Should
You Stay Together for the Kids?
PAGE
1 | 2
| 3 | 4
Wallerstein
didn't always feel this way. Once upon a time, she too believed
that a good divorce trumped a bad marriage where children
were concerned. "The central paradigm now that is subscribed
to throughout the U.S.," says Wallerstein, "is if at the time
of the breakup people will be civil with each other, if they
can settle financial things fairly, and if the child is able
to maintain contact with both parents, then the child is home
free." Wallerstein helped build this model, she says, but
now she's out to tear it down. "I'm changing my opinion,"
she says flatly.
The
family-values crowd is thrilled with Wallerstein's change
of heart. Take David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute
for American Values. "There was a sense in the '70s especially,
and even into the '80s, that the impact of divorce on children
was like catching a cold: they would suffer for a while and
then bounce back," he says. "More than anyone else in the
U.S., Judith Wallerstein has shown that that's not what happens."
Fine, but does this oblige couples to muddle through misery
so that Johnny won't light up a joint someday or dump his
girlfriend out of insecurity? Blankenhorn answers with the
sort of certainty one expects from a man with his imposing
title. "If the question is, ŒIf unhappily married parents
stay together for the sake of their kids, will that decision
benefit their children?'-the answer is yes."
We
can guess how the moral stalwarts will answer such questions.
What about ordinary people? Michelle Wallace, 38, grew up
believing "constant fighting was normal. My parents were married
for ten years; they shouldn't have lasted two days," says
the website editor who moved to Sydney from Los Angeles in
1997. "My mother was diagnosed with M.S. shortly after they
divorced and she never got the chance to really have the life
she deserved."
Virginia
Gafford, 56, wishes she'd paid less attention to her own needs.
The pet-product saleswoman in Pawleys Island, S.C., first
married when she was 19. The marriage lasted three years.
She married again, had a second child, Denyse, and divorced
again. Denyse was 14. She developed the classic symptoms.
Boyfriends jilted her for being too needy. She longed for
the perfect man, who was nowhere to be found. "I had really
high expectations," says Denyse. "I wanted Superman, so they
wouldn't do what Dad had done." Denyse is at university now
and getting good marks, but her mother still has certain regrets.
"If I could go back and find any way to save that marriage,
I'd do it," she says. "And I'd tell anyone else to do the
same."
For
Wallerstein and her supporters, personal growth is a poor
excuse for dragging the little ones through a custody battle
that just might divide their vulnerable souls into two neat,
separate halves doomed to spend decades trying to reunite.
Anne Watson is a family-law attorney in Bozeman, Mont., and
has served as an administrative judge in divorce cases. She
opposes tightening divorce laws out of fear that the truly
miserable-battered wives, the spouses of alcholics-will lose
a crucial escape route. But restless couples who merely need
their space, in her opinion, had better think twice and think
hard. "If people are divorcing just because of choices they
want to make, I think it's pretty tough on the kids," Watson
says. "Just because you're going to feel better, will they?"
That
is the million-dollar question. Wallerstein's answer is no,
they'll feel worse. They'll feel worse for quite a while,
in fact, and may not know why until they find themselves in
court, deciding where their own kids will spend Christmas.
It's no wonder Wallerstein's critics find her depressing.
Does
Wallerstein's work offer any hope or guidance to parents who
are already divorced? Quite a bit, actually. For such parents,
Wallerstein offers the following advice; First, stay strong.
The child should be assured that she is not suddenly responsible
for her parents' emotional well-being. Two, provide continuity
for the child, maintaining her usual schedule of activities.
Try to keep her in the same playgroup, the same milieu, among
familiar faces and accustomed scenes. Lastly, don't let your
own search for new love preoccupy you at the child's expense.
Her
chief message to married parents is clear: Suck it up if you
possibly can, and stick it out. But even if you agree with
Wallerstein, how realistic is such spartan advice? The experts
disagree. Then again, her advice is not for experts. It's
directed at people bickering in their kitchen and staring
up at the ceiling of their bedroom. It's directed at parents
who have already divorced and are sitting alone in front of
the TV, contemplating a second try.
The
truth and usefulness of Wallerstein's findings will be tested
in houses and apartments, in parks and playgrounds, not in
sterile think tanks. Someday, assuming we're in a mood to
listen, millions of children will give us the results.
-Reported
by Jeanne McDowell/Los Angeles, Leora Moldofsky/Sydney, Timothy
Padgett/ Miami, Andrea Sachs/New York, and David E. Thigpen/Chicago
PAGE 1
| 2 | 3
| 4
|
|
|
November 6, 2000
| NO. 44
SOCIETY
AND SCIENCE
COVER
: Is Divorce Bad for Kids?
A controversial book argues that the damage caused when parents split
is graver than suspected. Should unhappy adults stay together for their
kids' sake?
Viewpoint:
Katha Pollitt on divorce's bum rap
SOUTH
PACIFIC
AUSTRALIA:
Trials of the Regiment
The armed forces have fine policies on violence and sexual equity, but
have they the will to implement those rules?
T
H E A R T S
FESTIVALS:
The Pacific is rediscovered in New Caledonia
CINEMA:
Omar Epps hopes Love & Basketball is a slam dunk
BOOKS: Steve
Martin gets serious in his novella Shopgirl
Margaret Atwood's
sinuous tapestry of family secrets
A Ugandan novelist's
haunting look at his homeland
TRAVELER'S
ADVISORY
|
|
