but given that children are the victims of culture and public policy that says marriage is optional, it is one that should be asked.

We must do more at the top of the cliff, not just the bottom. Family First believes the government should actively promote the benefits of marriage and fund initiatives that strengthen family life — not just pour billions into emergency care once the damage is done.

The tax system should promote marriage, family and childcare in the home instead of incentivising against these public goods.

While there will always be tragic cases where state intervention is necessary, we cannot ignore the root causes of this crisis. Until we address the weakening of marriage and family life, the numbers — and the cost — will only grow.

Family First stands for policies that rebuild the family, not just manage its collapse.