Recently there have been a number of studies suggesting that children may be significantly damaged by divorce.
This goes against what had been the previously accepted view that most children will come through a divorce relatively unharmed and would be worse off caught between two unhappy and possibly abusive parents.
The debate, however, is not over; it seems simply to have been re-opened.
Background
Figures cited in The Age (supplied from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Family Studies) indicate that by the age of 10, about 10 per cent of children have parents who have divorced. That figure apparently increases to the point that about 15 per cent of children aged 15 have divorced parents.
Most divorces occur while couples are engaged in child-rearing and one third of marriages end before the children involved are reared. This meant that in 1996 the parents of 52,455 Australian children divorced.
Two of the principal studies referred to which appear to indicate children can be harmed by divorce are :
* Poor Families Poor Children, produced by Bob Birrell and Virginia Rapson of Monash University's Centre for Population and Urban Research report. The report, published in September 1997, examines the extent, causes and consequences of poverty among children in Australia. It apparently suggests that divorce plays a major role in child poverty in this country.
* A Generation at Risk - Growing up in an Era of Family Upheaval produced by Paul Amato and Alan Booth and published in 1997 by Harvard University Press. The report looks at hundreds of American families over a 15-year period and examines their responses to a range of social pressures, including divorce.
There are a very large number of Internet sites which deal with the effects of divorce on children.
A useful place to begin is on an American parenting resource centre page called Parent's Place. At http://www.parentsplace.com/cgi-bin/objects/family/family33.data you will find a response written by a Dr Gayle Peterson to a question about the effects of divorce on children.
Dr Peterson considers some of the current research on both sides of the question of whether divorce harms children. She also provides some advice as to how to minimise trauma for children in a divorce.
A more detailed overview on the possible effects of divorce on children can be found at http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/hesguide/humanrel/gh6600.htm
This overview is written by Karen DeBord of the Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Missouri-Columbia. It lists four principal causes of stress for children and then gives a detailed table showing both how children might react to certain traumas and how parents might help them cope.
Another very clear study which covers much of the same territory is an overview titled The Effects of Divorce on Children written by Robert Hughes Jr of the Department of Family Relations and Human Development, The Ohio State University. It can be found at http://www.hec.ohio-state.edu/famlife/divorce/effects.htm
This has a useful section which directly addresses the question of whether children are worse off after a divorce than if their parents had remained married.
Another useful site is the California-based Action Alliance for Children. This site includes a review of the most recent work of Judith Wallerstein and Julia Lewis, two researchers well known for highlighting the negative consequences of divorce. However, the review suggests that this new study acknowledges that there are circumstances where divorce is desirable. The review, written by Claudia Miller and titled, Divorce Doesn't Go Away, can be found at http://www.4children.org/news/198divo.htm
The Action Alliance for Children has also published a detailed criticism of the Wallerstein/Lewis work. This is titled Divorcing Reality and was written by Stephanie Coontz. It can be found at http://www.4children.org/news/198coon.htm
Arguments suggesting children are harmed by divorce
Those who argue that most divorces damage the children involve point to the results of studies conducted both in Australia and overseas which appear to indicate harmful consequences for children whose parents divorce.
Bettina Arndt, writing in The Age in November, 1997, cited the results of a study published in 1996 by Dr Brian Rodgers, from the Psychiatric Epidemiology Research Centre at the Australian National University.
Dr Rodgers' study apparently finds that `children of divorced parents are twice as likely to experience problems than those whose parents remain happily married.'
Ms Arndt went on to paraphrase the study claiming, `Younger children are more likely to experience mental health problems, have poorer self-control and lower reading skills. Teenagers are more at risk of psychiatric symptoms, impulsivity, early sexual activity, substance abuse, delinquency and poor educational achievement.'
There are five general reasons usually given as to why divorce harms children.
Firstly it is maintained that children are often emotionally damaged by the conflict that occurs between their parents as part of the divorce process.
According to this line of argument, rather than resolving conflict, divorce is often the trigger for a release of previously concealed hostility between parents.
Those who point to this tendency maintain that many children are unaware of conflict between their parents until they divorce.
Bettina Arndt cites the work of Judith Wallerstein who studied American middle-class divorce. Wallerstein's work apparently indicates that more than three-quarters of the children she studied had never seen physical violence between their parents before the divorce, but more than half witnessed it afterwards.
Secondly, it is maintained that divorce often leaves children emotionally damaged as they attempt to come to terms with the loss of one parent, usually the father and the loss of their previous family unit.
Dr Michael Gliksman, who works in children protection in a New South Wales children's hospital and is a clinical senior lecturer in the faculty of medicine at the University of Sydney, has stated that `Up to half the children in divorced families lose all meaningful contact with their fathers in the first five years after divorce.'
It is claimed that the sense of desertion and loss that can be caused by separation from a parent and the breakdown of the family structure may damage children's self-esteem and emotional security.
Eileen McNamara, a teacher in a Melbourne primary school which has begun a program to help children cope with the loss and grief caused by separation, divorce, death and illness, has suggested, `Children may feel guilty that they caused the breakup; they see their mother living in poverty and there are constant struggles over money and maintenance when they see their father.'
Thirdly, it has been claimed that lack of on-going contact with their fathers deprives children of an important role model.
It has been suggested that the effective loss of their fathers is particularly damaging for boys.
Dr Michael Gliksman has claimed that boys deprived of regular contact with their fathers are at greater risk of `poor outcomes, including hyperactive and risk-taking behaviour, educational underachievement, unemployment and suicide.'
Other studies have apparently suggested that boys who do not have regular contact with their fathers often turn to inappropriate and sometimes violent figures from popular culture as a substitute.
It has also been suggested that children whose parents divorce have not been provided with direct, personal experience of an enduring marital relationship and so are themselves more likely to divorce.
Fourthly it is noted that children whose parents have divorced are more likely to live in poverty than those whose parents remain together.
Bettina Arndt cites research published by Bob Birrell and Virginia Rapson, from the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University. This research apparently indicates that 43 per cent of Australian children live in poor families receiving welfare payments and that of this group, there are twice as many children living in families living on the sole parent allowance as there are on unemployment benefits.
More detailed statistics were supplied by Paul Gray in an article published in the Herald Sun in September, 1997. Mr Gray cited the same Centre for Population and Urban Research report, titled Poor Families, Poor Children.
The report apparently claimed that 84 per cent of the 468,000 lone parent families identified from Department of Social Security data could be categorised as poor.
The report also apparently indicated that divorce and separation are the major reasons for children living in lone parent families and so concluded that divorce is a principal cause of child poverty.
Finally it is claimed that the arrangements made within families after the divorce can also damage children. According to this line of argument, blended families which occur when one or other of the parents remarry are often unsuccessful from the point of view of the children of the original marriage.
Bettina Arndt claims, `The bulk of the Australian research supports overseas data suggesting that blended families can increase some risks for children, particularly the likelihood of leaving school and home earlier.'
It is also claimed that children who live with an adult who is not their natural parent are at greater risk of physical or sexual abuse.
In addition, it is suggested that the strain placed on someone attempting to raise children as a single parent may reduce that person's ability to be an effective parent.
Bettina Arndt cites one young woman whose parents divorced and who was raised by her mother. `Well, she was an OK mother, but she was going through a lot of stress. She'd almost had a nervous breakdown after the separation and she'd come home tired from work and I'd be there by myself. Sometimes I felt she punished me unfairly. She was just so stressed out and took it out on me.'
Arguments suggesting children are not harmed by divorce
There are three general arguments offered by those who argue that divorce is often in children's best interests.
Firstly, there are those who argue that for many children the formal breakdown of an unsuccessful marriage may be better than its continuance.
According to this line of argument, if parents stay together simply for the sake of their children, their poor relationship and personal unhappiness is likely to harm their children.
This position was suggested by Pamela Bone, in an article written for The Age in March, 1998.
Ms Bone argued, `I have been wondering how it must affect children to grow up in families in which there is never a sign of affection between the parents. In which one, or both parents, feels trapped and unhappy. In which there is constant quiet bickering, belittling, coldness.
One would think it would affect them badly.'
It has further been suggested that the children of an unloving marriage also have inadequate role models and may find it difficult to establish sustaining marriages.
This point has been made by Melbourne barrister, Deborah Wiener. Ms Wiener asks, `What chance do [the children of unsatisfactory marriages that do not end in divorce] have in their future relationships to create something loving when all they have seen is animosity ... and, frequently, both physical and emotional abuse?'
With regard to physically abusive marriages, rather than those which are simply cold and unfulfilling, both those who favour divorce and those who believe it should be avoided for the sake of the children tend to agree.
There seems to be a general consensus that children are more damaged if their parents remain together in a constantly violent and abusive relationship than if they separate.
Secondly, it is claimed that the damage supposedly done to children through divorce is often exaggerated.
For example, it is claimed that though the likelihood of physical and emotional abuse appears to be greater when children are reared with at least one guardian who is not their natural parent, it is unreasonable to claim that this is the fate of either most children whose parents divorce, or even most of those children whose custodial parent forms another relationship.
Ms Bone argues, `[Arguments against single parents] appeal to our prejudices. We remember the faces of tiny children in newspapers, abused, beaten or killed because some woman put having a man ... before their children's welfare.
Yet how unfair of us to assume that most, or even many, single mothers are like this.'
It has also been argued that a sole parent is capable of supplying a secure, loving environment for his or her children.
Pamela Bone argues, `What matters most to children is the quality of love, care and security they receive, be it in a large family with two parents, or with only one parent.'
Ms Bone cites Australian democrat Senator, Natasha Stott-Despoja, who was brought up solely by her mother. When asked if she had been damaged by this, Ms Stott-Despoja is reported to have said, `To have one great parent - that's a blessing.'
This point has also been made by Dr Robert Emery, an expert on family mediation and author from the University of Virginia. Dr Emery has stated that one of the factors a child needs in order to emerge unharmed from a divorce is a good relationship with at least one parent.
Dr Emery has claimed that `Children don't have to have a perfect life in order to come out mentally healthy.
Dr Emery has also claimed that even though after a divorce a child may cease to have a relationship with the non-custodial parent, the emotional pain that child feels is not a mental disorder and will not necessarily trigger one.
Far from being probable sufferers of mental disorders, Dr Emery claims that the children of divorced parents are likely to become more resilient.
Thirdly, it is claimed that there are ways of overcoming some of the difficulties children may face as the result of their parents divorcing.
It has been claimed, for example, that the sort of support programs many schools have in place to help children cope with loss can show them how to deal with emotional problems.
When considering the question of the poverty often experienced by children in divorcing families it has been claimed that it would be more productive to address the causes of the poverty than to argue that unhappy couples should remain together.
Dr Paul Amato, Professor of Sociology at the University of Nebraska, has noted that current studies indicate `that fathers' payment of child support improves not only children's standard of living, but also their health, educational attainment and general sense of well-being.'
Though Dr Amato does not appear to argue this case, there are those who maintain that what is important is that non-custodial parents be required to contribute to the cost of maintaining their children as this would help to redress the poverty such children frequently experience.
Further, it has been claimed that the sort of thinking that would require parents maintain a traditional family unit and stay together for the sake of their children is ignoring the fact that family groupings are
undergoing a period of significant change.
Dr Anthony Elliott, a research fellow at the Department of Political Science, University of Melbourne, points to the increased incidence of de facto couples with children, blended families of remarried couples with children and the pressure from homosexual couples to be able to have children.
Dr Elliott suggests that what is at issue is not whether children remain with their natural parents, but that they are involved in sustaining relationships of whatever nature.
Further implications
Though currently there are a number of significant studies and prominent authorities suggesting that many, if not all, children are harmed by divorce, it seems the jury is still out.
What seems more certain is that divorce laws will not be changed to make divorce more difficult to obtain and so many couples are likely to continue to use divorce as a way out of an unhappy or abusive marriage.
Given this, if the current emphasis on the harm divorce can do to children is heeded it seems that greater efforts will be made to prevent its negative consequences.
In Australia, attempts have long been made to ensure that non-custodial parents contribute to the support of their children.
Moderation, or formal, carefully monitored discussion, is being used as a means of helping couples end their marriages less traumatically and in a way that better protects their children.
Schools are also apparently responding and attempting to help those children who are having difficulty coping with their parents' separation.
Sources The Age
4/9/97 page 17 comment by Jocelyn Pixley, `The real story behind divorce'
8/11/97 page 8 (News Extra section) comment by Bettina Arndt, `Social conundrum: is a bad marriage better than a good divorce?'
3/3/98 page 13 comment by Bettina Arndt, `Divorce and children: the real story, at last'
7/3/98 page 11 (News Extra section) comment by Susan Maushart, `A wonderful divorce'
12/3/98 page 13 comment by Pamela Bone, `Blaming mothers is no way to help the family'
15/3/98 page 19 comment by Anthony Elliot, `Families evolve from the ashes'
16/3/98 page 14 comment by Deborah Wiener, `The pain and trauma of divorce'
18/4/98 page 14 analysis by Carolyn Webb, `So young, so sad'
18/4/98 page 15 analysis by Belinda Parsons, `More resilience than risk for children of divorce'
24/4/98 page 23 analysis by Kate Nancarrow, `Divorce, no class act'
10/6/98 page 7 news item by Janine MacDonald, `Boys look to Terminator for a model'
The Australian
1/12/97 page 13 comment by Dr Michael Gliksman, `The real dangers of placing children second'
11/6/98 page 3 news item by Luke Slattery, `Rocketing divorce rates change nature of dads'
The Herald Sun
30/9/97 page 18 Comment by Paul Gray, `Divorce is a big cause of child poverty'
Back to previous page
