Whoa. My bad Bill. After rereading your previous posts, I see what you are saying. Yes, I agree with what you wrote.

I believe my children are better off with my divorce than they were prior.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "better off".
True, they are no longer subjected to arguing and fighting of their parents.

However, they are now separated from their father and living with their mother.
They now have 2 "moms and 2 "dads", 2 bedrooms, etc.
Their whole world got blown apart by the only people they loved & trusted. (I'm not placing blame here except it was you and your ex's marriage, no one elses)
They are young and it's tough for them to deal with no matter how good of parents you are.

... What about kids growing up with homosexual couple?... It'll be more and more of them (legalizing the same sex marriages etc.)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Chris -CA123:
<strong> Whoa. My bad Bill. After rereading your previous posts, I see what you are saying. Yes, I agree with what you wrote.

I believe my children are better off with my divorce than they were prior.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "better off".
True, they are no longer subjected to arguing and fighting of their parents.

However, they are now separated from their father and living with their mother.
They now have 2 "moms and 2 "dads", 2 bedrooms, etc.
Their whole world got blown apart by the only people they loved & trusted. (I'm not placing blame here except it was you and your ex's marriage, no one elses)
They are young and it's tough for them to deal with no matter how good of parents you are. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">How I consider them better off is the fact that YES....they are no longer subjected to the arguing and fighting, and they are in a loving home........at least half the time. Im not sure how my wifes household is. I pray all the time that my EX makes wise/wiser choices.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">... What about kids growing up with homosexual couple?... It'll be more and more of them (legalizing the same sex marriages etc.) </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Wow...this is a huge, completely different topic. Are you sure you want to bring this up here? Is this thread about having both a mother and a father or is about children of divorced parents?

I think we can all agree that children are better off if their parents stay married and recreate a loving environment. It blows my mind (and this may just be ignorance) that two adults CHOOSE to fight in front of their children. It takes two to fight, so both people are guilty of this choice. To say that a child is better off not being subjected to his main role models engaged in immature, inappropriate behavior is a given. Does that mean that the child is better of if those same role models throw in the towel?
IF you are going to get a divorce, I think the best thing you can do for your children is continue to be good role models. Put 110% effort into trying to salvage the marriage and make sure that the children are a part of that attempt. Let them see just how hard you are willing to work to keep that world they have come to know from completley collapsing around them and let them see that marriage takes hard work which includes, but is not limited to, professional help. I don't think that children should be kept in the dark about marital problems and I don't think they should be subjected to fighting. I DO think they should see that there are problems and see the steps that their parents are taking to work through those problems. That way, when they are married and faced with problems, they don't automatically run away or stand and fight...they have learned how to work through the problems from their role models.

Smile

If both parents want to do what is best fo rthe children, they will do everything they can to stay married, get happy in that marriage and be good parents.

However, as most of us here have seen, that is most often NOT what happens. A spouse may say they want to do what's best for the children (we'll end the fighting if we divorce) but in reality, they just want to do what's "best" for them (continue an affair).

LostHusband,

You have good insight (and humility it sounds like). Not many people can admit or see that they contributed to someone's "change."


**Here is a good resource of articles about children and divorce if anyone is intersted:

http://www.troubledwith.com/Web/gro.../documents/articles/twi_topic_008617.cfm

I completely disagree with the conclusions drawn in the criticisms of "The Legacy of Divorce." Her population may have been mostly white and affluent, but if anything, that makes it more similar to the population of this board, which appears to be largely affluent and well-educated. Just about everyone here has ready access to the Internet, and apparently likes to write - and most of them write quite well.

The fact that the group in the study had come to counseling does not in any way indicate that they were any less mentally healthy than divorcing couples as a whole - some judges require counseling, affluent couples can afford it or are more likely to have insurance that will cover it. Are you implying that divorcing couples who did not go to counseling had perfect marriages and the people involved were perfectly mentally well until one day they got up in the morning and decided to divorce? That makes no sense. If anything, her selection method would have eliminated all of the cases where one spouse runs off and is never seen again - a situation that can not possibly be optimal for the children's mental health. Her selection method resulted in a group that was in fact biased toward being more likely to include two parents who valued committment to some extent, as they were willing to make an effort to go to counseling.

These children of divorce in the study were actually far better off than average. They were not the ones who end up as latchkey kids, whose custodial parent was a 18 year old high school dropout, whose custodial parent would be expected to have had to work two jobs to feed the kids. These kids were the "lucky" ones. And yet, 10 years later, only a small percentage had seen their non-custodial parent within the previous year. Almost none of the non-custodial parents had contributed anything at all toward college. A sizable percentage of these kids, as adults, had serious difficulties in developing and maintaining attachments.

Originally posted by Nellie1:
<strong> I completely disagree with the conclusions drawn in the criticisms of "The Legacy of Divorce." Her population may have been mostly white and affluent, but if anything, that makes it more similar to the population of this board, which appears to be largely affluent and well-educated. Just about everyone here has ready access to the Internet, and apparently likes to write - and most of them write quite well.</strong>

Her study group was still small (only 61 families) and confined to one small geographic area (Marin County, CA), so it is not necessarily comparable to this group. Besides, she did not have a true control group. We don't know how children in equally troubled marriages where the parents did not divorce would have fared, because she didn't study and compare those.


<strong> The fact that the group in the study had come to counseling does not in any way indicate that they were any less mentally healthy than divorcing couples as a whole - some judges require counseling, affluent couples can afford it or are more likely to have insurance that will cover it. Are you implying that divorcing couples who did not go to counseling had perfect marriages and the people involved were perfectly mentally well until one day they got up in the morning and decided to divorce? That makes no sense. </strong>

First of all, these parents were in the study because they were offered long-term counselling in exchange for cooperation, not because a judge ordered it or their insurance paid for it. Second of all, the children were already exhibiting problems before the divorce, which suggests the divorce did not cause the problems, although it may have exacerbated them.

<strong> If anything, her selection method would have eliminated all of the cases where one spouse runs off and is never seen again - a situation that can not possibly be optimal for the children's mental health. Her selection method resulted in a group that was in fact biased toward being more likely to include two parents who valued committment to some extent, as they were willing to make an effort to go to counseling. </strong>

Bias of any kind is not good in a study.

<strong> These children of divorce in the study were actually far better off than average. They were not the ones who end up as latchkey kids, whose custodial parent was a 18 year old high school dropout, whose custodial parent would be expected to have had to work two jobs to feed the kids. These kids were the "lucky" ones. And yet, 10 years later, only a small percentage had seen their non-custodial parent within the previous year. Almost none of the non-custodial parents had contributed anything at all toward college. A sizable percentage of these kids, as adults, had serious difficulties in developing and maintaining attachments. </strong>

Mavis Hetherington, who studied 1500 families, and 2500 children, for over 30 years (as opposed to 25), including families with "latchkey kids, whose custodial parent was a 18 year old high school dropout, whose custodial parent would be expected to have had to work two jobs to feed the kids" found lower rates for problem behavior persisting into adulthood than Wallerstein did.

Wallerstein found higher rates of problems in the children in her study group than other reputable researchers have found in their study groups. Her study group was smaller, more geographically confined, and prone to problems even before parental divorce. If she were the only person studying children of divorce, it would be one thing. But when better conducted research gives less pessimistic results, I don't see a reason to chose to believe Wallerstein instead.

<small>[ October 30, 2003, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: elspeth ]</small>

Chris ..If both parents want to do what is best fo rthe children, they will do everything they can to stay married, get happy in that marriage and be good parents.

sufdb...That implies what is best for the parents (who are also valuable human beings in their own right) is what is best for their children...that is not true. There often are conflicts between what a child needs and what a parent needs, always giving the the child what they need reduces the parent to second class status, and will have a negative impact on the well-being of the parent (as neglect always will on a human being). If it were actually possible for a child to always get what they need, you would end up with a child who has no experience (and less capacity) to recognize or deal with reality, that being life is often unfair, unpredictable, dangerous etc.

There must be a balance between what is best for an individual who is a parent, and an individual who is a child. That balance will be different re divorce for a couple that has children vs one that does not, but it is not an absolute by any means. At some point, a parent remaining in a marriage that doesn't fit very well, but they work hard at denying themself so they can stay and make the marriage as plesant as possible, will be diminished themself. That means the child does have the marriage, but has lost who that parent would be if they were not constrained by their marital circumstances. IMO that is just as bad for the child as a divorce could be. The best outcome for a child is to have two fully actualized parents (as individuals), who are also fully vested and competetent, nurturing parents....under those conditions their marital status is releatively unimportant to the well-being and development of the child.... which is what the various studies about such things are beginning to conclude.

It is not marital status that benefits the child, it is parenting that benefits the children. Divorce does not impact good parenting, unless the parents let it....

Chris ..If both parents want to do what is best fo rthe children, they will do everything they can to stay married, get happy in that marriage and be good parents.

sufdb...That implies what is best for the parents (who are also valuable human beings in their own right) is what is best for their children
No it doesn't imply that. I didn't write "what is best for the parents."
But that aside, they did choose to have children, therefore they chose to give up some things to raise that child. This is not necessarily what is "best" for the parent (as an individual).

Also, let's not get confused about needs vs. wants vs. what is best.

At some point, a parent remaining in a marriage that doesn't fit very well, but they work hard at denying themself so they can stay and make the marriage as plesant as possible, will be diminished themself. That means the child does have the marriage, but has lost who that parent would be if they were not constrained by their marital circumstances.
Which is why I wrote, "they will do everything they can to stay married, get happy in that marriage and be good parents"

I didn't mean that they would stay in the marriage "for the children" and not be happy/satisfied as a partner.

It is not marital status that benefits the child, it is parenting that benefits the children. Divorce does not impact good parenting, unless the parents let it....
Divorce may not impact parenting but divorce WILL impact the kids. The impact can be lessened with good parenting.

Marriage does not (necessarily) = good parenting
Just as divorce does not (necessarily) = bad parenting.
But good marriage + good parenting is FAR better than divorce (nice or nasty) with equally good parenting.

<small>[ October 30, 2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Chris -CA123 ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by SmileADay:
Wow...this is a huge, completely different topic. Are you sure you want to bring this up here? Is this thread about having both a mother and a father or is about children of divorced parents?[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Please don't be obliged.....
Could be another topic though - not so many topics are really about kids...

I agree that divorce is very hard on the children.
Although my life is really good now I live with the sadness everyday of what became of my family. Although it was my children who told me enough was enough, that it was time for a divorce I still feel like I have let them down. My daughter now hates her Father. I think she dwells on it alot. My middle son felt that he couldn't let his Father live alone so he moved with him to another state. I am now missing his senior year of HS. He feels really torn between us. I try not to make him feel guilty but I know he feels like he has abandoned me. My youngest son loves my fiance. He never received any attention from his own father and he loves this. He does however, I know feels somewhat abandoned by his Dad. He won't call him and his Dad never calls him either.
Divorce was the last thing I ever expected to happen to me. Although I am not perfect I know I was a good wife. When I asked my ex why he needed these ow he told me he didn't know, it wasn't me just something he felt he needed. I asked what i had done wrong what could I work on. He said nothing he just wasn't happy anymore.
How could I with three teenange children live with a man who felt like he needed two families. What would that have shown my children. How much respect would that have given them for both parents. What does it show them when their Mother allows their Father to walk all over her. Sometimes there is no choice but to divorce.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by jillybean36:
<strong> What does it show them when their Mother allows their Father to walk all over her. Sometimes there is no choice but to divorce. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">GREAT question!!! My wife said she would sit outside on the stoop and wait for her EX to come home........her son would ask where daddy was......he would eventually go to sleep, and she said she would wait till 3-4am and he still would not be there. She would have to catch a bus 20mi. to drop her son off at day care at 5am-6am (still dark outside)........her son would ask where daddy was on the way to day care......she would then catch a shuttle to work. Her EX didnt give a crap about either one of them. She eventually divorced him.......is her son better off now? Not seeing his mommy used as a doormat??

StartinOver,
Thanks for starting this thread. This is a question I have struggled with for five years now. It is very interesting to me to read all these perspectives.

Based on personal experience and observation, it seems that each situation is different depending on the individual children and parents involved.

My H and I have been separated two different times. The first separation was devastating to the girls and I. They reacted differently but all struggled. The oldest was angry. The middle D was just so sad and heartbroken. The youngest was acting out terribly. It was a huge nightmare.

But, our second separation was very different. I believe a huge reason for this was that I was in a very different place emotionally. I was much stronger and had two years to work through many issues. The girls were hurting the second time too, but not nearly so much.

I think that a great consideration for how the children will do is how the parents are doing. If the parents are emotionally stable and able to keep their children as one of their top priorities in life, it seems they will have a much greater chance of being well adjusted.

I know during our first separation, I was a basket-case, which certainly didn't help my girls at all. I was in such pain and grief, that I wasn't able to truly "be there" for them as I was later. I think that makes all the difference.

Again, thank you for this thread. God bless all of you as you try to provide the most loving, nurturing environment for your children.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Bias of any kind is not good in a study.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This is not a true statement. When a study is set up so that it is biased in one direction, results in the other direction provide especially strong evidence. Some researchers purposely design studies in that way - off course the danger of doing so is that results in the direction of the bias would then not be meaningful.

I can find no mention that the children in this study had a higher than average rate of psychological problems prior to the divorce. As a matter of fact, it was mentioned that she eliminated children with severe problems from the study. This study was likely the most in depth study of its type ever carried out.

Many of the adults did have psychological issues, such as difficulty controlling rage, or depression. That is hardly surprising - other researchers have stated, for instance, that when men in mid-life who have been good fathers leave their long term marriages, they are almost invariably suffering from depression. It is extremely rare for neither spouse in a divorce to be suffering from depression, narcissistic personality disorder, anger management problems, or other mental illness. Almost always at least one spouse has psychological problems.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Nellie1:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Bias of any kind is not good in a study.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This is not a true statement. When a study is set up so that it is biased in one direction, results in the other direction provide especially strong evidence. Some researchers purposely design studies in that way - off course the danger of doing so is that results in the direction of the bias would then not be meaningful.

I can find no mention that the children in this study had a higher than average rate of psychological problems prior to the divorce. As a matter of fact, it was mentioned that she eliminated children with severe problems from the study. This study was likely the most in depth study of its type ever carried out.

Many of the adults did have psychological issues, such as difficulty controlling rage, or depression. That is hardly surprising - other researchers have stated, for instance, that when men in mid-life who have been good fathers leave their long term marriages, they are almost invariably suffering from depression. It is extremely rare for neither spouse in a divorce to be suffering from depression, narcissistic personality disorder, anger management problems, or other mental illness. Almost always at least one spouse has psychological problems. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Wallerstein now says she eliminated children with severe problems from her study, but that's not how she described them in 1980-and it's the same study group now than she had then.
It wasn't the most in depth study of its kind ever carried out-Mavis Hetherington and Dr. Andrew J. Cherlin both have done similar studies over as long a period of time (longer in Hetherington's case), with larger populations, and with control groups, something that Wallerstein does not have. But Wallerstein for some reason seems to get all the publicity.

You make a good point by saying, "Some researchers purposely design studies in that way - off course the danger of doing so is that results in the direction of the bias would then not be meaningful, " but that is not relevant here-Wallerstein did not purposely bias her study in such a way. She pretty much took what she could get in the way of a study group.

<small>[ November 02, 2003, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: elspeth ]</small>

This reminds me of the truism, guns don't kill people...people kill people.

Divorce doesn't injure children, bad parenting injures children. That is all this really boils down too.

Eliminateing guns will not stop violence and/or murder...nor would making divorce illegal stop children from being subjected to poor parenting.

This is not a divorce issue, it is a parenting issue. The only role children should play in divorce decisions is as an incentive to be sure the marriage ends for irreconcileable differences, not for trivial (fixable) reasons. The problem is people use children as a guilt mechanism to pressure adults into staying in unhealthy marriages, thereby injuring the adult which begs the question of how does it affect their parenting focus, when they have to expend so much emotional resources just to tolerate the marriage itself....the kids will see this, one way or another, and it will impact their marital choices in the future.

One could "expand" this notion to a world where "nobody" gets divorced, cause that is how they were raised....yet vast numbers of people are desperately unhappy in these marriages (but consider that "normal")....a scarey thing to contemplate methinks.


On the other hand there is a lot we can do as a society to address the pressures that lead to less effective parenting.

1. Do not let people get married so quickly. A thorough course in marital issues first, coupled with a 1 year waiting period after license applied for.

2. A much much better job of requiring (and enforcing) child support laws, a lot of ineffectual parenting can be linked to financial stress.

3. Also much better enforcement of custody/visitation....no more using children as pawns to get at a parent.....AND keep kids away from a bad parent.

4. A good post-divorce parenting support effort, to address parenting education, and any/all related issues.

5. Perhaps a modification of the foster home concept to include a stable home for the kids, but not exclude the bio-parent from visitation and involvement.

<small>[ November 02, 2003, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: sufdb ]</small>

SUFB,

ID, as a result of a divorce decree, a woman loses her home and she and her 3 or 4 children move into a small apartment and the kids switch schools (because they are in a new district) and the kids lose familiarity and their friends and have to get rid of the family dog since they can't have dogs in apts....

IF the wife was once a stay home mom in which her husband's income supported her, and now she works 9-5 and the kids have a babysitter and mom is very tired at night (not to mention depressed over her divorce), and so the kids have alot less time with mom, not to menion, ALOT less time with dad since dad doesn't live there anymore...

AND IF mom begins to date because she is lonely and the kids have more babysitters and even less time with mom, not to menion that they can't stand the boyfriend...

AND iIF the dad hates mom and when the kids go to his house, he says bad things about her...

AND IF dad is mad when the kids spend Christmas with mom, and mom is mad when they spend it with dad, and the kids feel stuck in the middle of a really bad story and begin to resent both their parents...

Are these things NOT affecting the kids? Are these things the result of bad parenting or of a divorce? Can you explain how the kids have not been hurt in the above scenario (one that is very typical of divorce) and how the hurts they might have in the above scenario are the result, not of a divorce, but of bad parenting? I find it illogical to say that kids growing up in poverty because of divorce is the result of bad parenting. Or that a child feeling as if his/her world has been turned upside down and who has fears of a parent not loving them someday is the result of bad parenting and not a divorce.

A mother can be a great mother, but if her husband divorces her and she becomes understandably depressed, impoverished, fearful, tired, etc... are you going to tell her she is a bad mother? Or is it that the divorce has not only wreaked havoc on her life and her emotions, but also on her children's?

The suggestions you mentioned sound good, but reaity is... people are people and divorce is rarely ever happy and amicable,ESPECIALLY when their are children, homes, and custody battles involved. The reality is, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to shield children from things such as losing a home due to divorce or losing a parent due to divorce.

<small>[ November 02, 2003, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: LoveMyEx ]</small>

lmx, most of your examples were financial, I addressed this, impoverishing anyone is not ok, including divorced heads of households, but again this is bad parenting. Good parents would cooperate financially, not impoverish the custodial parent. Likewise there are many non-divorced families in which one (or both) parents are lazy, irresponsible, cannot hold jobs, won't work, squander money etc. They are not better off, and might be much better off if divorce occured, and the children placed with the more responsible person. Who they manages money better, holds a stable job, remarries a responsible person.

The assumption you imply is that even though two people have substantial emotional/psychological conflict that if we could somehow "force" them to remain married, the children would automatically be benefit, despite the poor emotional enviroment. In addition you assume these people would be financially responsible, even with the additional emotional stress of living with someone they do not want to live with...that's a lot of assumptions. IMO childrens well-being is best first best served by a emotiuonally stable, positive enviroment, hopefully the rest will follow.

<small>[ November 02, 2003, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: sufdb ]</small>

sufdb, I cannot agree more...

btw, a good parent have to have the time for kids, and have to have them on the top of their priorities

I have been working all the time (9 hours) plus traveling 2 hours every day to and from work.
To be more with my baby I get up 1,5 hours earlier, to feed him, talk and play with him.
After the work I put away all other house duties and spend time just with him... when cooking also playing and 'involving' him to 'cook together'...

Yes, I never have enough sleep, but his smile and his happy face refreshes me, gives me strength...

If I begin dating one day... I'll do it during weekends, after he goes to sleep <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

No, no I'm not a perfect mom - many things still to learn... but - at least - trying <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

<small>[ November 03, 2003, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Belonging to Nowhere ]</small>