The people who profit from this mess are lawyers, and the results are not only long and costly, but cruel. Recently, a woman whose 39-year-old marriage was described as «loveless» was denied a divorce because neither party was willing to be labeled «guilty.» This week, she lost her case in the Court of Appeal, a verdict that was described as «shameful». Clearly, the divorce revolution of the 1960s and 70s left a toxic legacy. But what has happened since then? Where are we today on the issue of marriage and divorce? A glimpse of the landscape paints a decidedly mixed picture of contemporary married life in America. Of course, the reason divorced children, especially children with low-conflict divorces, are more likely to end their marriage is precisely because they have often learned the wrong lessons about their parents` trust, commitment, mutual sacrifice, and fidelity. A few days later, when the husband appeared in court, I told him that I would not grant the divorce unless he took his wife to court to see if she understood that she was waiving her legal interests worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. But for him, it means women have to get jobs after divorce and demand less from their ex-husbands. And the negative effects of divorce for adults tend to fall disproportionately on the shoulders of parents. Skeptics confronted with this type of research often argue that it is unfair to compare the children of divorce to children of intact and married households. They argue that it is the conflict that precedes divorce, not the divorce itself, that is likely to be particularly traumatic for children.
Amato`s work suggests that skeptics are right: In cases where children face high levels of conflict — such as domestic violence or shouting games between parents — they seem to be better off when their parents separate. It is a huge task, to say the least. But if our society is truly interested in protecting and improving the well-being of children — especially children in our nation`s most vulnerable communities — we need to strengthen marriage and reduce the frequency of divorce in America. The unthinkable alternative is a nation increasingly divided along class and marital status, and children doubly disadvantaged by poverty and single parents. Certainly, no one believes that such a situation is in the national interest. In fact, there`s a scientific reason why everyone thinks divorce is unfair. And this is especially true when the parties hate each other. In fact, the more I hate, the more unfair everything is.
Divorce is an expensive battleground, and our outdated laws are not fit for purpose. A third reason to stabilize divorce rates and marital happiness is not so encouraging. Simply put, marriage is increasingly reserved for the middle, middle and upper classes. Fewer working-class and poor Americans are getting married these days, in part because marriage is increasingly seen as a status symbol: a sign that a couple has arrived both emotionally and financially, or at least within reach of the American dream. This means that those who marry today are more likely to enjoy the money, education, job security, and social skills that increase the likelihood of long-term marital success. Page says he is indeed «on the side of independence» for women. But for him, it means women should get jobs after divorce and demand less from their ex-husbands. I wonder why successive governments are so reluctant to reform the divorce law. The last attempt failed in the 1990s. Who are MEPs afraid of being offended? Modernizing marriage and divorce would be the most beneficial change we can make for future generations. «I got an overwhelmingly positive response, which was quite surprising because I`ve been saying the same thing for 30 years,» he says. What do you think has changed? The position of women in society.
While women rightly expect equal wages, employment and education, it is difficult to reconcile this with the way they are portrayed in divorce courts. And doesn`t what Deech says devalue the role of women who leave work to raise their children? «I didn`t quit my job,» he says. Thirty years later, the myth of a good divorce has not held up well to ongoing social science research, especially considering the well-being of children exposed to their parents` divorce. By the late 1970s, many Americans—rich and poor—had abandoned the institutional model of married life that prioritized child protection and sought to prevent divorce in all but the worst circumstances. Instead, they adopted the soulmate model of married life, which prioritized the emotional well-being of adults and gave moral permission to divorce for virtually any reason. This widening divorce gap means that married couples with a college degree are now about half as likely to divorce as their less educated peers. Educated spouses who come from intact families, enjoy an annual income of more than $60,000 and conceive their first legitimate child – like many couples with a university degree – have extremely low divorce rates. Research also shows that remarriage is not an ointment for children who have been hurt by divorce. Indeed, as sociologist Andrew Cherlin notes in his important new book, The Marriage-Go-Round, «children whose parents have remarried do not have higher well-being than children in single-parent families.» The reason? Often, starting a blended family leads to another move for a child, which requires adjusting to a new caregiver and their half-siblings – which can be difficult for children who tend to thrive in stability. Beyond the direct impact of divorce on adults and children, it is also important to note the ways in which widespread divorce has undermined the institution of marriage, particularly its assault on the quality, prevalence, and stability of marriage in American life.
