Divorce
– the myth and the reality
The moral imperative surrounding divorce:
Chapter 20, The Great Divorce Controversy
Society’s
views towards marriage have undergone a major change during the last few
decades, and mass divorce has become part of the way of life in England and
America. Much of the literature on divorce presents an optimistic picture about
the likely benefits, especially for women, and there is even talk of the good
divorce. Some commentators claim that divorce opens the way for a promising
future, and suggest that new relationships following divorce are likely to be
more fulfilling. Psychologists and marriage counsellors advise that divorce can
provide opportunities for psychological growth. Moreover, the idea that an
unhappy couple should divorce for the sake of their children, despite all the
evidence to the contrary, is still the popular view.
Yet we
have seen that the Bible teaches that divorce is wrong, and the evidence shows
that it damages people. So there appears to be a gap between contemporary
thinking and the reality of divorce. In this chapter we consider the optimistic
view of divorce presented by popular divorce literature, and contrast it with
the reality of divorce as it affects real people. We shall see that the idea of
the good divorce is a myth – generated by self-acclaimed experts – that does not
ring true with the experience of those who know the reality for themselves.
The myth of the good
divorce
Many
writers have claimed that the initial bad feelings that follow divorce can lead
to good things, and there are numerous books and feature articles in women’s
magazines that proclaim the benefits that follow divorce. A typical example of
this way of thinking is expressed in The Good Divorce (1994) by Constance
Ahrons.1
She divulges a tightly held secret that out of many bad marriages come good
divorces. She insists that while there are bad divorces, there are also good
ones, and millions of people now live with the reality of divorce as a normal
passage in their lives. She complains that society glorifies the so-called
intact family, while stigmatising divorced families as broken and incomplete.2
According to Ahrons, about half of all divorced couples end up with a good
divorce, in which they part without destroying the lives of those they love.
‘Their children continue to have two parents. The divorced parents continue to
have good relationships with their children. The families of good divorces
continue to be just that—families.’3
Ahrons
argues that if unhappy couples knew their bad marriage was harming their
children, and if they knew that the long-term effects of a good divorce on a
family were positive, there would be almost nobody left who believed in duty,
home and family.4
She goes on to
reassure her readers that there are many good options in divorce, the best-case
scenario being to set up an immediate, successful, temporary limited partnership
with your ex-spouse.5
The Good Divorce
argues that current divorce rates should not be viewed with gloom and doom,
because divorce is one way for families to adapt to current realities. Instead,
we are urged to change our outdated ideals about marriage and family. Because
divorce is here to stay and cannot be cured, we should view divorce as
intrinsically part of married life, and ‘stop loading it with negative
judgements and explore ways to improve families’ quality of life, post-divorce’.6 The following statement probably sums up the philosophy of
the book: ‘Marriage is good – and so is divorce. It all depends to whom each
happens, and why, and how—and when.’7 The author married when she was nineteen; she had two
daughters and divorced her first husband when she was 28.8
In
Divorce and Your Children (1990), Anne Hooper argues that the best way of
helping our children come to terms with divorce is to accept the reality of the
situation.9 ‘We are no longer a “single marriage society” but a “divorce
and remarrying society”. The sooner we recognise and accept this, the sooner we
can begin to make use of what we have got, to help ourselves and our children by
extending our families in a modern way.’10 In discussing the gains of remarriage, she asserts that the
new relationship may provide a better model of caring than before. For example,
if the natural parent had been suffering from depression, the arrival of a new
spouse will remove the bad feelings and lighten the entire household. The
stepparent may fit well into the children’s interests, and so provide a new
dimension. Indeed, ‘some people are better parents than others, and it could be
that the stepparent is an improvement over the natural parent’.11
When discussing the divorce with your children Hooper suggests you should admit
that it won’t be the same without daddy, ‘but it will be fun in a different way
and we will be able to do different things. One of the things I thought we
might do that was different would be to buy a dog. How do you feel about
that?’ Hooper believes that the new dog is something for the children to direct
their confused emotions towards, something to take their minds off their
parents’ divorce.12
The Family though Divorce
(1977) is a book that offers a complete guide to the legal and emotional issues
involved in divorce. The authors express the view that ‘the family crisis of
separation and divorce can indeed be an opportunity for growth and development,
rather than simply trauma and pain. Stepfamilies represent new hope, as many
achieve fulfilling new lives for their members.’13
Psychological theory claims that divorce gives women the opportunity to explore
their inner selves and so validate themselves. Professional counsellors even
advise that divorce can generate psychological benefits as women gain in
self-esteem and self-confidence, and have more control over their lives. A
report in The Times, under the headline ‘Psychologists extol benefits of
divorce for all the family’, summarised the research findings presented at a
conference of the British Psychological Society. Psychologists told the
conference that divorce can benefit parents and children by increasing their
self-reliance and giving them control over their lives. ‘The break-up of the
traditional nuclear family is not as big a disaster as it is painted. Although
single parents may have more to cope with, they experience greater rewards,
mothers have a sense of achievement over doing a difficult job well and children
report a feeling of love and security no matter who provides it, according to
research in London and Lancaster.’14
Another
example of the psychological approach is contained in the book Marriage and
how to survive (1983), which is co-authored by a clinical psychologist.15 Readers are invited to assess the condition of their
marriage from a psychological perspective.16 Having done the psychological tests in the book a couple may
conclude that they are psychologically incompatible. Although they may be well
matched intellectually and share common interests, one partner feels that his or
her development as a person is somehow being arrested by remaining in the
marriage. According to the authors, ‘This usually comes across in the form of a
statement such as “I have to leave in order to be myself”.’17 The authors admit that moving out to be on your own is not
the immediate answer to life’s problems, but ‘if you stick with it and face up
to life’s new challenges, you will start to change as a person. Many of your
fears will start to disappear as you find yourself doing many things you thought
you were not capable of… So if you know in your heart that the marriage is over
and there are no practical obstacles to your moving out, push aside your doubts
and take the plunge. If you do not do it now you will spend your old age
regretting the fact.’ The book then gives practical hints about how to build a
new life after your divorce, and advises that the earlier you move out the more
chance you have of being fulfilled in both your career and personal life.18
The message of the book is that divorce can improve an individual’s
psychological development.
The Relate Guide to starting again
is written to help the reader get over a relationship that has finished. The
book presents an optimistic view of future relationships after divorce. ‘The
end of a relationship can be a new beginning. Without the constraints of a
partnership you can concentrate on your own needs and take steps to construct a
more satisfying way of living and relating to people, which includes any
children you might have.’19
The books
discussed above and many others not mentioned, which present divorce in
euphemistic terms, have helped to cultivate the myth of the good divorce. This
way of thinking sees divorce as something that is inevitable in a modern society
and something that should be viewed as just a normal part of everyday life.
Divorce is portrayed as an opportunity for women to achieve psychological growth
and development, and something that they should not run away from. Women
should not be afraid to admit that their marriage is not working, and should
have the courage to take the plunge. If they handle the process well then it
can be a good divorce, from which the people involved and even their family will
benefit. What is startling about the above accounts from people who claim to be
expert in the area is the large gap between their perceptions of divorce, and
the reality of what hundreds of thousands of people have experienced for
themselves.
The reality of
divorce
We
must move beyond the unrealistic claims of contemporary thinking to see the
truth about divorce. In doing so we must take account of the teaching of the
Bible, bear in mind the evidence that we have examined in previous
chapters, and refer to our own experience and common sense. As we noted at the
beginning of this book, divorce is an issue which affects everyone in society,
from the highest to the lowest, and we all have our own experience to guide us.
Many of us have seen the reality of divorce at first hand.
The
testimony of two people who have experienced divorce will help to put a sense of
reality into the discussion. Two personal accounts of divorce were published in
the British Medical Journal. The first is by a father who had become
alienated from his wife because of a continuing affair with another woman.
Despite the fact that they were using separate bedrooms and had discussed
divorce, he found the psychological impact of the actual event unexpectedly
severe. He writes:
I
suppressed as best as I could the pain of telling the children that I wouldn’t
be living with them any more – although suppression made the pain no less
acute. What I had not expected was a wave of tenderness for my wife, which,
very briefly, restored between us a confidence and rapport that had been long
lost. In hindsight this was clearly mutual shock; the same kind of reaction
that follows a long awaited death. Soon my wife’s mood became more bitter, and
mine more depressed, as I realised that, firstly, the triangle in which I had
long existed had merely been perpetuated in a different form, and, secondly, the
move I had made was irrevocable. In the initial state of shock I had thought it
possible that I would return and had even written to my wife about my strong
desire to do so. As things settled down my presumably mild depression settled
in. The symptoms were early waking, reduced libido, and, above all, apathy, not
in my work, which was wholly unaffected by the traumatic events, but in my
private life. Going out to a theatre or a film, for example, seemed difficult
or impossible, like a heavy unpleasant household chore that you keep putting
off. The relationship with my children, fortunately, caused few direct
problems, although I found meeting for ‘restaurant meals’ as poor a substitute
for living with them, as I had expected. Where their welfare was concerned I
had no difficulty in combining well with their mother. That was virtually the
only area of accord and agreement, however. The pressure caused by her
continuing alternation between dependence and bitter recrimination has certainly
borne heavily on me, so has the pressure from my partner to force a total breach
with my wife.20
The
second account is from a wife who admits that her marriage had not been happy
for the past few years. When her husband left her for another younger woman she
went into a state of shock that lasted for months. She writes:
It came as a complete surprise, not only to me and the children, but to all our
friends and relatives… I made it easier for him by being reasonable and calm
while he was around and only breaking down at night in the privacy of my room.
I could only think a day at a time; the future meant nothing; I was absolutely
numb. The children were devastated. They adored him, and he had not only
betrayed me, but he had betrayed them as well – he had left! They felt
insecure, frightened, and guilty and did not know whom they should blame, even
though I was honest and told them our breakdown in marriage wasn’t only one
sided and that we should have both tried harder. Their absolute despair and
misery nearly broke me; they cried night after night for months. They were
ashamed. They couldn’t talk to me, their father, or even their close friends.
They wanted to hide like animals and lick their wounds. After the first couple
of weeks their father persuaded them to see him and ‘Mary’ frequently and
regularly. They withdrew from him to hide their pain. He rarely saw their real
distress. I think it would have been better if he had given them longer to
adjust. They know that he loves them, but they are no longer the most important
people – they come second. It takes time to come to terms with that. I have
rarely criticised ‘Mary’, but two years later the children are still distant and
disinterested in her. I think he expected them to accept her too soon. It was
lucky we both decided that we had to do the best for the children. Our standard
of living has dropped and I am often worried about money, but my husband earns a
good salary and, though not generous, he won’t let us starve.21
These
two accounts of the reality of divorce ring true with the personal experience of
millions of people. There is no doubt whatsoever that divorce has extremely
profound, powerful affects on those involved. Why?
The moral imperative
In
the vast literature that promotes the idea of the good divorce there is not the
faintest hint that divorce is one of the major moral issues of our time.
Contemporary thinking on divorce has gone to great lengths to deny the moral
dimension. Counselling services usually adopt what they call a morally neutral
position, simply helping the individuals decide whether a divorce is in their
own best interests. An unhappy wife or husband will be advised to make their
decision without any moral consideration. Any suggestion that divorce is a
moral issue is seen as judgemental, forcing unwelcome moral views onto other
people. So the popular view is that individuals should be encouraged to decide
on their divorce free from the restrictions imposed by moral considerations, and
especially the teachings of the Bible.
The idea
of no-fault divorce is further evidence that society has chosen to ignore the
moral dimension. It suggests that no one is morally responsible for a divorce
– nobody is to blame. But this is a delusion for the underlying cause of
divorce, as we have already seen, is a husband or wife being unfaithful to their
marriage vows, as a result of wrongdoing and selfishness. In Second Chances,
Judith Wallerstein writes that she is yet to meet the man, woman or child who
emotionally accepts no-fault divorce. ‘In their hearts, people believe in fault
and in the loss associated with the decision to end a marriage. Adults almost
inevitably blame each other, but rarely blame themselves.’22 And this is surely evidence of the way divorce afflicts the
conscience, a clear indication of the inescapable moral dimension. A further
moral dimension is the harm that divorce causes other people, and especially the
children. Indeed, the moral aspect is so obvious that many children feel that
their parents have failed in one of life’s major tasks, which is to maintain a
marriage and the family home. Children believe that one of their parents, and
sometimes both, put their own selfish desires and lack of self-restraint above
the needs of the children, allowing them to suffer the brunt of the divorce.
Despite a
fervent campaign to propagate the idea that there is no moral dimension to
divorce, most people are aware of the teachings of Christ and know in their
heart that divorce is wrong. In the strongest possible language Christ
condemned divorce as immoral, tantamount to committing adultery. The betrayal
and violence that are the essence of divorce are so sinful in the eyes of God,
that he hates divorce. It is impossible for human beings, created in the image
of God with a moral conscience, to escape the moral dimension of divorce.
Because we live in a moral world where there is a distinction between right and
wrong, no matter how much we may try and convince ourselves otherwise, we cannot
escape the terrible truth that we are accountable to God for our actions. We
know when we have done wrong, our conscience tells us so, and we cannot escape
the feeling of shame and guilt that results from our wrongdoing. Men who leave
their family for another woman are especially prone to being weighed down by
guilt as they witness the sorrow they have inflicted on their wife and
children. These men often have difficulty in visiting their children for they
are a constant reminder of their wrongdoing. And because divorce is against
God’s plan for marriage those involved know, in their deepest conscience, that
they have done a great wrong to their family, their children and to themselves.
This is why those who instigate divorce have profound and enduring feelings of
guilt.
We also
cannot escape the moral imperative that wrongdoing has consequences—as the Bible
says, we reap what we sow. To pretend otherwise is simply to deceive
ourselves. The reality is that those who choose to ignore God’s moral law with
regard to marriage and divorce reap the consequences of their immoral
behaviour. This book has provided ample evidence of the consequences of
divorce. Personal experience provides further evidence, and few can doubt this
obvious truth.
Divorce damages the
family
Divorce damages the one flesh unity created by marriage; it tears apart two
people who not only belong together, but who have in fact become one entity.
This tearing apart wreaks havoc with the family created by their marriage. The
idea that the destruction of their family will lead to future inner happiness is
a delusion, as many people have found out to their cost. The experience of
breaking up their family home proves much more painful than either husband or
wife ever anticipated. It comes as a crushing blow to the children, who feel
afraid, abandoned and ashamed, for they know that they have lost their family
through the thoughtless, selfish and careless behaviour of their parents. The
public knowledge that their family has been broken by divorce causes disgrace,
humiliation and shame for the children. It is widely known that the behaviour
of one or both parents has led to the break-up—that they have put their own
interests before those of their children. The children are acutely embarrassed
by the failure of their parents to solve their problems. They feel humiliated
that their parents have not been willing to stay together for their sake. The
tragedy of divorce is that it damages relationships within the family. The
husband and wife, who are also father and mother to the children, no longer
recognise each other as a part of the family. By their actions they have
deprived their children of a normal family life; the family which God intended
would nurture them as they grew into adulthood.
A key
legal aspect of divorce is that it ends a marriage contract and means that both
husband and wife are free legally to remarry. In the eyes of the law the legal
relationship between husband and wife is broken, and the marriage is dead. The
wife and mother has become a divorcee, and is available to other men, while the
husband and father can now legitimately entertain his girlfriends. Divorced
women often have a reputation of being sexually available. For the children who
retain a parental relationship with both parents this is a horrible situation.
Their father and mother are now sexually available to others; they can remarry,
or, if they prefer, they can simply live with their new partners.
Following
their divorce parents have less time for their children and are less sensitive
to their needs. In particular, divorce is associated with diminished contact
between fathers and their children; a phenomenon sometimes referred to as
‘father loss’. Many fathers feel that they are no longer of central importance
to their children’s lives and have difficulty in maintaining a meaningful
relationship. A further difficulty for divorced fathers is that they are
required to make visits to see their children. It proves to be extremely
difficult to establish a meaningful relationship with children under these
circumstances. Moreover, visits usually arouse complex feelings and emotions
within the father. He, of course, misses his children and wants to see them.
But each visit brings back painful memories, and often a sense of hurt, jealousy
and regret. Each visit reinforces the reality that he is no longer part of the
family, and is no longer a significant part of the lives of his children. Many
fathers feel sad and humiliated at the thought of having to obtain permission to
visit their children—their own flesh and blood. Sometimes the experience of
parting after weekend visits can be extremely upsetting for both father and
children, as it reinforces the idea that they are not a ‘together’ family. It
is hardly surprising that many fathers are erratic in their visits and some opt
out altogether.
Grandparents fulfil an important role in the lives of their grandchildren.
Their presence brings a sense of stability and permanence, for it puts the
family relationships into a historical context. As we have already seen,
divorce leads to less contact with grandparents, and some children lose all
contact with one or other set of grandparents. The paternal grandparents
usually suffer a feeling of loss for, although they really love their
grandchildren, they have fewer opportunities to see them.
We have
seen that, in general, children do not thrive in stepfamilies created by the
remarriage of one of their parents following divorce. The founder of the
National Stepfamily Association expresses the opinion, in a letter to The
Times, that an overriding factor which pushed people to contemplate divorce
in preference to staying together is ‘the belief in the existence of a new and
perfect partner, either in reality or in the imagination, with whom the
divorcee can share a new and better life. This belief is so often shattered as
the recently-divorced face up to the harsh reality of any new relationship, with
the further complications of stepchildren, financial competition from the
previous family and the need to arrange and cope with weekend access visits to
children.’23
One of
the sadder findings of the California Children of Divorce Study was that half of
the children whose mothers had remarried said they did not feel welcome in the
new family.24
Among the older children in the study more than half resented their stepfathers
and 90 per cent felt that having a stepfather had not enhanced their lives.25
The foreboding that most children have about acquiring a
stepfather is psychologically understandable. It is disturbing for children to
have a man whom they hardly know, who is in no way related to them, taking the
place of their real father. This is no surprise really for a second marriage
founded on divorce is against God’s plan for the family. Moreover, children
know in their heart that a stepfamily created following divorce is built on the
failure of their real family. It is predictable that children do not usually
thrive in stepfamilies built on the foundation of divorce.
Children and divorce
In
the 1960s and 1970s the traditional view that parents should stay together for
the sake of their children was replaced by a new consensus, which claimed that
the primary purpose of divorce was to improve the happiness and well-being of
the parents and that this would benefit the children. A number of social
commentators claimed that divorce did not cause serious long-term damage to most
children and so it was pointless for parents to stay together for their sake.
As we saw in chapter 17, some social researchers even claimed that children
thrived on divorce, for they were better off out of an unhappy home.
These
claims have proved to be to disastrously false. We have seen the evidence which
shows the suffering that divorce causes for children and the long-term nature of
the damaging effects. The reality is that children hate divorce and suffer
considerably from the loss of the family home and daily contact with their
father. In a feature article, model Laura Bailey, whose parents divorced when
she was five, comments, ‘When your absolute hero – your father – doesn’t come
back, it’s really frightening, whatever age you are. The danger is that it sets
a pattern in relationships. My father’s leaving is probably a huge part of all
the relationships I have had with men in my life.’26
Jemma Redgrave made the following comment on her parent’s divorce. ‘It was the
major trauma of my childhood. So huge was the effect on me that I don’t
remember a lot about it. I blocked it out. I didn’t lose my father exactly,
but suddenly he wasn’t around so much and I missed him terribly. It’s something
my brother, Luke, and I found very difficult. Children want their parents to be
together.’27
Divorce
usually leads to a period of considerable instability. Many children move from
home to home, experiencing economic deprivation as their single mother,
dependent on state benefits, struggles to make ends meet. Parenting skills of
the lone mother declines as she spends a great deal of her emotional effort on
sorting out her life. A feature article on divorce in the Daily Mail
tells of the problem a divorced mother had with disciplining her two teenager
sons. ‘Without a man at home, I found discipline hard. Boys reach a stage when
they are taller and stronger than you and won’t listen. They played truant, and
the school didn’t tell me about it for months. No extra effort was made to help
me because I was a single parent, and neither boy came out of education with any
qualifications.’28
In those
situations where the mother develops a new sexual relationship, the children
have the indignity of sharing their home with the man with whom she chooses to
cohabit. It is not difficult to imagine the profound unhappiness caused to
children when their mother brings another man into the family home. In some
cases the children are exposed to a number of male cohabitees before their
mother eventually remarries. Most children know that this is an immoral
lifestyle, and are deeply upset. We saw in chapter 17 that these situations are
particularly dangerous for the children, who are at high risk of being abused by
their mother’s current lover. One has only to read the newspapers to see the
continuous catalogue of tragedies suffered by children at the hand of their
mothers’ lovers.
A cause of loneliness
Divorce breaks the bonds of companionship created by marriage and is associated
with feelings of isolation and loneliness. Young men do not do well following
their divorce, and we have seen their high rates of suicide. Many lose
direction, feel alienated and have a diminished sense of purpose in life. Older
women are especially likely to feel isolated and lonely, and face old age with a
rising sense of anxiety. The reality is a far cry from the optimistic and
misleading picture of divorce presented by many feminist writers. Christmas
becomes a particularly difficult time because of its focus on the family.
Following divorce it is not easy for family members to meet without a lot of
tension and anger. It is not surprising that a group like the Samaritans, who
provide help for people contemplating suicide, are so busy during the festive
season, for it is at these times that the loneliness caused by divorce really
strikes home.
A beginning, not an
end
Many
people believe that divorce brings an end to an unhappy situation and allows
them to make a fresh start. The notion of a ‘clean break’ divorce suggests that
the past marriage relationship is wiped away, allowing the divorcee to start
again with a clean slate. But the reality is different, for divorce is not an
end, but rather the beginning of a new and often difficult relationship with
their former marriage partner. While the divorce ends the marital relationship
between husband and wife, the parental relationship with their children remains
intact. The family created by marriage is not dead, but disfigured, with
unpleasant consequences for all members of the family. Experience shows that
for many people the feelings and memories of the divorce are vivid and fresh
many years later. In a feature article a woman admits that she still has bad
dreams about her ex-husband eleven years after the divorce. In the California
study half the women and one-third of the men were still intensely angry at
their former partner ten or fifteen years after the break-up.29
Although the marital part of the relationship is over, the parenting component
of the relationship remains very much alive, and continues for a long time. The
children remain attached to both parents and are passed to-and-fro between
them. Some children have to endure the appalling indignity of being
cross-examined by one parent about the lifestyle of the other. The
aggravations, bitterness, pain and jealousy that are engendered are debilitating
and emotionally exhausting.
So the
startling truth is that divorce does not wipe out the family relationships
created at marriage—it only distorts them, and divorcees live with this reality
for the rest of their lives. The history of their marriage remains; they are
forever ex-husband and ex-wife, forever father and mother to their children, no
matter what they do in the future. And this reality has profound consequences,
for the actions of each still affect the other in a very tangible way. When an
ex-husband ill-treats his ex-wife, he is hurting the mother of his children, and
that hurts the children. When an ex-husband does not support his ex-wife, then
it is his children who suffer financial hardship. When an ex-wife neglects the
children, and allows her boyfriends to mistreat them, the ex-husband feels acute
guilt and anger, for his children are suffering because he is not there to care
for them.
A human tragedy
So
now we know the reality of divorce. Its effect on men, women and children go to
the heart of the human condition. It has a profound effect on our spiritual
life, challenging our sense of right and wrong, disturbing our conscience. It
affects our inner being, damaging our dignity and touching the image of God that
is in each man and woman. It deeply affects our emotional life, causing a
permanent sense of sadness and loss. It affects our peace of mind. It is
forever engraved on the memory, which is never free of the thought of what might
have been. It causes an extreme sense of regret and waste. It affects the
present and the future. It affects the whole family and everybody that we
love. Its effects are permanent and can never be undone. In a sentence, the
reality is that divorce is an outrage against our children, violence against our
family, and a human tragedy for husband and wife of overwhelming proportions.
There are
millions who will testify that this is the reality of divorce. So we see that
the idea of the good divorce is indeed a cruel myth. We know from our
experience and our conscience that the biblical principle that we reap what we
sow is true. Men and women who sow divorce reap its consequences—this is the
shocking reality. Those who claimed that divorce was the answer to unhappy
marriages, and that it would lead to future happiness have proved to be false
prophets; their advice has had appalling consequences. Unfortunately, many
people have been misled by these false claims, and are now experiencing the
reality of divorce for themselves. Those who through their own selfishness and
wrongdoing instigate divorce will inevitably suffer the consequences of their
actions. Moreover, divorce demonstrates the biblical truth that the sins of the
fathers are visited on their children. God is not mocked; his moral laws for
marriage cannot be rejected with impunity.
Endnotes
Chapter 20. Divorce – the myth and the reality
1. Constance Ahrons. The Good
Divorce: Keeping Your Family Together when Your Marriage Falls Apart.
New York, Harper Collins, 1994.
2. Ibid. p9.
3. Ibid. pix-x in introduction.
4. Ibid. p10.
5. Ibid. p124.
6. Ibid. p45.
7. Ibid. p29.
8. Ibid. p11.
9. Anne Hooper. Divorce and your Children. London,
Robson Books, 1990.
10. Ibid. p88.
11. Ibid. p129.
12. Ibid. p63.
13. Janet Reibstein and Roger Bamber. The Family through
Divorce. London, Thorsons, 1977, p167.
14. Psychologists extol benefits of divorce for all the family,
The Times, 13 September 1996.
15. Dougal Mackay and Jill Frankham. Marriage and how to
survive it. Loughton, Essex, Judy Piatkus Publishers, 1983.
16. Ibid. p21.
17. Ibid. p36.
18. Ibid. p149.
19. Sarah Litvinoff. The Relate guide to starting again.
London, Vermilion, p133.
20. C.F. Donovan. ‘Divorce’. British Medical Journal,
vol. 289, 8 September 1984, pp597-600.
21. Ibid. 597-600.
22. Judith S. Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee. Second
Chances: men, women and children a decade after divorce. London,
Corgi Books, 1990, p7.
23. Elizabeth Hodder. ‘Measures to reduce divorce’, The
Times, 24 October 1990.
24. Wallerstein and Blakeslee, Second Chances, p279.
25. Ibid. p288.
26. Louise France. ‘The girl who went in search of a father –
and found Richard Gere’, Daily Mail, magazine or Telegraph,
Saturday November 9,1996.
27. Elizabeth Grice. ‘Mother was the rebel – I was the adult.
Jemma Redgrave talks to Elizabeth Grice about her unconventional family’,
Daily Telegraph, 6 February 1998.
28. Cassandra Jardine. ‘The reality of being on your own again:
Cassandra Jardine talks to three divorcees about their experiences’.
Daily Telegraph, July 16 1996.
29. Wallerstein and Blakeslee, Second Chances,
p59.
|