|
26 de Julho de 2000 - Infovitae
The Effects of Divorce on Children
Patrick Fagan, Ph.D., born in Ireland, served as
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Social Service Policy in the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services and is now The William
FitzGerald Fellow in Family and Culture Issues at The Heritage
Foundation. His monographs focus on crime, welfare, child abuse, drug
addiction, the breakdown of marriage and the abandonment of regular
religious worship of God. He and his wife Theresa have eight children.
Introduction
Divorce is hurting American children very badly. Each year over a
million children suffer the divorce of their parents and by 1999, half
of all American children reaching their eighteenth birthday and who were
born to married parents will have experienced the divorce of their
parents
The reversal of the legal status of divorce will entail nothing less
than a cultural revolution because American culture now embraces divorce
in law and in behavior. Its easy acceptance --- once rejected as
scandalous. Even if they themselves have divorced the men and women who
shape popular opinion, as well as the policymakers in state legislatures
who are responsible for domestic law should begin to challenge this
practice.
The devastating effects of divorce on children just might provide
these leaders with the motivation to start such a cultural revolution,
or at least to question the direction the nation has taken. The plight
of children may give Americans the moral courage to overcome a fear of
raising this delicate subject. If Americans do not overcome this fear,
we will lock ourselves into inaction and lock the nation into a downward
spiral of weakening effects and diminishing social capital because
divorce diminishes children’s future competence in all the major
institutions.
In family life, divorce permanently weakens the relationship between
children and parents. It leads to destructive ways of handling conflict,
diminishes social competence, leads to early loss of virginity, and it
diminishes young adults’ sense of masculinity or femininity. It leads
to more trouble in dating, to more cohabitation, to higher divorce rates
later in life, to higher expectations of divorce, and to less desire for
children.
In religious life, divorce diminishes the frequency of worship of
God, and recourse to Him in prayer.
In education, divorce diminishes learning capacities and high school
and college attainment.
In the marketplace, divorce reduces household income and massively
cuts the life-wealth of individuals.
In government and citizenship, divorce massively increases crime
rates, abuse and neglect rates , and the use of drugs.
Also, divorce weakens the health of children; even their life spans
will be shortened. Finally it increases behavioral, emotional and
psychiatric risks, including suicide.
The effect of divorce on children’s hearts, minds and souls range
from severe to mild, from seemingly small to massive, and from short
term to long term. None of the effects apply to every child of divorce,
nor is it likely that any one child has suffered all the effects.
Nonetheless, the one million children who see their parents divorce each
year are effected by the trauma. There is no way to predict how any
particular child will be effected or to what extent, but it is possible
to predict its effects on society. They are numerous and very serious.
The major issue for researchers is no longer what the ill effects of
divorce are, but the depth and length of persistence of these effects on
children, and on their future children and grandchildren.
A: Effects on the Institution of the Family
Family Effect #1) Weakened Relationships Of Divorced
Parents Towards Their Children.
Not only do parents divorce each other, a divorce or ‘mini’
divorce happens between them and their children. The primary effect of
divorce (and of the conflict that leads to divorce) is a decline of the
relationship between parent and child. Divorced mothers, despite their
best intentions, are less able than married mothers are to give the same
level of emotional support to their children. Divorced fathers are less
than likely to have a close relationship with their children, and the
younger the children are at the time of the divorce, and when the father
is denied legal custody of the children he is more likely to drift away.
Also, divorced and remarried fathers tend to become more involved with
the children of their subsequent marriage. In the late 1980s and early
1990’s the National Survey of Families and Households [5] found that
about one in five divorced fathers had not seen their children in the
past year, and less than half the fathers saw their children more than a
few times a year. By adolescence (between the ages of twelve to sixteen)
less than half of those children living with separated, divorced, or
remarried mothers had seen their fathers at all in more than a year, and
only one in six saw their fathers as often as once a week. Finally
paternal grandparents frequently cease to see their grandchildren as
their grandchildren’s contact with their own father, the grandparents’
son, diminishes.
Children’s relationships with both their parents change after a
divorce: they become more distant from both, more so even than children
living with married but unhappy parents.[10], [11]
Children of divorced parents rate the support they receive from home
much lower than do children from intact homes. These negative ratings
become more pronounced by the time they are in high school and college.
This emotional distance between children and parents lasts well into
adulthood, and may become permanent. As adults, children of divorced
parent families are half as likely to be close to their parents as
children of intact families are. They have less frequent contact with
the parent with whom they have grown up, and have much, much less
contact with the divorced parent from whom they have been separated by
the divorce. The financial assistance, practical help, and emotional
support between parents and children diminishes much more quickly than
that in intact families. Also, they are less likely to think they should
support their parents in old age. This finding alone portends a
monumental problem for the much-divorced baby boom generation when it
becomes the dependent elderly generation in the first half of the twenty
first century.
Children whose parents divorce later in the life -- late teenage
years and early adulthood -- have fewer difficulties than children whose
parents divorce during their childhood, but they deeply dislike the
strains and difficulties which arise in long-held family celebrations,
traditions, daily rituals, and special times, and see these losses as
major.
Furthermore even grown children continue to see their parents divorce
very differently than do the parents. Judith Wallerstein, a clinical
psychologist from San Francisco, was the first to disturb the nation
with her widely reported research on the effects of divorce on children.
Her research has continued in many follow-up studies on these children.
Fifteen years after the divorce she found that only 10 percent of
children felt the positive about their parents’ divorce even though 80
percent of the divorced mothers and 50 percent of the divorced fathers
felt that it was good for them.
Family Effect #2) Weakened Relationships Of Children
Towards Their Parents.
After the divorce most parents have two sets of problems: first,
their own personal adjustment to the divorce and second, their
adjustment to the new and very different role as divorced parent. As
many as 40 percent are so stressed by the divorce that their child
raising suffers. They frequently shift their way of dealing with their
children, changing from rigid to permissive, from emotionally distant to
emotionally dependent. Compared with continuously married mothers,
divorced mothers are likely to be less affectionate with their children,
less communicative, and to discipline them more harshly and more
inconsistently, especially during the first year following the divorce.
In particular divorced mothers have problems with their sons, though
their relationship will likely improve within two years, even if, for
many, some discipline problems persist up to six years after the
divorce.
Fathers don’t fare well either with their children, especially
non-custodial fathers. Their contact with their children declines over
time, though this pattern is less pronounced the older the child is when
the divorce occurs. The relationship that divorced fathers have with
their sons, often troubled before the divorce, tends to get
significantly worse after the breakup. Furthermore, the higher the level
of conflict during the divorce, the more likely the distance between
father and his children. This does not bode well for the lifetime
happiness of divorced children: Young adults who feel emotionally close
to their fathers tend to be happier and more satisfied in life,
regardless of their feelings toward their mothers. However there is good
news: Divorced fathers who live close to their children and see them
more often tend to retain the affection of their children more.
The relationships of father to daughter and mother to son have their
own special twists: Boys, especially if they are living with their
mother, respond with more hostility to parental divorce than girls do,
both immediately after the divorce and for a period of years thereafter.
Girls often fare worse when living with adult men, either their father
or a stepfather. By the time children, particularly daughters, attend
university their affection for their divorced father has waned
significantly.
Stepfamily life does not solve these problems. The level of contact
between the children and their natural parent is not restored to that
level enjoyed by children in intact families. Nor does remarriage
restore the enjoyment of the role of parent for most divorced parents:
they have fewer enjoyable times with their children, more disagreements
with them and more altercations than do intact families.
Family Effect #3) Children’s Destructive Styles of
Handling Conflict
Divorce diminishes the capacity of children to handle conflict. The
difference between marriages that stay intact and those that end in
divorce lies primarily in the couple’s ability to handle marital
conflict and move towards agreement. Children of divorced parents
acquire the same incapacity through the modeling of their parents.
For instance, compared to students from intact families, college
students from divorced families use violence more frequently to resolve
conflict, and are more likely to be aggressive and physically violent
with their friends, male or female. Later on in their own marriages
children of of divorced parents are more likely to be unhappy in their
own marriages, to escalate the conflict, to reduce communication with
their spouse, to argue frequently, to shout when arguing, and to
physically assault when arguing. Thus is the likelihood of divorce
transmitted across generations.
Family Effect #4) Children’s Diminished Social
Competence With Their Peers
Adolescents who have the ability to get along with peers have a
significant social skill that will lead to greater happiness in their
own family life and in the workplace. The marital conflict that
accompanies parents’ divorce places this competence at risk.
When parents are divorcing the conflict between them is often
accompanied by less affection, less responsiveness and more punitiveness
towards their children, and leaves their children feeling emotionally
insecure,[and more likely to believe that their social melieu is
unpredictable and uncontrollable. The worst troublemaker in school, the
child who engages in fighting and stealing, is far more likely to come
from a broken home than is the well-behaved. Gerald Patterson of the
Oregon Social Learning Center says: “Poor social skills, characterized
by aversive or coercive interaction styles, lead directly to rejection
by normal peers”.[43] Fear of such peer rejection is twice as likely
among adolescents of divorced parents.[44] They are likely to have fewer
childhood friends, and to complain more about the lack of support they
receive from the friends they do have. Faculty from Kent State
University, Ohio, conducted a major national study on the effects of
divorce and found that, compared to children from intact families,
children of divorced parents did more poorly when rated by both parents
and teachers on peer relationships, hostility towards adults, anxiety,
withdrawal, inattention, and aggression.
Family Effect #5): Adolescents’ Diminished Sense of
Femininity or Masculinity
Many teenagers struggle with feelings of inadequacy in their teens,
and frequently turn these feelings into erroneous judgements of
rejection by others. Daughters of divorce have a particularly difficult
time with this struggle and find it more difficult to value their
femininity or to believe they are genuinely lovable. Sons of divorced
parents suffer in their own way, and frequently have less confidence in
their ability to relate with women, at work, or romantically. [48]
If children -- especially for pre-adolescent children (aged 9-12) --
maintain contact with their father after the divorce they are greatly
aided in maintaining their self confidence, [49] because attachment to
their mother alone does not suffice.[50] But as pointed out already such
contact with father generally diminishes over time.
Family Effect #6) Young Adults Increased Trouble in
Dating
The divorce of parents makes dating and romance more difficult and
tenuous for the children as they reach adulthood.
Divorce increases the frequency of dating, the frequency of failed
romantic relationships and the turnover of dating partners.[51] This,
not surprisingly, leads to a greater number of sexual partners,[52]
(which in itself is a grave risk for acquiring incurable sexually
transmitted diseases).[53] When the divorce takes place during the child’s
teenage years these effects on dating seem to be deepest.[54]
The effects carry into adulthood. Young adult children of divorced
parents have much lower trust in their fiancées and tend to love their
partners less altruistically.[55] They fear being rejected and due to a
lack of trust, frequently hinder a deepening of their relationship.[56]
The divorce of parents changes the marriage expectations of their
children. Compared with children of always married parents, children of
divorced parents have more positive attitudes towards divorce,[57] less
favorable attitudes towards marriage,[58] are less likely to insist upon
a lifelong marital commitment,[59] and are less likely to think
positively of themselves being parents.[60] These differences in
attitudes among children of divorced parents are noticeable even as
early as kindergarten.[61]
Out of concern to avoid divorce, [62] and with a determination to be
more selective in choosing a marriage partner, some decide never to
marry.[63] Judith Wallerstein, in her study of children of divorced
parents from Marin County, California, found that they experienced
persisting anxiety about their chances of a happy marriage, a decade
after the divorce. This anxiety interfered with their ability to marry
well: Some failed to form satisfying romantic ties, while others rushed
into impulsive unhappy marriages.[64]
Men whose parents divorced are more likely to live by the injunction
“Don’t get close to a woman”. They are more inclined to be
simultaneously hostile and a “rescuer” of the woman they are
attracted to, than the more open, affectionate, cooperative style that
is more frequent among men raised by parents of an intact marriage.[65]
On the other hand women whose parents divorced are more likely to be
hampered or even overwhelmed by anxiety when it comes time to decide on
marriage.[66] The problem of being overly meek or being overly dominant
is much more prevalent in their romantic relationships and in their
marriages than it is among children of intact marriages.[67]
Family Effect #7) Teen Sex, Multiple Sex Partners and
Out of Wedlock Births
When parents divorce their children’s’ attitudes about sexual
behavior changes. Children’s approval of premarital sex and
cohabitation and divorce rises dramatically, while their endorsement of
marriage and childbearing is reduced. [68]
American[69] and British[70] studies repeatedly show that daughters
of divorced parents will be more likely to endorse premarital sex[71]
and engage in early sexual intercourse outside of marriage.[72],[73]
According to the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth we know that
African American girls are 42 percent less likely to have sexual
intercourse before age eighteen if their biological father is present at
home.[74] For Latino girls the presence of a stepfather increases the
likelihood of sexual intercourse before age eighteen by 72 percent. [75]
Furthermore any sexual permissiveness on the part of divorced parents
significantly increases permissive attitudes and behavior in both their
sons and daughters.[76] As with other family behaviors, so with this:
children learn from their parents.
The rate of virginity among teenagers is highly correlated with the
presence or absence of married parents at all ages.[77] Indeed, each
change in family structure during adolescence (from married to divorced,
from single to married, or from divorced to stepfamily) increases the
risk of initiation of sexual intercourse by one third among the teenage
children of these unions.[78] In Britain children of divorced parents
are three times as likely to have a child out of wedlock, compared with
children of intact married families.[79]
Following a divorce most mothers have to work full time, but this
combination of divorce and full time working mother leads to the highest
levels of teen sexual activity, [80] and is significantly correlated
with multiple sexual partners in adult life.[81]
Family Effect #8): Children Leave Home Earlier
The less happiness there is in their parents’ marriage the earlier
children leave their parents home to get married, to cohabit or to move
out on their own. [82] Children of divorced parents move away from their
families of origin in greater proportion[83] and earlier[84] than do
children of intact marriages. Stepchildren are 40 percent more likely
than children of intact marriages to leave home at any particular age to
get married, and about 80 percent more likely to leave home early to
cohabit, or to set up their own independent residence.[85]
Family Effect #9): Later Higher Divorce Rates in
Children’s Future Marriages
From the empirical evidence it is indisputable that to a large degree
the marital instability of one generation is passed on to the next.[86]
Children of divorced parents are more than twice as likely to expect
they will get divorced compared with children of intact families.[87]
Daughters of divorced parents tend to divorce more than do the sons
of divorced parents.[88]
The risk of divorce in the first five years is 70[89] to 76[90]
percent higher for the daughters of divorced parents than for those from
intact marriages. [91]
Given the effects of divorce already enumerated, it is not surprising
that parental divorce is also associated with lower marital quality for
their children,[92],[93] and makes itself manifest in increased rates of
jealousy, moodiness, infidelity, conflicts over money, and excessive
drinking, and drug use.[94]
Conversely the continued presence of a married father strongly
predicts the happy marriage of the child: A thirty-five year
longitudinal study found that the children of affectionate fathers were
much more likely in their forties to be happily married and mentally
healthy and to report good relationships with friends. [95] The child
with an available father, both in the early and the adolescent years, is
more companionable and responsible as an adult.[96]
Family Effect #10): Later Higher Levels of
Cohabitation for Children
As noted earlier, children of divorced parents are more likely than
children of always married parents to have more positive attitudes
towards cohabitation and more negative attitudes towards marriage.[97]
When they leave home they are twice to three times as likely to cohabit
and to cohabit earlier,[98] especially if their parents divorced during
their teenage years.[99]
However, when children of an intact marriage have poor relationships
with their parents they act in ways similar to children of divorced
parents. While almost all daughters of divorced parents anticipated
cohabiting before marriage, regardless of the level of affection between
them and their fathers, among daughters of intact marriages it was
mainly those with poor relationships with their fathers who anticipated
that they would cohabit.[100]
B: Effect on the Institution of Religion: Diminished
Religious Practice Among Children
Parents and children in intact families are much more likely to
worship than are members of divorced families or stepfamilies,[101] and
following a divorce children are more likely to cease worshipping
God.[102] Even when they enter a new step family their religious worship
does not return to prior levels.[103]
This drop off has its own serious consequences because of the
beneficial effects of religious practice on a host of issues: health,
education, income, virginity, marital stability, crime, addictions,
mental health and general happiness.[104]
For instance, data from the National Longitudinal Survey of
Adolescent Health illustrates the increasing effects of the combined
worship of family members on teen sexual activity.
C: Effects on the Institution of Education
Education Effect #1: Diminished Capacity to Learn.
Divorce frequently diminishes the child’s capacity to learn.
In the Impact of Divorce Project of Ohio’s Kent State University
--- a national sample study of 699 elementary students nationwide ---
children from divorced homes performed more poorly in reading, spelling,
and math, and repeated a grade more frequently than do children in
intact two parent families.[105] , [106]
The absence of the father lowers cognitive test scores for young
children in general,[107] but especially for girls’ math scores.[108]
On the other hand a girl’s verbal capacities increase when the father
is present and especially when he reads aloud to her when she is
young.[109] By age thirteen there is an average difference of half a
year in reading abilities between children of divorced parents and those
from intact families.[110] Even the most effective preventative work on
reading and math skills does not eliminate the drop in performance at
school.[111]
Moving home is likely a big culprit the poorer performance of these
children, for such moves tend to decrease school performance for most
children, regardless of family background.[112] Bit compared to children
of intact families, children of broken families move much more
frequently, be they children of divorced parents, of stepfamilies or of
always-single parents.[113] Such moves tend to increase behavioral,
emotional and academic problems for all adolescents regardless of family
structure.[114] When very young children leave their original family
home for another, because of their parents’ divorce, the move is even
more traumatic because they tend to become even more attached to their
family home during the breakup of their parents.[115]
Education Effect #2): Less High School Graduation for
Children
Divorce affects the grade level that children attain: Among girls who
have completed high school there is a 33 percent lower divorce rate
among their parents compared to girls who drop out of high school.[116]
Step family life does not wipe out educational losses: Schools may expel
as many as one in four step-children,[117] though this ratio can fall to
one in ten when step-parents are highly involved with their children’s
school.[118] Children raised in intact families complete more total
years of education and have higher earnings than children from other
family structures.[119] This also holds for children from inner city
poor families.[120]
This disruption in education -- for all ethnic groups[121]--
translates into less income and less hours worked as an adult.[122]
Education Effect #3): Less College Attainment for
Children
The divorce of parents reduces the likelihood of attaining a college
education. In 1991 among women who completed college there was a
massively lower divorce rate (88 percent lower) among their parents
compared to women who did not get a college degree.[123]
Judith Wallerstein found that, among college-age students who went to
the same high schools in affluent Marin County, San Francisco, only two
thirds of the children from divorced families attended college, compared
with 85 percent of students from intact families.[124]
The well known high rates of college attainment by Asian American
children illustrates this same point. Asian Americans have the highest
levels of intact family life of all American ethnic groups.
Sometimes family income makes a difference in college attendance. In
this way also the lower financial support from divorced parents has its
impact on college attainment.[125] According to data reported in 1994 by
Mary Corcoran, a professor of political science at the University of
Michigan: “During the years children lived with two parents, their
family incomes averaged $43,600, and when these same children lived with
one parent, their family incomes averaged $25,300.”[126] In other
words, the household income of a child’s family dropped on average
about 42 percent following divorce.[127] Furthermore the accumulated
wealth of parents is very different across family structures, and
affects the level of financial support available from parents for their
children’s college education.
D: Effect on the Institution of the Marketplace:
Diminished Household Income for the Child and
Dramatically Increased Poverty Rates
Divorce has a greater effect on family income than the Great
Depression had on the economy. Between 1929 and 1933 the economy
contracted by 30.5 percent, when GNP went from $203 million to $141
million (in constant 1958 dollars).[128] Yet each and every year for the
past 28 years, over one million children have experienced an even
greater contraction in their household income which dropped on average
between 28 percent to 42 percent.[129] It is no wonder that
three-fourths of all women applying for welfare benefits in the late
1980’s did so because of a disruption of marriage, [130] and that
almost 50 percent of households with children moved into poverty
following divorce. [131]
Divorce is the main factor in determining the length of “poverty
spells,”[132] particularly for women whose pre-divorce family income
was below the median family income.[133] Understandably, mothers who are
employed at the time of divorce are much less likely to become welfare
recipients than mothers who do not work. These mothers are as close to
going on welfare as are single mothers who lose their jobs.[134]
By 1997, 8.15 million children were living with a divorced single
parent. There has been an increase of 354 percent since 1950.[135]
E: Effects on the Institution of Government: Increased
Crime, Abuse and Use of Drugs
Crime Effect #1) Increased Crime Rates
There are two sides to citizenship: fulfillment of citizenship duties
and its opposite: failure and abandonment of citizenship duties. The
negative aspect, the failure and abandonment aspect of citizenship, is
more widely available in studies of the effects of divorce, and can be
seen in crime, abuse and neglect and drug taking behaviors.
Divorce significantly affects the rate of crime, as the following
data from Wisconsin dramatically illustrates.[136]
Different research studies confirm the general outline of this
Wisconsin data. Children of divorced parents are significantly more
likely to be delinquent by age fifteen, regardless of when the divorce
took place, that are children of intact families.[137] Adolescents from
“always-single-mother” families are consistently more likely to
delinquent than those from intact families, though the same holds for
children from intact conflict ridden families.[138] One 1985 study
tracked one thousand families with children aged six to eighteen for six
years and found that those children living in intact married families
exhibited the least delinquency, while children with stepfathers had the
greatest risk of the most disruptive behavior. (In this study
single-parent children fell in between.) [139] In Britain, in a
longitudinal study of males aged eight to thirty-two, Professor David P.
Farrington, professor of criminology at Cambridge University found that
the divorce of parents before the children were aged ten was one of the
major predictors of adolescent delinquency and adult criminality.[140]
An earlier review of the literature on the relationship between family
background and crime indicates how the mixture of hostility and peer
rejection can shepherd children towards other similarly hostile children
and pave the way towards delinquency and crime. [141] Divorce puts many
of these family conditions in place. A recent Australian parliamentary
review of the literature came to the same conclusion.[142]
These findings are not confined to boys. Girls are not immune to
these effects, and among adolescent girls there is a strong correlation
between family structure, delinquency,[143] hostile behavior,[144] drug
use, larceny, skipping school,[145] and alcohol abuse.[146]
The same picture emerges of the effects of divorce on crime when
research moves from one-time samples to national surveys. Robert
Sampson, Professor of Sociology at the University of Chicago, found that
the divorce rate predicted the rate of robbery in any given area,
regardless of the economic and the racial composition, when he studied
171 American cities with populations over 100,000. In these communities,
he found that the lower the rates of divorce the higher the formal and
informal social controls, and the less the crime.[147]
Crime Effect #2) Increased Abuse/Neglect
Child abuse is intimately related to later delinquency and violent
crime, and here too divorce is implicated. [148] Higher levels of
divorce mean higher levels of child abuse. Remarriage does not reduce
this level of child abuse and may even add to it. Serious abuse is a
much higher among stepchildren compared with children of intact
families.
Adults who were sexually abused as children are more likely to have
been raised in stepfamilies.[149] The rate of sexual abuse of girls by
stepfathers ranges from six to seven times as likely,[150] and may be as
much as 40 times more,[151] when compared with such abuse by biological
fathers in intact families.
Family structure predicts huge differences in rates of fatal child
abuse. Professors Margo Wilson and Martin Daly of the Department of
Psychology at McMasters University, Canada, report that children two
years and younger are seventy to a hundred times more likely to be
killed at the hands of stepparents than at the hands of biological
parents.[152] (Younger children are more vulnerable because they are so
much weaker physically.) British data is milder but the research is not
as rigorous as the Canadian research. There the fatal abuse of children
of all ages occurs three times more frequently in stepfamilies than in
intact married families.
Neglect of children, which frequently is more psychologically
damaging than physical abuse,[154] also is higher -- twice as high --
among separated and divorced parents.
Stepparents always have had a difficult time establishing close bonds
with new stepchildren as even traditional fairy tales recount. The
fairytale theme is confirmed in the research literature: The rate of
bonding between stepparents and stepchildren is rather low. By one study
only 53 percent of stepfathers and 25percent of stepmothers may have
'parental feelings' toward their stepchildren, and still fewer to 'love'
them.
Crime Effect #3) Increased use of drugs and alcohol:
The divorce of parents increases the likelihood that children will
abuse alcohol and begin using drugs. Children who use drugs and abuse
alcohol are more likely to come from family backgrounds characterized by
parental conflict and parental rejection. Because divorce increases
these factors it is tightly linked to alcohol and drug abuse.
Adolescents whose parents have recently divorced abuse drugs and alcohol
much more than adolescents whose parents divorced during their early
childhood. When they are compared with children whose parents are still
married, the difference grows even greater.
F: Increased Burden to Himself:
Personal Effect #1: Increased Behavioral, Emotional
and Psychiatric Burdens.
Divorce wreaks havoc with the inner psychological life of many
children.
Immediately upon the breakup of their families through the divorce of
their parents children experience a wide range of reactions including
fear, sadness and yearning, worry, rejection, conflicting loyalties, and
anger,[lower self-confidence, heightened anxiety and loneliness, more
depressed moods, more suicidal thoughts and even attempts at suicide.
Many of these feelings persist. For instance a major national survey of
20,000 adolescents found that adolescent offspring of divorced parents
did worse than their peers raised in intact families on measures of
satisfaction with life such as happiness, sense of personal control,
trust, and friendship.[The National Surveys of Children, a major
longitudinal federal study done in three waves in the 1980s found that
divorce was associated with a higher incidence of several mental health
problems in children: depression; withdrawal from friends and family;
and aggressive, or impulsive or hyperactive behavior; and either
withdrawing from participation in the classroom or being disruptive
there. The British National Longitudinal Study, (which has continuously
tracked a national sample of children born in 1958) has shown that
divorce is associated with a substantial 39 percent increase in the risk
of psychopathology.
When divorce occurs while children are younger than five years of age
they are particularly vulnerable to emotional conflicts at the time of
the separation of their parents. They will frequently cling more to
their parents and ‘regress’ to bedwetting. Older children frequently
withdraw from homelife and seek intimacy elsewhere.
When divorce occurs in mid childhood (when children are between six
and eight), Judith Wallerstein’s study shows that a large portion of
children have persistent feelings of sadness, and of a need for constant
reassurance about their performance in many life tasks. For these
children anxieties will run very high: about relationships with the
opposite se, about personal commitments later in life, particularly
during their late high school years, and about marriage. These young
adults are most acutely concerned about betrayal in romantic
relationships, both present and future, and are concerned about being
hurt or abandoned by their fiancée or spouse. Other studies have found
the same pattern of ‘attachment insecurities’ and low self-esteem
among college students.
If divorce occurs when the children are teenagers (12 -15 of age)
they tend to react in one of two very different ways: with an attempt to
avoid growing up or with an attempt to “speed through” adolescence.
Other disturbing outcomes for teenagers include increased aggression,
loss of self-confidence, and particularly a sense of loneliness. Early
sexual activity, substance abuse or dependence, hostile behavior and
depression, are all more likely following divorce. These reactions are
more likely if the parents divorced prior to age 5, slightly less so if
they divorce after age 10, and seemingly least of all during the 5-10
year old phase, that phase sometimes called “the latency phase” by
psychologists.
Personal Effect #2: Suicide
Higher divorce rates in a society lead to higher suicide rates among
children. Prior to the ‘divorce revolution’ of the 1970s
unemployment was the biggest correlate with suicide, but that has
changed. The work of Professor Patricia McCall of the Department of
Sociology of North Carolina State University now shows that the largest
demographic indicator of suicide is the family structure within which
the person resides, and that the divorced family structure is most
dangerous.This link between the rise in adolescent suicide in the past
three decades with parental divorce has been found again and again in
the literature, and in cross-cultural studies of Japan and the United
States.
For the child the suicide is often triggered by the child’s
thoughts that his parents reject him,[176] or have lost interest in
him.[177] As an earlier section of this paper recounts[178] such a
perception on the part of the child may sometimes be based in reality
and not be just a figment of his imagination.
Research Has Not Yet Found The Limits Of The These Effects
Unlike the experience of their parents, the child’s suffering does
not reach its peak at the divorce and then level off. Rather, the effect
of the parents’ divorce can be played and replayed throughout the next
three decades of the children’s lives. For instance one longitudinal
study tracked children whose parents divorced in 1946, and tested them
two and three decades later. Even thirty years after the divorce
negative long-term effects were clearly present in the income, health,
and behavior of many of the grown offspring. Other scholars have found
similar long term effects well into the mid thirties of children of
divorced parents.
These long-lasting effects are found in country after country. The
same British National Longitudinal study cited above found a strong
statistical link between parental divorce during the middle and late
childhood years (ages seven through sixteen) and significantly lower
mental health as young adults and a 39 percent increase in the risk of
psychopathology. A large Finnish study found that at age twenty-two
children of divorced parents experienced much more loss of jobs, more
conflict with bosses, and in romantic relations, more separation and
divorce, and more abortions. Another large sample (over 14,000), this
time from Sweden, confirms yet again, the negative mental health effects
of parental divorce, no matter what the socioeconomic status of the
family. German research yields similar findings, and a recent Australian
parliamentary report came to similar conclusions.
Personal Effect #3) Increased Health Risks
Divorce affects not only the emotional and mental life of the child,
it also affects his physical health, even the length of his life.
Children whose parents divorced before their twenty-first birthrate
had their lifespan shortened by an average of four years according to
one study. Another study found these mortality rates increase especially
when the divorce occurs before the fourth birthday of the child.
Health effects during childhood include a doubling of the risk of
asthma, and a significant increase in injury rates.[189] Swedish
researchers have found that even in early adulthood, after controlling
for family and social background, differences in health risk and rates
of hospitalization are still apparent. They also found the same
increased mortality rates mentioned above.
Conclusion:
There is no doubt that divorce has pervasive weakening effects on
children and on all of the five major institutions of society -- the
family, the church, the school, the marketplace and government itself.
If the family is the building block of societies, marriage is the center
beam. However this center-beam is getting weaker and weaker -- in the
numbers of adults entering into marriage, in the numbers of those
leaving it in divorce and in the number of those eschewing it for
single-parenthood or cohabitation.
Given the now prolonged and widespread incidence of divorce, American
children today are weaker than in past generations, the American nation
is socially weaker than in the past, and the American nation of tomorrow
will be even weaker still. Yet few are willing to point to divorce as a
major contributor. For instance Americans, in the media and in politics
are much more comfortable pointing at teenage unwed mothers and the
effects their behavior has on children and society. While no one likes
to dwell on the effects of divorce and placing blame will not do much to
mend the culture, nonetheless it is necessary to sufficiently
contemplate this bleak picture that we are moved to change it, to set
about the task of rebuilding a culture of family based on marriage, a
culture of love and belonging, with all the props, protections and
supports necessary to make this commonplace again.
There are grounds for hope, and there are indications that many if
not most of those who divorce would prefer a way to happiness with each
other over the divorce they are about to enter into. Some projects show
promising results in reducing divorce, such as Marriages Savers. This
community-wide ministry draws upon the wisdom and support of couples who
almost divorced but who learned how to pull back and instead rebuilt
their marriages, (even marriages that were threatened by drug
addictions, adultery, ‘workaholism’, gambling, violence and
depression). With Marriage Savers many local cities and communities,
through the leadership of politicians, press and pastors, have already
brought down the rate of divorce in their communities. These volunteer
church-based efforts are working surprisingly well, with reductions in
some cities reaching 35percent to 50percent. Also certain forms of
divorce mediation seem to dramatically reduce breakup even during the
divorce proceedings themselves.
The leaders of the major institutions (marketplace, government,
church and school) all have a stake in the reduction of divorce, for it
weakens the performance of each institution. They each need to take up
their role in changing the culture of divorce, and policy makers have
the central role in motivating them.
In the past Americans were asked repeatedly to give their lives in
war for the freedom of others. Today the question is: Can we ask
Americans to sacrifice themselves, not for the freedom of those
overseas, but for the well-being of their children and their
grandchildren? This is not a sacrifice of life in battle but with the
sacrifice of commitment in marriage unto death. It is a very different
challenge, but maybe involving no less sacrifice. Our forefathers rose
to their challenges. Can this generation?
Should we not rise to this challenge America (or any other nation in
the world) cannot escape its now guaranteed future as a weaker nation
and society. The united marriage of parents is inseparable from the
future strength of children, of the nation.
Notas
[1] Elizabeth Meneghan and Toby L. Parcel, “Social
Sources of Change in Children’s Home Environments: The Effects of
Parental Occupational Experiences and Family ConditionsJournal of
Marriage and the Family, Vol. 57 (1995), pp. 69-84
[2] Jane E. Miller and Diane Davis, “Poverty
History, Marital History, and Quality of Children’s Home Environments,”
Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 59 (1997): 996-1007
[3] Yoram Weiss and Robert J. Willis, “Children as
Collective Goods and Divorce Settlements,” Journal of Labor Economics,
Vol.3 (1985), pp. 268-292.
[4] Judith A Seltzer, “Legal Custody Arrangements
and Children's Economic Welfare,” American Journal of Sociology, vol.
96 , (1991), pp. 895-929.
[5] This survey is a federally funded survey of 13,000
respondents, conducted by the University of Wisconsin in 1987-88 and
again in 1992-94.
[6] Judith A. Seltzer, “Relationships Between
Fathers and Children Who Live Apart: The Father’s Role After
Separation, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53, (1991), pp.
79-101.
[7] David Popenoe, Life Without Father, (New York, NY:
The Free Press, 1996), p. 31, reporting on the findings of The National
Survey of Children.
[8] Janet Finch and Jennifer Mason, “Divorce,
remarriage and family obligations,” Sociological Review, Vol. 38,
(1990): pp. 231-234
[9] Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at
Risk, (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1997) p. 69 (reporting
the findings of Rossi and Rossi, 1991)
[10] Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at
Risk, (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1997), p. 73
[11] Such unhappy married families frequently have
many of the effects of divorce. Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, “Consequences
of Parental Divorce and Marital Unhappiness for adult well-being,”
Social Forces, Vol.69 (1991), pp. 895-914
[12] Jane E. Miller, Diane Davis “Poverty History,
Marital History, and Quality of Children’s Home Environments”
Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 59 (1997), p. 1002
[13] Thomas S. Parish, “Evaluations of Family by
Youth: Do They Vary as a Function of Family Structure, Gender and Birth
Order?” Adolescence, Vol. 25 (1990): pp. 354-356
[14] Thomas S. Parish, “Evaluations of Family as a
Function of One’s Family Structure and Sex,” Perceptual and Motor
Skills. Vol. 66 (1988): pp. 25-26.
[15] Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, “Consequences of
Parental Divorce and Marital Unhappiness for adult well-being,” Social
Forces, vol.69 (1991), pp. 895-914 and Theresa M. Cooney, “Young
Adults’ Relations With Parents: The Influence of Recent Parental
DivorceJournal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 56 (1994), pp. 45-56
[16] Diane N. Lye, Daniel H. Klepinger, Patricia Davis
Hyle, and Anjanette Nelson, “Childhood Living Arrangements and Adult
Children’s Relations with their Parents,” Demography, Vol. 32
(1995), pp. 261-280 and William S. Aquilino, “Later-Life Parental
Divorce and Widowhood: Impact on Young Adults’ Assessment of
Parent-Child RelationsJournal of Marriage and the Family Vol. 56 (1994),
pp. 908-922
[17] Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at
Risk, (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1997) p. 69 and: Teresa
M. Cooney and Peter Uhlenberg, “Support from Parents Over the Life
Course: The Adult Child’s Perspective,” Social Forces, Vol. 71
(1991), pp. 63-83
[18] William S. Aquilino, “Later-Life Parental
Divorce and Widowhood: Impact on Young Adults’ Assessment of
Parent-Child RelationsJournal of Marriage and the Family Vol. 56 (1994),
pp. 908-922
[19] Marjorie A. Pett, Nancy Long, Anita Gander, “Late-Life
Divorce: Its Impact on Family Rituals,” Journal of Family Issues, Vol.
13 (1992), pp. 526-552
[20] Her research was on children from families in the
affluent Marin County, near San Francisco.
[21] As reported in David Larson, “The Costly
Consequences of Divorce” (Rockville, MD National Institute for
HealthCare Research, 1995) , p.42
[22] Judith Wallerstein and Joan Kelly, “Surviving
the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce,” ( New York,
NY: Basic Books, 1980), pp. 224-225.
[23] Robert Emery, “Marriage, Divorce, and
Children's Adjustment,” (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1988)
pp. 81-86
[24] E. Mavis Hetherington, , Roger Cox, and Martha
Cox, “Effects of Divorce on Parents and Children, in Nontraditional
Families” in ‘Parenting and Child Development’ Michael E. Lamb,
ed.,, (New York, NY: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1982), pp. 223-288
[25] There is increasing evidence that many divorced
families already had these patterns long before the divorce. Paul. R.
Amato, Alan Booth “A Prospective Study of Divorce and Parent-Child
RelationshipsJournal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 58 (1996) p. 357
and: Jane E. Miller, Diane Davis “Poverty History, Marital History,
and Quality of Children’s Home Environments” Journal of Marriage and
the Family, Vol. 59 (1997), p.1004
[26] E. Mavis Hetherington, , Roger Cox, and Martha
Cox, “Effects of Divorce on Parents and Children, in Nontraditional
Families” in ‘Parenting and Child Development’ Michael E. Lamb,
ed.,, (New York, NY: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1982), pp. 223-288
[27] E. Mavis Hetherington, , Roger Cox, and Martha
Cox, “Long-Term Effects of Divorce and Remarriage on the Adjustment of
Children,” Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry,
Vol.24, (1985) pp. 518-30.
[28] Judith Selzer, “Relationships between fathers
and children who live apart: The father’s role after separationJournal
of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53, pp. 79-102
[29] Nicholas Zill, Daniel Morrison and M. J. Coiro,
“Long term effects of parental divorce on parent-chjild relationships,
adjustment, and achievement in young adulthood,” Journal of Family
Psychology, Vol.7, pp. 91-103
[30] Janet Johnston, “High Conflict Divorce,” The
Future of Children, Vol. 4, (Children of Divorce), pp. 165-182 and: Paul
R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at Risk, (Cambridge MA, Harvard
University Press, 1997) p. 68 (reporting the findings of numerous
authors)
[31] Paul Amato,” Father-Child Relations,
Mother-Child Relations and Offspring Psychological Well-Being in Early
AdulthoodJournal of Marriage and the Family, vol.56, pp. 1031-1042
[32] Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at
Risk, (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1997) p. 80
[33] Martha J. Zaslow, “Sex Differences in Children’s
Response to Parental Divorce: Two Samples, Variables, Ages, and Sources,”
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry Vol.59 (1989), pp. 118-141.
[34] Theresa M. Cooney, Michael A. Smyer, Gunhild O.
Hagstad, and Robin Klock, “Parental divorce in young adulthood: Some
preliminary findings,” American Journal of Orthpsychiatry, Vol. 56,
pp. 470-477
[35] Diane N. Lye, Daniel H. Klepinger, Patricia Davis
Hyle, and Anjanette Nelson, “Childhood Living Arrangements and Adult
Children’s Relations with their Parents,” Demography, Vol. 32
(1995), pp. 261-280
[36] Alan C. Acock and David H.Demo, Family Diversity
and Well-being (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994). Chp.5.
[37] Robert E. Billingham and Nicole L. Notebaert, “Divorce
and Dating Violence Revisited: Multivariate Analyses Using Straus’s
Conflict Tactics Subscores,” Psychological Reports, Vol. 73 (1993):
679-684.
[38] Pamela S. Webster, Terri L. Orbuch, and James S.
House, “Effects of Childhood Family Background on Adult Marital
Quality and Perceived Stability,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol.
101, (1995) pp. 404-432.
[39] Researchers have found that children of violent
parents do better if their parents separate rather than stay together.
However if the parents’ conflict is not violent or intense their
children fare better in their own later marriages if their parents stay
married rather than divorcing. Obviously the best solution for all is
for parents to learn how to handle conflict, to learn to cooperate with
each other and thus restore family harmony. See Paul R. Amato and Alan
Booth, A Generation at Risk, (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press,
1997) p. 115.
[40] Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at
Risk, (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1997), p. 137, (reviewing
the findings of Davies and Cummings, 1994).
[41] Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at
Risk, (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1997), p. 137.
[42] Rex Forehand, “Family Characteristics of
Adolescents Who Display Overt and Covert Behavior Problems,” Journal
of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, Vol. 18 (1987), pp.
325-328.
[43]Gottman, John M. and John T. Parkhurst: “ A
Developmental Theory of Friendship and Acquaintanceship Processes.”
Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology, 1978, cited in Patterson &
Dishion, op. cit. below
[44] Dorothy Tysse Breen and Margaret Crosbie-Burnett,
“Moral Dilemmas of Early Adolescents of Divorced and Intact Families:
A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis,” Journal of Early
Adolescence, Vol 13, (1993), pp. 168-182.
[45] Sylvie Drapeau and Camil Bouchard, “Support
Networks and Adjustment Among 6 to 16-Year-Olds from Maritally Disrupted
and Intact Families,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol.19
(1993), pp. 75-94.
[46] Daughters of divorced parents, in a University of
Michigan study, had significantly greater difficulty in having and
keeping friends and were more frequently depressed when at college. See:
Kristen M. McCabe, “Sex Differences in the Long-Term Effects of
Divorce on Children: Depression and Heterosexual Relationship
Difficulties in the Young Adult Years,” Journal of Divorce and
Remarriage Vol. 27 (1997): 123-134.
[47] John Guidubaldi, Jooseph D. Perry and Bonnie K.
Nastasi, “Growing up in a divorced family: Initial and long term
perspectives on children’s adjustment,” Applied Social Psychology
Annual, Vol. 7, (1987), pp. 202-237
[48] Neil Kalter, “Long-Term Effects of Divorce on
Children: A Developmental Vulnerability Model,” American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, Vol.57 (1987), pp. 595-597.
[49] Divorce and Children Margaret F. Brinig George
Mason University School of Law… forthcoming in Doug Allen ..get
permisison to use
[50] Susan J. McCurdy and Avraham Scherman, “Effects
of Family Structure on the Adolescent Separation-Individuation Process,”
Adolescence, Vol. 31 (1996): 307-318
[51] Medical Institute for Sexual Health , Sexual
Health Today, (Austin, TX: Medical Institute of Sexual Health, 1997),
p.105.
[52] Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at
Risk, (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1997) summing up the
findings of Booth, Brinkerhoff, and White, 1984; Furstenberg and
Teitler, 1994; Hetherington, 1972; Newcomer and Udry, 1987
[53] The Institute of Medicine, “The Hidden Epidemic”,
(Washington DC, National Academy Press 1997), chps. 3 and 4.
[54] Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at
Risk, (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1997), p.111
[55] Heather E. Sprague and Jennifer M. Kinney,
"The Effects of Interparental Divorce and Conflict on College
Students’ Romantic Relationships,” Journal of Divorce and
Remarriage. Vol.27 (1997), pp. 85-104.
[56] Stacy Glaser Johnston and Amanda McCombs Thomas,
“Divorce Versus Intact Parental Marriage and Perceived Risk and Dyadic
Trust in Present Heterosexual Relationships,” Psychological Reports
Vol. 78 (1996), pp. 387-390.
[57] Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, “The Consequences
of Divorce for Attitudes Toward Divorce and Gender Roles,” Journal of
Family Issues Vol.12 (1991), pp. 306-322.
[58] A. Marlene Jennings, Connie J. Salts, Thomas A.
Smith, Jr., “Attitudes Toward Marriage: Effects of Parental Conflict,
Family Structure, and Gender,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage ,
Vol. 17 (1992), pp. 67-78.
[59] Kristen A. Moore and Thomas M. Stief, “Changes
in Marriage and Fertility Behavior: Behavior Versus Attitudes of Young
Adults,” Child Trends, Inc., unpublished study, July 1989.
[60] Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling and Colleen
Dostal, “Retrospective Reports of Family-of-Origin Divorce and Abuse
and College Students’ Pre-parenthood Cognitions,” Journal of Family
Violence , Vol.11, (1996) pp. 331-348.
[61] Elizabeth Mazur, “Developmental Differences in
Children’s Understanding of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage,”
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 14 (1993), pp.
191-212.
[62] Paul Amato “Explaining the Intergenerational
Transmission of Divorce.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol.58
(1996) p. 628 (reviewing the findings of adults Amato, 1987; Amato &
Booth, 1991; Thornton & Freedman, 1982).
[63] Wallerstein, Judith and Blakeslee, Sandra, 1989.
Second Chances: Men, Women, and Children: A Decade after Divorce.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Reprinted 1996, p. 233-239
[64] Wallerstein, Judith and Blakeslee, Sandra, 1989.
Second Chances: Men, Women, and Children: A Decade after Divorce.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Reprinted 1996, p. 233-239
[65] Silvio Silvestri, “Marital Instability in Men
from Intact and Divorced Families: Interpersonal Behavior, Cognitions
and Intimacy,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol.18 (1992), pp.
79-106.
[66] Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee, Second
Chances: Men, Women and Children a Decade After Divorce (New York, NY:
Ticknor & Fields, 1989), pp. 297-307.
[67] Robert Bolgar, Hallie Zweig-Frank, and Joel
Paris, “Childhood Antecedents of Interpersonal Problems in Young Adult
Children of Divorce,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry Vol.34 (1995), pp. 143-150.
[68] William G. Axinn and Arland Thornton, “The
Influence of Parents’ Marital Dissolutions on Children’s Attitudes
Toward Family Formation,” Demography, Volume 33, (1996), pp. 66-81
[69] Hetherington, E. Mavis, Martha Cox and Roger Cox,
1985, Long-Term Effects of Divorce and Remarriage on the Adjustment of
Children, Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, Vol. 24,
pp.518-30, and: David Larson, “The Costly Consequences of Divorce”
(Rockville, MD National Institute for HealthCare Research, 1995) , p.
165 reviewing the findings of Kinnaird and Gerrard (1986).
[70] Kathleen Kiernan, “The Impact of Family
Disruptions in Childhood on Transitions Made in Young Adult Life,”
Population Studies, Vol. 46, pp. 213-234
[71] William G. Axinn and Arland Thornton, “The
Influence of Parents’ Marital Dissolution on Children’s Attitudes
Toward Family Formation,” Demography, Vol. 33, (1996), pp. 66-81.
[72] Arland Thornton, “The Influence Of The Family
On Premarital Sexual Attitudes And Behavior”, Demography, Vol. 24,
1987, pp. 329-337.
[73] These findings hold regardless of ethnic
background. See: Carolyn A. Smith, “Factors Associated with Early
Sexual Activity Among Urban Adolescents,” Social Work, Vol.42, (1997),
pp. 334-346.
[74] Robert Day, “The Transition to first
intercourse among racially and culturally diverse youth,” Journal of
Marriage and the Family, Vol. 54, pp. 749-762.
[75] Robert Day, “The Transition to first
intercourse among racially and culturally diverse youth,” Journal of
Marriage and the Family, Vol. 54, pp. 749-762.
[76] Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia,
House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs, To Have and To Hold, (Canberra, Australia, Parliament of
Australia:1998) p. 36, reporting on the findings of Whitbeck, Simons and
Kao, 1994.
[77] Deborah M. Capaldi, Lynn Crosby, and Mike
Stoolmiller, “Predicting the Timing of First Sexual Intercourse for
At-Risk Adolescent Males,” Child Development Vol. 67 (1996), pp.
344-359. and recently found by Robert Lerner of the Heritage Foundation
in his analysis of NLS Adolescent Health, unpublished.
[78] Brent C. Miller et al., “The Timing of Sexual
Intercourse Among Adolescents: Family, Peer, and Other Antecedents,”
Youth and Society, Vol. 29 (1997): pp. 54-83.
[79] Andrew J. Cherlin, Kathleen E. Kiernan, and P.
Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, “Parental Divorce in Childhood and Demographic
Outcomes in Young Adulthood,” Demography, Vol. 32, (1995), pp. 299-316
[80] David Larson, “The Costly Consequences of
Divorce” (Rockville, MD National Institute for HealthCare Research,
1995) , p. 131 (reviewing the findings of John O. Billy et al. 1994).
[81] David Larson, “The Costly Consequences of
Divorce” (Rockville, MD National Institute for HealthCare Research,
1995) , p. 131 (reviewing the findings of Seidman, Mosher and Aral.
1994).
[82] Mary Ann Powell, Toby L. Parcel “Effects of
Family Structure on the Earnings Attainment Process: Differences by
Gender” Journal of Marriage and the Family , Vol. 59 (1997) p. 421;
and: Kathleen E. Kiernan, “Teenage Marriage and marital breakdown: A
longitudinal study,” Population Studies, Vol. 40 (1986), p. 35.
[83] Andrew J. Cherlin, Kathleen E. Kiernan, and P.
Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, “Parental Divorce in Childhood and Demographic
Outcomes in Young Adulthood,” Demography, Vol. 32, (1995), pp.
299-316.
[84] Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at
Risk, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997) p. 69 (reporting
the consistent findings of Aquilino, 1990, 1991; Goldscheider and
Goldscheider 1989, 1993; Cooney, 1994)
[85] Frances K. Goldschdeider and Calvin Goldsheider
“The Effects of Childhood Family Structure on Leaving and Returning
Home.” ,” Journal of Marriage and the Family , Vol.60 (1998), p.752.
[86] Paul Amato “Explaining the Intergenerational
Transmission of Divorce.” Journal of Marriage and the Family Vol.58
(1996) p. 628, (reviewing the findings of Bumpass, Martin & Sweet,
1991; Keith & Finlay, 1988; Kulka & Weingarten, 1979; Mueller
& Pope, 1977; Pope and Mueller, 1976.)
[87] Pamela S. Webster, Terri L. Orbuch, and James S.
House, “Effects of Childhood Family Background on Adult Marital
Quality and Perceived Stability,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol.
101 (1995), pp. 404-432, and: Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation
at Risk, (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1997) p. 109 (summing
up the findings of Amato, 1995a; Bumpass, Martin, and Sweet, 1991; Glen
and Kramer, 1987; Keith and Finlay, 1988; Kulka and Weingarten, 1979;
Pope and Mueller, 1976)
[88] Norval D. Glenn and Kathryn B. Kramer; “The
Marriages and Divorces of the Children of DivorceJournal of Marriage and
the Family, Vol. 49 (1987), pp. 811-825.
[89] Paul Amato “Explaining the Intergenerational
Transmission of Divorce.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol.58
(1996) p. 628.
[90] Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at
Risk, (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1997) p. 115.
[91] According to Amato and Booth’s research the
risk is highest when the divorce takes place before the child reaches
age 13; then the risk of divorce decreases significantly when their
parents’ divorce takes place in their own teen years, and finally the
divorce of their parents when the offspring are in their twenties may
even inoculate them against divorce in their own marriages. See: Paul
Amato “Explaining the Intergenerational Transmission of Divorce.”
Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol.58 (1996) p. 638.
[92] Paul Amato “Explaining the Intergenerational
Transmission of Divorce.” Journal of Marriage and the Family Vol.58
(1996) p.109 (reviewing the findings of Amato and Booth 1991a; Glenn and
Kramer, 1987; Kulka and Weingarten, 1979; McLeod, 1991).
[93] Though this effect can also be found among
children of unhappy intact marriages. See: Alan Booth and John N.
Edwards, “Transmission of marital and family quality over the
generations: The effects of parental divorce and unhappiness.” Journal
of Divorce, Vol. 13 (1990), pp. 41-58.
[94] Paul R. Amato and Stacy Rogers “ A Longitudinal
Study of Marital Problems and Subsequent Divorce” ,” Journal of
Marriage and the Family, Vol.59 (1997), p.621.
[95] Carol E. Franz, David C. McClelland and Joel
Weinberger, “Childhood Antecedents of Conventional Social
Accomplishments in Midlife Adults: A thirty-six year Prospective Study”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 60, (1991) pp.
586-595.
[96] John Snarey, “How Fathers Care for the Next
Generation,” (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1993) pp.
163-164.
[97] William G. Axinn and Arland Thornton, “The
Influence of Parents’ Marital Dissolutions on Children’s Attitudes
Toward Family Formation,” Demography, Volume 33, (1996), pp. 66-81.
[98] Andrew J. Cherlin, Kathleen E. Kiernan, and P.
Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, “Parental Divorce in Childhood and Demographic
Outcomes in Young Adulthood,” Demography, Vol. 32, (1995), pp. 299-316
and Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at Risk, (Cambridge MA,
Harvard University Press, 1997) p. 112.
[99] Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, A Generation at
Risk, (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1997) p. 112.
[100] Suzanne Southworth and J. Conrad Schwarz, “Post-Divorce
Contact, Relationship with Father, and Heterosexual Trust in Female
College Students,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol.57,
(1987), pp. 379-381.
[101] Scott M. Myers, “An Interactive Model of
Religiosity Inheritance: The Importance of Family Context,” American
Sociological Review , Vol.61 (1996), pp. 858-866
[102] A team of sociologists at Nassau Community
College in New York developed a profile of former believers who had
stopped practicing their religious beliefs: William Feigelman, Bernard
S. Gorman, and Joseph A. Varacalli, “Americans Who Give Up Religion,”
Sociology and Social Research, Vol.76 (1992), pp. 138-143.
[103] Scott M. Myers , “An Interactive Model of
Religiosity Inheritance : The Importance of Family Context”, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 61, (1996) pp. 858-866.
[104] Patrick F. Fagan, “Why Religion Matters: The
Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability”, Heritage
Foundation, Backgrounder No. 1064, January 25, 1996.
[105] David Popenoe, Life Without Father, (New York,
NY: Martin Kessler Books, 1995), p.57
[106] June O’Neill and Anne Hill, professors of
business and government at Baruch College, City University of New York
also found that growing up with a divorced parent has a significant,
negative effect on children’s test scores. See: Hill, M. Anne and
O'Neill, June, “Family Endowments and the Achievement of Young
Children with Special Reference to the Underclass” Journal of Human
Resources, Vol. 29, (1994), pp. 1064-1100.
[107] Mary Ann Powell, Toby L. Parcel “Effects of
Family Structure on the Earnings Attainment Process: Differences by
Gender” Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 59 (1997), p. 419,
reporting on unpublished research by Frank Mott (1993) prepared for
NIH/NICHD.
[108] David Popenoe, Life Without Father, (New York,
NY: The Free Press, 1996), p. , 148. Reporting on the findings of
Goldstein (1982).
[109] David Popenoe, Life Without Father, (New York,
NY: The Free Press, 1996), p. , 148. Reporting on the findings of Bing
(1963).
[110] Jim Stevenson and Glenda Fredman, “The Social
Correlates of Reading Ability,” Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, Vol. 31 (1990), pp. 689-690
[111] Linda J. Alpert-Gillis, JoAnne L. Pedro-Carroll,
and Emory L. Cowen, “The Children of Divorce Intervention Program:
Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Program for Young Urban
Children,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , Vol.57
(1989), pp. 583-589.
[112] Sara McLanahan, and Gary D. Sandefer, Growing Up
with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1994), reported in William S. Aquilino, "The Life
Course of Children Born to Unmarried Mothers: Childhood Living
Arrangements and Young Adult Outcomes," Journal of Marriage and the
Family, Vol. 58 (May 1996), pp. 293-310.
[113] Frances K. Goldschdeider and Calvin Goldsheider
“The Effects of Childhood Family Structure on Leaving and Returning
Home,” Journal of Marriage and the Family , Vol.60, (1998) p.751.
[114] John P. Hoffman, Robert A. Johnson “A National
Portrait of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use,” Journal of
Marriage and the Family , Vol. 60 (1998) p. 635.
[115] Ruth Stirtzinger and Lorraine Cholvat, “Preschool
Age Children of Divorce: Transitional Phenomena and the Mourning
Process,” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry , Vol. 35 (1990): 506-514.
[116] Larry L Bumpass, Teresa Castro Martin and James
A Sweet: “The Impact of Family Background and Early Marital Factors on
Marital Disruption” Journal of Family Issues, Vol 12, (1991), pp.
22-42.
[117] Deborah A Dawson, “Family Structure and
Children's Health and Well Being: data from the 1988 National Survey of
Child Health," Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53, pp.
573-584.
[118] David Larson, “The Costly Consequences of
Divorce” (Rockville, MD National Institute for HealthCare Research,
1995) , p. 167 reporting on the findings of Zill and Nord 1994; Lee
1993.
[119] Mary Ann Powell, Toby L. Parcel “Effects of
Family Structure on the Earnings Attainment Process: Differences by
Gender” Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 59 (May 1997), p.
425.
[120] Janet B. Hardy et al., “Self-sufficiency at
Ages 27-33 Years: Factors Present Between Birth and 18 Years That
Predict Educational Attainment Among Children Born to Inner-city
Families,” Pediatrics 99 (1997): 80-87
[121] Jerold Heiss, “Effects of African American
Family Structure on School Attitudes and Performance,” Social
Problems, Vol. 43 (1996), pp. 246-264.
[122] Mary Ann Powell, Toby L. Parcel “Effects of
Family Structure on the Earnings Attainment Process: Differences by
Gender” Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 59 (1997), p. 425.
[123] Larry L Bumpass, Teresa Castro Martin and James
A Sweet: “The Impact of Family Background and Early Marital Factors on
Marital Disruption” Journal of Family Issues, Vol 12, (1991), pp.
22-42.
[124] Judith Wallerstein, “The long term effects of
divorce on children: a review,” Journal of the American Academy of
Child Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 30, pp. 349-360.
[125] Mary Ann Powell, Toby L. Parcel “Effects of
Family Structure on the Earnings Attainment Process: Differences by
Gender” Journal of Marriage and the Family , Vol. 59 (May 1997) p.
419, reporting on the findings of Steelman & Powell, 1991.
[126] Mary E. Corcoran and Ajay Chaudry, “The
Dynamics of Childhood Poverty,” Future of Children, Vol. 7, No. 2
(1997), pp. 40-54. Reporting on Duncan, et al. 1994.
[127] Peggy O. Corcoran, unpublished paper, Survey
Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, May 1994.
[128] U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, “Historical Statistics of the United States, Bicenntennial
Edition Colonial Times to 1970, Part 1, p. 228.
[129] Divorce’s immediate effects can be seen in
data reported in 1994 by Mary Corcoran, a professor of political science
at the University of Michigan: “During the years children lived with
two parents, their family incomes averaged $43,600, and when these same
children lived with one parent, their family incomes averaged $25,300.”
In other words, the household income of a child’s family dropped on
average about 42 percent following divorceSee Mary E. Corcoran and Ajay
Chaudry, “The Dynamics of Childhood Poverty,” Future of Children,
Vol. 7, No. 2 (1997), pp. 40-54, quoting from G. J. Duncan, et al., “Lone-Parent
Families in the United States: Dynamics, Economic Status, and
Developmental Consequences.” Unpublished research paper, Survey
Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, May 1994.
[130] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Devenlopment (OECD), Factors Affecting the Labor Force Participation of
Lone Mothers in the United States, prepared by the Panel on Evaluation
Factors Affecting the Labour Force Participation of Lone Mothers, Paris,
1989.
[131] Julia Heath, “Determinants of Spells of
Poverty Following Divorce,” Review of Social Economy, Vol. 49 (1992),
pp. 305-315.
[132] Heath, “Determinants of Spells of Poverty
Following Divorce.”
[133] Greg J. Duncan, Martha S. Hill, and Saul D.
Hoffman, “Welfare Dependence Within and Across Generations,”
Science, Vol. 239, No. 4839 (January 1988) pp. 467-471.
[134] Philip K. Robins, “Child Support, Welfare
Dependency, and Poverty,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 976, No.
4 (September 1986) pp. 768-786.
[135] U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Current Population Survey, 1997. In the 1950s, the rate of
divorce was lower among high-income groups; by 1960, there was a
convergence of rates among all socioeconomic groups. By 1975, for the
first time, more marriages ended in divorce than in death. Since 1960,
there has been a significant shift in the ratio of children deprived of
married parents by death compared with those so deprived by divorce.
Compared with the number of children who lost a parent through death, 75
percent as many lost a parent through divorce in 1960, 150 percent in
1986, and 580 percent in 1995. . See Paul C. Glick, “Fifty Years of
Family Demography: A Record of Social Change,” Journal of Marriage and
the Family, Vol. 50 (November 1988), pp. 861-873. And see data from the
Federal Reserve Board’s 1995 Survey of Consumer Finance .
[136] Wisconsin Department of Health and Social
Services, Division of Youth Services, “Family Status of Delinquents in
Juvenile Correctional Facilities in Wisconsin,” April 1994. The data
from the report was merged with Current Population Survey data on family
structure in Wisconsin for that year to derive rates of incarceration by
family structure.
[137] Abbie K. Frost and Bilge Pakiz, “The Effects
of Marital Disruption on Adolescents: Time as a Dynamic,” American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol.60 (1990), pp. 544-555 Others have found
that these differences between children of divorced parents and intact
families to be as much as six times: David B. Larson, JamesP. Swyers,
and Susan S. Larson, The Costly Consequences of Divorce, Rockville, MD:
National Institute for Healthcare Research, 1995), p. 123
[138] David H. Demo and Alan C. Acock, “The Impact
of Divorce on ChildrenJournal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 50
(1988), pp. 619-648
[139] Annette U. Rickel and Thomas S. Langer, “Short-term
and Long-term Effects of Marital Disruption on Children.” American
Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 13, (1985), pp. 599-661
[140] D. P Farrington, “Implications of criminal
career research for the prevention of offending.” Journal of
Adolescence, Vol. 13, (1990), pp. 93-113
[141] Patrick Fagan, “The Real Root Causes Of
Violent Crime:The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community,”
Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder No. 1026, March 17, 1995
[142] Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia,
House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs, To Have and To Hold (Canberra, Australia, Parliament of
Australia:1998) p. 36.
[143] : Karen Heimer, “Gender, Interaction, and
Delinquency: Testing a Theory of Differential Social Control.,” Social
Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 59 (1996), pp. 39-61
[144]Bilge Pakiz, Helen Z. Reinherz, and Rose M.
Giaconia, “Early Risk Factors for Serious Antisocial Behavior at Age
21: A Longitudinal Community Study,” American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 67 (1997), pp. 92-100.
[145] Neil Kalter, B. Reimer, A. Brickman and J.W.
Chen, “Implications of parental divorce for female development."
Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, Vol. 254, pp.
538-544
[146] Abbie K. Frost and Bilge Pakiz, “The Effects
of Marital Disruption on Adolescents: Time as a Dynamic,” American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 60 (1990), pp. 544-555
[147] Robert J Sampson, “Crime in cities: The
effects of formal and informal social control.” In M. Tonry and N,
Morris eds.,, Crime and Justice Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press, pp. 271-301
[148] Patrick Fagan: “The Child Abuse Crisis: The
Disintegration of Marriage, Family, And the American Community,” The
Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder No. 1115, June 3, 1997.
[149] David M. Fergusson, Michael T. Lynskey, and L.
John Horwood, “Childhood Sexual Abuse and Psychiatric disorders in
Young Adulthood: I. Prevalence of Sexual Abuse and Factors Associated
with Sexual Abuse,” Journal of The American Academy of Child And
Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol.34 (1996), pp. 1355-1364
[150] Diana E.H.Russell, “The Prevalence and
Seriousness of Incestuous Abuse: Stepfathers vs. Biological Fathers,”
Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 8 (1984), pp.15-22
[151] Margo Wilson and Martin Daly, “The Risk of
Maltreatment of Children Living with Stepparents,” in Richard J.
Gelles and Jane B. Lancaster (eds.) “Child Abuse and Neglect :
Biosocial Dimensions, Foundations of Human Behavior (New York, Aldine de
Gruyter, 1987) p. 228.
[152] Margo Wilson and Martin Daly: “Risk of
Maltreatment of Children Living with Stepparents.” in Richard Gelles
and John Lancaster eds., Child Abuse and Neglect: Biosocial Dimesions
(New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1987), pp. 215-232.
[153] Patrick F. Fagan: “The Child Abuse Crisis: The
Disintegration of Marriage, Family and The American Community” The
Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder No. 1115, The Heritage Foundation,
June 3, 1997.
[154] Richard Emery, "Abused and Neglected
Children," The American Psychologist, Vol. 44, No. 2
(1989), pp. 321-328.
[155] Yuriko Egami, “Psychiatric Profile and
Sociodemographic Characteristics of Adults Who Report Physically Abusing
or Neglecting Children,” American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol.153
(1996), pp. 921-928
[156] David Popenoe, Life Without Father, (New
York,NY: Martin Kessler Books, 1995), p.57 quoting Lucile Duberman, “The
Reconstituted Family: A Study of Remarried Couples and Their Children”.
Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, 1975.
[157] William J. Doherty and R.H.Needle, “Psychological
adjustment and substance use among adolescents before and after a
parental divorce,” Child Development, Vol. 62, (1991), pp. 328-337.
[158] Peter Hill, “Recent Advances in Selected
Aspects of Adolescent Development,” Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry , Vol.34 (1993), pp. 69-99.
[159] Judith S. Wallerstein, Joan Berlin Kelly,
Surviving the Breakup : How Children and Parents Cope With Divorce, (New
York, NY: Basic Books, reprint 1996).
[160] Nadia Garnefski and Rene F. W. Diekstra, “Adolescents
from one parent, stepparent and intact families: emotional problems and
suicide attempts,” Journal of Adolescence Vol.20 (1997): 2-1-208.
[161] Allan C. Acock and K. Hill Kiecolt, “Is It
Family Structure or Socioeconomic Status? Family Structure During
Adolescence and Adult Adjustment,” Social Forces Vol. 68 (1989), pp.
553-571.
[162] This held true even after accounting for the
effects of reduced income.
[163] David Popenoe, Life Without Father, (New York,
NY: The Free Press, 1996), p. 62, reporting on the work of Wells,
Rankin, Demo and Acock.
[164] P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, Andrew J. Cherlin,
and Kathleen E. Kiernan, “The Long-Term Effects of Parental Divorce on
the Mental Health of Young Adults: A Developmental Perspective,” Child
Development Vol.66 (l995): 1614-1634
[165] Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia,
House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs, To Have and To Hold (Canberra, Australia, Parliament of
Australia:1998) p. 35.
[166] Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia,
Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs: “To Have and
To Hold: Strategies to Strengthen Marriage and Relationships”
Canberra, Australia, June 1998,p.34, reporting on the research of MPM
Richards and M Dyson.
[167] Judith S. Wallerstein, “Children of Divorce:
Report of a Ten-Year Follow-Up of Early Latency-Age Children,”
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 57, No. 2 (April 1987), pp.
199-211
[168] Julie J. Evans and Bernard L. Bloom, “Effects
of Parental Divorce Among College Undergraduates,” Journal of Divorce
and Remarriage, Vol. 26,(1997), pp. 69-88.
[169] Murray M. Kappelman, “The Impact of Divorce on
Adolescents,” American Family Physician, Vol.35, (1987), pp. 200-206
[170] Michael Workman and John Beer, “Aggression,
Alcohol Dependency, and Self-consciousness Among High School Students of
Divorced and Non-divorced Parents,” Psychological Reports, Vol. 71
(1992), pp. 279-286.
[171] Randy M. Page, “Adolescent Loneliness: A
Priority for School Health Education,” Health Education Quarterly Vol.
15 (1988): pp. 20-23.
[172] David M. Fergusson, John Horwood, and Michael T.
Lynsky, “Parental Separation, Adolescent Psychopathology, and Problem
Behaviors,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, Vol. 33 (1994), pp. 1122-1131.
[173] Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, “Trends
in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult, and Elderly Suicide: Are There
Common Underlying Structural Factors?” Social Science Research, Vol.
23 (1994), pp. 57-81
[174]David B. Larson, JamesP. Swyers, and Susan S.
Larson, The Costly Consequences of Divorce, (Rockville, MD: National
Institute for Healthcare Research, 1995), p.124; and: Carmen Noevi Velez
and Patricia Cohen, “Suicidal Behavior and Ideation in a Community
Sample of Children: Maternal and Youth Reports,” Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 27:3 (1988):
349-356; and Franklyn L. Nelson, et al., “Youth Suicide in California:
A Comparative Study of Perceived Causes and Interventions,” Community
Mental Health Journal Vol. 24 (Spring 1988): 31-42
[175] David Lester and Kazuhiko Abe, “The Regional
Variation of Divorce Rates in Japan and the United States,” Journal of
Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 18, (1993), pp. 227-230
[176]David B. Larson, JamesP. Swyers, and Susan S.
Larson, The Costly Consequences of Divorce, (Rockville, MD: National
Institute for Healthcare Research, 1995), p.126
[177] John S. Wodarski and Pamela Harris, “Adolescent
Suicide: A Review of Influences and the Means for Prevention,” Social
Work, Vol. 32, No. 6 (1987), pp. 477-484
[178] See ‘Family Effect #1’
[179] Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia,
House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs, To Have and To Hold, (Canberra, Australia, Parliament of
Australia:1998) p. 39.
[180] Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia,
House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs, To Have and To Hold, (Canberra, Australia, Parliament of
Australia:1998) p. 35
[181] Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia,
House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs, To Have and To Hold , (Canberra, Australia, Parliament of
Australia:1998) p. 41
[182] P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, Andrew J. Cherlin,
and Kathleen E. Kiernan, “The Long-Term Effects of Parental Divorce on
the Mental Health of Young Adults: A Developmental Perspective,” Child
Development Vol.66 (l995): 1614-1634
[183] Hillevi M. Aro and Ulla K. Palosaari, “Parental
Divorce, Adolescence, and Transition to Young Adulthood: A Follow-up
Study,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry Vol.63 (1992), pp.
421-429.
[184] David Popenoe, p. 58, reporting on the findings
of Duncan W.T.G. Timms, “Family Structure in Childhood and Mental
Health in Adolescence,” Research Report, Project Metropolitan.
Stockholm, Sweden: Department of Sociology, University of Stockholm,
p.93.
[185] : Hans-Christoph Steirthausen, et al., “Family
Composition and Child Psychiatric Disorders,” Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol.26, (1987), pp. 242-246.
[186] Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia,
House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs, To Have and To Hold (Canberra, Australia, Parliament of
Australia:1998) p. , 35, reporting on Wadsworth 1984; and Kuh and
Maclean, 1990
[187] Joseph E. Schwartz et al., “Sociodemographic
and Psychosocial Factors in Childhood as Predictors of Adult Mortality,”
American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 85 (1995), pp. 1237-1245.
[188] Gopal K. Singh and Stella M. Yu, “U.S.
Childhood Mortality, 1950 through 1993: Trends and Socioeconomic
Differentials,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol.86 (1996), pp.
505-512.
[189] Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia,
House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs, To Have and To Hold, (Canberra, Australia, Parliament of
Australia:1998) p. 35.
[190] Family in America Digital Archive, (Rockford IL:
The Rockford Institute, 1996) p. 854. (Reporting on Anders Romelsjö et
al., 1992)
[191] Between 1960 and 1990, there has been a 41
percent decline in marriage. The number of “never-married’s” has
risen from 21 million in 1970 to 46 million in 1996. At the same time
cohabitation has jumped from 430,000 in 1960 to 4.25 million in 1998,
…a ten fold increase. But as the professional literature also shows
cohabitation itself is linked to a serious rise in divorce: those who
cohabit before marriage divorce at twice the rate of those who do not.
Also, 40 percent of cohabitors breakup before marrying, and in turn
these former cohabitors, when they finally marry, divorce at twice the
rate of those who marry their first cohabiting partner or at about four
times the rate of those who do not cohabit before marriage. See: Larry
L. Bumpass, “What’s Happening to the Family? Interactions Between
Demographic and Institutional Change,” Presidential Address to the
Population Assocation of America, Demography, Vol. 27, No. 4 (November
1990), pp. 483-498.
[192] http://www.marriagesavers.org/
[193] See forthcoming book by Stanley Posthumus.
[194] By contrast evaluation research on the
effectiveness of mental health professionals in preventing divorce shows
rates so low the entire professional mental health enterprise is in
question. See: Jacobson, Neil S., & Addis, M. E. (1993). “Research
on couples and couple therapy: What do we Know? Where are we going?”,
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 85-93.
Though some professions profit from the high demand
for their services before and after divorce (psychiatry, psychology,
social work, school counselors and real estate agents to name a few)
every other sector of society is weakened.
[anterior] |