There is widespread agreement that one of the troubling aspects of divorce is the negative effects of parental conflict on children. There has been a steady stream of scientific findings indicating that children whose parents do not resolve their marital conflict have difficulties adjusting. We know much about the conflict from the parents' view, but what about how children view this conflict?
In a recent study conducted in Australia, Jennifer McIntosh, Bruce Smyth, Yvonne Wells, and Caroline Long examined conflict in families in the four years following divorce. There were 133 families who had children ages 6-19 years of age with an average age of 13. All of the families participated in mediation to assist in deciding the parenting arrangements. Overall, these families reported a significant amount of conflict prior to the divorce. At the initial assessment prior to mediation, 59% of the mothers and 42% of the fathers reported high conflict. Additionally, 63% of the mothers and 50% of the fathers did not think very well of the parenting skills of the other parent.
So what did the children make of the conflict and how did this change over the four years of the study? First, on average children reported less conflict over time from prior to the divorce to four years later. Children who saw the least change in conflict and who overall reported the most conflict between their parents were those children in shared parenting arrangements. Over time, children were less distressed about their parents' conflict, but there were still differences among children in different parenting arrangements. Children who had no or little contact with one parent were the most distressed about the parenting arrangement at the time of the divorce, and were still more distressed four years later. Children who were primarily in the care of one parent had the lowest level of distress at the time of the divorce and continued to have the least distress four years later.
Another challenge that children report is the degree to which they feel caught in the middle of their parents' conflicts. This too is often viewed as harmful to children. McIntosh and her colleagues monitored these feelings over time and found that on average, children felt less torn between their parents between the time of the divorce and 4 years later. But these feelings of being caught in the middle varied greatly depending on the parenting arrangement. Children in a parenting arrangement in which one parent was the primary caretaker felt the highest level of being caught in the middle at the time of the divorce, but had the lowest level of these feelings four years later. Children in shared parenting arrangements had a modest level of feelings of being caught in the middle at the initiation of the divorce and these feelings did not change over the 4-year period. Two other groups, those with rare contact with one parent or those children whose parents changed the parenting arrangement also reported significant reductions in being caught in the middle of their parents' conflict.
In order to completely understand the results for the children in shared parenting, it is important to note that the parents who shared parenting included two types of post-divorce families. On the one hand, some of these parents shared parenting in a flexible way, adapting to circumstances and changes in children's needs and the family situation; Others in this group had a rigid shared parenting arrangement that often involved considerable litigation or court supervision. Children reported the most dissatisfaction with the parenting arrangement in the rigid shared parenting situation. These findings remind us of the complexity of understanding the outcomes of divorce and the implications of various types of remedies.
For more information on this topic visit www.theintelligentdivorce.com
To simply study Family Law Industrialists who have been clearly CONVICTED of malpractice would reveal what Dr. Phil McGraw characterized the Family Law Crisis to be: "a national epidemic." Like the Insurance Industry, they know that 99 out of 100 people won't follow through on complaints, and can be easily run-down in complexity. If any reader thinks, feels or KNOWS they have been victimized by the system sworn to protect children, please reach out to the links below (FWIW) - and to help validate and inform those who may know someone else who feels utterly depressed, alone, wronged and powerless in sustaining protective parenting.
Thanks Mr. Hughes for shedding a beam of light on this. Let's hope the HuffPost can expand the illumination beyond the tip of the iceberg. The cries for help come from a multitude of shocked, impoverished and alienated souls. Perhaps, you, sir, could forward my info to a suitable and brave ed/reporter who would like to vet my insistence...
Alan Ernesto Phillips, Shasta County, CA.
https://profiles.google.com/115902390478619061589/about?hl=en
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=raPey-ARdPs
www.blindbulldog.com
http://www.familycourtreform.org/
http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org
children,who are emotionally healthy and I feel blessed that I was able to have a "normal" life after all my sisters and I went through. When people started divorcing in the 1970's family counseling and parenting plans weren't heard of. Please, if you are getting a divorce-leave your kids out of it!
Don't put them in the position of having to choose sides and above all-don't tell them it is their fault!
I wouldn't wish this on anyone!
Thanks for sharing this powerful and thoughtful reflection. Your story is an inspiration to others that even in difficult divorce situations, there can be a positive future... with work.
Robert Hughes tried to make the distinction clear earlier and FAILED MISERABLY.
"Children "primarily in the care of one parent" would be children who most likely are in a sole custody arrangemenÂt with one parent. In these cases, the non-custodÂial parent is still actively involved in parenting. Sole custody arrangemenÂts can be stable and workable arrangemenÂts for children. "
SOLE CUSTODY MEANS ONE PARENT HAS NO LEGAL RIGHTS AND THE OTHER HAS ALL.
JOINT CUSTODY OR SHARED PARENTAL RIGHTS MEANS LEGAL RIGHTS ARE SHARED AS THE PHRASE IMPLIES. SOLE CUSTODY IN MOST JURISDICTIONS IS VIEWED AS AN EXTREME MEASURE OR MEASURE OF LAST RESORT.
Factually, sole custody divorces involve more distress for children because they rarely get to see one parent - for whatever reason. In high conflict cases - it's usually because the father was an unfit parent or the system was improperly biased against the father. Sole custody sometimes gets granted to fathers but hardly ever in cases not involving an unfit mother.
This study did not base their findings on legal custody definitions, but rather on actual living arrangements. Custody and living arrangements often vary especially over time. I am pleased that you took the time to read this study. There is much more in this work than I could cover in 500 words. I would encourage others to read the research study and draw their own conclusions.
With all the other factors tosto consider, including (but not limited to): the child's age and developmental stage; the degree of safety in the scenario; the family history and support system; the economic stability; the child's resiliency and on and on, we leave the door open for exceptions to the patterns we look for.
But it cannot be more true that keeping conflict to a minimum and keeping flexibility to a maximum is a fine place to start and, with hope, continue on. This is why HOW parents separate and prepare to raise children while living apart is imperative to the stage that's set. An unnecessarily adversarial advocate (if there are no safety issues) can throw a monkey wrench into the works.
It would be good to know what all those who engaged in mediation, in addition, were well-suited to the process and that mediation was ultimately appropriate for that family.
Also you missed the nuances of the study(s). Yes, there is sustained conflict in shared parenting situations (>35% overnights) but those are the children with the best overall outcomes, even though they might be unhappy with the situation.
Given the other factors that this study cites, the best outcomes for children is for men to continue to fight to remain in their childrens lives regardless of how acrimonious the mother feels about it.
Oh and the report ~clearly~ implicates women in post divorce acrimony. The study(s) authors go to great pains to explain their measurement of this acrimony, because of the bomb shell data in this study(s) and almost universally implicates women in post divorce bitterness, and that acrimony seems directed at the fathers with the intent to drive the fathers out of the childrens lives.
It is too bad the huffpo blogger decided to cherry pick the data...
The main conclusion of the study is that there should be an assumption of shared custody for older children (>5) if both parents where involved in the childrens lives, because that assumption would lower the overall acrimony that women feel post divorce.
They don't seem to have any conclusion for what should happen to children under 5... Apparently the best outcome for those children is for the father to just move on...
I'd like to know the kids and their father's opinion.
And don't let the haters get you down. Divorce is evidently a touchier subject than politics!
Second, I'd give it even odds that you will find yourself in a love-hate relationship with your child when they are a teenager. Is that love-hate state a reason to ... I dunno, how does one go about divorcing their child??? I don't think you can really. No matter what you do, you will always be their parent for better or worse. Hey that rhymes with traditional wedding vows.
How about everyone grow the f' up and stop with the hyper selfish behaviour and attitudes and do stuff for the benefit of the kids?
Merely hating one another is not a good reason to get a divorce when there are kids involved. You and your partner made the choice (or rather the series of choices) to bring the conflict to that level. Besides, if there are kids involved, getting divorced is only going to complicate your relationship with the other parent.
Thus the overwhelmingly negative effect divorce has on kids... unless there is some situation which is worse for kids than divorce... Merely hating your partner is not a good reason for divorce.
The evidence is really starting to heap up, and no one wants to admit it.
Mother headed households are bad for children. It seems counter intuitive, but that is clearly where the science is going.
Children need both parents in their life, and exes should support each other in making that happen in as positive way as possible.
If there is a massive turmoil and abuse involved, divorce may be seen as a relief by the child, but s/he will still hate it. We call these families broken for a reason.