The woman in the article grew up in a housing project in Neptune, NJ, and it is sad to say that her life is basically back to where she started, only this time her current shelter bedroom comes with a 3-month time limit. So you could say the pull-out couch she slept on while being raised by a single mother was much better becuase she could come home everyday knowing she had a place to sleep.
The economic crisis is also negatively impacting children of divorce as men are disproportionately losing their jobs (the decline of domestic manufacturing et al) and no longer able to pay child support. Family court remains focused on what's best for children, but based upon another article, some of the judges in such courts are either ignorant of economic particulars or outright lying to these men reporting reduced income.
According to http://www.philly.com/philly/business/personal_finance/55404262.html, the Department of Children and Families in Florida told a divorced man his support would not be lowered because his industry will bounce back. Do we need economists (Krugman more than Bernanke) as expert witnesses to verify the claims of lost work? Is it possible the judges and attorneys need assigned reading--a sort of pre-class work--from the Business news or government statistics on employment?
We should note that according to an op-ed piece in the New York Times, things are much worse in Russian monotowns: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/opinion/17aron.html?sq=Russia%20monotowns&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all. According to the article, Russians in these remote towns report that they are eating potato peels, roots, berries, and grass.
Please don't tell me this means the woman sleeping in the cold in her car should feel grateful.