Divorce in the Changing Family Life Cycle

Judith Stern Peck, M.S.W.
Jennifer R. Manocherian, M.S.

Divorce has become endemic to the American society. Two decades ago it was relatively rare; today almost 50% of couples will choose divorce as the solution to marital dissatisfaction. Despite its prevalence, few spouses are prepared for the emotional and physical impact of divorce. Divorce affects family members at every generational level throughout the nuclear and extended family, thus producing a crisis for the family as a whole as well as for each individual within the family.

Divorce is a major disruption in the family life-cycling process, adding complexity to whatever developmental tasks the family is experiencing in its present phase (Carter & McGoldrick, Chapter 1). The normal life cycle tasks, interrupted and altered by the divorce process, continue with greater complexity due to the concommitant phases of the divorcing process. Each ensuing life cycle phase becomes affected by the divorce and must henceforth be viewed within the dual context of the stage itself as well as the residual effects of the divorce.

With the shape of the family irrevocably altered, the family continues to go on in a new form. Research indicates that family systems require one to three years to engage in the divorce process and restabilize and continue their "normal" developmental process (Hetherington, 1982). If a family can negotiate the crisis and the accompanying transitions that must be experienced in order to restabilize, it will have established a more fluid system that will allow a continuation of the "normal" family developmental process.

The sociocultural context of the family is another aspect to consider in understanding the impact of divorce, adding a vital and often overlooked dimension to the divorce process (McGoldrick et al., 1982). Some ethnic and religious groups accept divorce far more readily than others; some religions do not accept divorce at all. While the specific ways in which different cultures view divorce will not be dealt with here, it is important to understand that the ramifications of a specific culture's perceptions of divorce greatly influence the family's adaptational process.

During the past two decades, there has been a dramatic increase in divorce in the United States. The steepest rise occurred during the decade from 1966 to 1976 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983). In 1962 there were 413,000 divorces; by 1983, 1,179,000 (National Center for Health Statistics [NCHS], 1984). Thus the number of divorces has almost tripled in 20 years. Although in 1982-1983 there was a slight downward trend (NCHS, 1984), preliminary data from the NCHS indicated that in 1985 the divorce rate was up again, matching the 1983 level (The New York Times, April 14, 1986). All evidence suggests that divorce has become and will remain a variant life-style in almost half of the marriages of today's young adults (Glick, 1984).

In 1981 the length of marriage at the time of divorce peaked at two years, declining gradually every year thereafter, with the median duration time for marriages seven years and the average age of the spouses at the time of divorce between 25 and 34 (NCHS, 1984a). Thus the time marriages appear to be most at risk is during the first phases of the family life cycle, before and soon after children arrive. According to divorce data from 31 states, in 45% of the divorces there were no children; in 26%, one child; in 20%, two children; and in 9%, three or more children (NCHS, 1984a). About 1.2 million children were affected in 1981--a ratio of about one child per divorce (NCHS, 1984a). It is estimated that if the current pattern continues, by 1990 a third of all (minor) white children and three-fifths of black children will experience the separation or divorce of their parents; of those children it is far more likely that the white children will live in a remarried household within five years (Bumpass & Rindfuss, 1979).

Of the people who divorce, five-sixths of the men and three-quarters of the women will remarry (Glick, 1984), with the chances of remarriage far greater when the couple is in the early stages of the family life cycle. Of those remarriages, the divorce rate is even higher than for first marriages, with statistics varying according to sex and age groups. For men and women in the 30s who remarried in 1980, the predicted divorce rate is as high as 61% for the men and 54% for the women (Glick, 1984).

There are a number of etiological factors associated with marital instability:

Age and premarital pregnancy: Brides less than 18, husbands less than 20 (Norton & Glick, 1976), or couples who marry when there is a premarital pregnancy (25% of brides are pregnant [Furstenberg, 1976]) are twice as likely to divorce.

Education: Less educated men and better educated women are more at risk than better educated men and less educated women (Levinger, 1976). Compared with those who have not completed college or have postgraduate degrees, women who have completed four years of college are the group least at risk for divorce (Glick, 1984a).

Income: Women who earn more money are more likely to divorce than women with lower incomes (Ross & Sawhill, 1975). Also the greater the wife's income in relation to the husband's income, the greater the risk of divorce (Cherlin, 1979).

Employment: When the husband has unstable employment and income, or his income declines from the previous year, the marriage is at higher risk (Ross & Sawhill, 1975).

Socioeconomic level: Though the gap is narrowing, the relatively disadvantaged tend to be disproportionately at risk (North & Glick, 1976).

Race: Black couples have a higher divorce rate than whites, and interracial marriages are even more at risk (Norton & Glick, 1976).

Intergenerational transmission link: Divorce appears to run in families, though studies on the correlation between parental divorce and marital instability in the next generation have yielded mixed results. One possibility is that it is not the pattern of divorce per se but economic factors related to the divorce that often push children into early marriages with poorly selected mates (Mueller & Pope, 1977).

In the past research focused on the relationship between divorce and psychopathology, with marital status linked to mental disorder. Evidence to support this view stems from the psychological vulnerability of many people at the time of separation/divorce. Divorced people are six times more at risk to be hospitalized for psychological disorders as married people (Bloom et al., 1978; Briscoe et al., 1973). In addition, divorced people have twice the suicide rate of married people, more car accidents, more physical illnesses culminating in death (cancer and heart disease), and more problems with substance abuse (Bloom et al., 1978).

In our view this pathological perspective on divorce has both major methodological and conceptual shortcomings. More recent work on the impact of divorce, started in the past decade, views divorce as a transitional crisis (Ahrons, 1980a), forcing an interruption of the developmental tasks to be negotiated at the family's particular life cycle phase (Carter & McGoldrick, Chapter 1), creating in their place a series of separation/divorce-related adjustments that throw all family members into a state of chaos and disequilibrium for a period of one to three years (Hetherington, 1982) until restabilization takes place. Thus the distress is seen as a "normal" short-term response to crisis.

The lack of societal support or guidelines for the family going through this process adds to the difficulties. We need a model for divorce as a normative family transition (Ahrons, 1980a) and believe this framework, based on a crisis theory paradigm, is a useful tool for conceptualizing the divorce experience for the family. Encompassing stages and processes for divorce-related adjustments and accompanying life stresses, it offers a more positive perspective, providing the potential for a growth-inducing experience as family members develop new capacities to adapt.

In the past decade. there has been considerable research on the impact of divorce on the couple and their children. While recent media coverage has called attention to the plight of grandparents with respect to visitation rights, the divorce-adjustment process of the family system as a whole--grandparents, siblings, and other extended-family members--is often overlooked. We believe that each and every member of the nuclear and extended family is affected in ways that influence the process for all, depending in part on the life cycle phase of the family. For example, there is evidence that close grandparent/grandchild contacts is of value to all three generations of family members (Kivnick, 1982). In reviewing the literature, we look first at the impact of divorce on the family as a system and then at special issues for children of divorce.

According to the Holmes and Rahe (1967) scale of stressful life events, divorce ranks second only to the death of a spouse. Major individual adjustments must be made at two levels, emotional and practical--adjustment to the separation, with all the emotional upheaval that accompanies it, and adjustment to the new life, with problems in one area affecting adjustment in the other area (Spanier & Casto, 1979). Many interrelated factors influence the response: the circumstances surrounding the dissolution of the marriage, the nature of the post-separation life, age, sex, length of marriage, where the family is in relation to the tasks specific to its life cycle stage, initial psychological stability, the quality of the post-separation life. education, socioeconomic level, ethnic context, other stresses occurring at the time, prior experience with stress, and available support.

The adjustment process takes place in stages over a two- or three-year period, beginning with the predecision period and ending either with some sort of homeostasis established within the new one-parent household or with remarriage (Hetherington, 1977; Ahrons, 1980a). The transition is gradual. beginning long before the actual decision is made. often with only one spouse struggling with the idea of divorce as a solution to his/her dissatisfaction, and ending when the family has restabilized in a way that is understood by all members of the nuclear and extended family (Ahrons, 1980a). Ahrons (1980a) postulates five overlapping stages of this adjustment process, each one involving specific role transitions and tasks.

(1) In the first stage (Individual Cognition), at least one spouse is considering divorce and beginning the process of emotional disengagement, maintaining distance through separate activities and involvements. This period is often characterized by heightened stress, with considerable fighting, bitterness, blaming, devaluing the partner, depression, anxiety, and. always, ambivalence. There may be an affair, which often serves to expedite the decision.

One of the most important initial factors in adjustment involves the spouse's participation in--or lack of participation in--the decision itself. For the initiator the decision-making period is perhaps the most difficult of all as he/she struggles with tremendous remorse and guilt (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980).

(2) In the second stage (Family Metacognition), also pre-separation, the secret is revealed. A time of great distress, for some families this may be the time of greatest disequilibrium. If the family copes well at this point, the couple may be able to separate with well-thought-out decisions.

In the majority of divorces, one partner wants out more than the other. In studies on couples with children married an average of ten years, the majority of decisions were nonmutual (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980; Ahrons, 1981). Women tend to take the initiative (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980, Ahrons, 1981); men to oppose it (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980).

For the noninitiator spouse, the more sudden and unexpected the decision is perceived to be, the more difficult is the initial emotional adjustment (Spanier & Casto, 1979). Many noninitiator spouses are totally unprepared for the decision (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980) and experience an overall sense of low self-esteem, powerlessness, and humiliation.

(3) In the third stage (System Separation), the actual separation takes place. This is a very hard time for all the family, the outcome depending largely on how the preceding stages were handled. The more reactive the family, the greater is the crisis. Initially each spouse is in a state of heightened emotional vulnerability that can interfere with normal functioning. Common symptoms include the inability to work effectively, poor health, weight changes, insomnia and other sleep disturbances, sexual dysfunction, and use of alcohol, tobacco, and other substances (Hetherington, 1982).

There is always ambivalence. For the vast majority, lingering attachment persists despite anger and resentment--the more the attachment, the greater the distress (Weiss, 1979). Over time the anger and attachment decrease, with anger remaining longer. There is a sense of helplessness, a lack of control over life events, feelings of incompetence--socially and sexually, loss, loneliness, anger, frustrated dependency needs, and identity problems. Many are not satisfied with the new lifestyle and wish they had tried harder to make the marriage work. The person who initiated the separation may regret it and want to reconcile, while the noninitiator spouse may have gone into therapy or started to rebound and be unwilling to risk becoming vulnerable again.

Throughout this stage and all ensuing stages, each spouse is prone to tremendous emotional upheavals, to highs and lows. As soon as the emotional turmoil appears to be abating, something new will occur that sets the individual reeling one more time. This process repeats itself over and over for a period that usually peaks at one year, and may last as long as two years or more. With time the intensity of each swing slowly diminishes--like an upward spiral swinging back and forth, gradually reaching an end point. For those who functioned marginally before the separation, divorce may increase their difficulties; for others divorce stimulates their personal growth in a way that was not possible within the marriage. For many women it may be the first time in their lives they have felt autonomous; consequently they experience a newly found sense of competency and well-being.

There may be a series of separations and reconciliations--half of all married couples separate at least once (Weiss, 1975)--creating boundary ambiguities as the marriage moves back and forth from off to on, with family members uncertain as to whether or not to reorganize to fill absent roles. Premature contact with lawyers often escalates the crisis. When the separation becomes public and legal proceedings are initiated, the crisis may escalate still further.

In general men and women respond differently, with different issues and different coping styles (Berman & Turk, 1981; Chiriboga et al., 1978). At the time of initiating proceedings, women tend to be significantly angrier than men at their spouses, especially if they perceive the spouse as angry at them (Kelly, 1986). They tend to meet the stress of divorce head on, go through a period of emotional turmoil, become angry or depressed, and then recover (Chiriboga et al., 1978). Many men deal with their unhappiness by throwing themselves into work and later experience an overall low sense of well-being (Chiriboga et al., 1978). In the long run, there seems to be a significant difference between how women and men adjust emotionally to divorce. Wallerstein's (1986) ten-year post-divorce follow-up to the Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) study found that 55% of the women versus 32% of the men felt that their lives had improved, and that 64% of the women versus 16% of the men reported a sense of emotional/ psychological growth as a result of the divorce.

Many people will play a pivotal role: children, extended-family members, friends, lovers, co-workers, lawyers, and others. Support from family and friends is crucial for both men and women. While initially married friends may be supportive, after the first months there is often a sharp decline, particularly for women. Without such support the overall adjustment is more difficult. It may be self-imposed, as some people respond by withdrawing from family and friends at the time support is most needed. It may be that those around him/her are disapproving or are tired of hearing the same story repeated or are caught in loyalty ties with the other spouse. In any case the social network of separated people often shifts from old, married friends to new, single, more casual acquaintances. The adjustment tends to be faster when there is more social interaction (Hetherington, 1977).

(4) The fourth stage (System Reorganization) involves the difficult process of clarifying new boundaries. All members of the family experience the disruption and confusion that accompany the divorce process and have difficulty negotiating the transition during this stage. The loss of one parent from the household, the many changes in family functioning, and the stresses on each parent affecting his/her ability to parent all contribute to the impact on the children. The more the nonresident parent is excluded, the greater is the potential for family dysfunction.

The challenge for the family systems becomes one of reorganization rather than dismantling. New rules and patterns must be developed for all the habits and routines of daily life that were taken for granted no longer apply. Membership changes: the households include one spouse each, possibly with new partners, and their families; siblings may be separated; caretakers may assume an important position in the family; children who had left home or other extended-family members may return. Roles, boundaries, membership, and hierarchical structure change, with virtually every subsystem within the family affected: husband/wife, parent/child, sibling/sibling, grandparent/grandchild, spouse/family of origin, spouse/in-laws, spouse/nonfamily relationships (friends, work, community, etc.). Relationships with all systems outside the nuclear family change as well: extended family, friends, work, school, community. All of this takes place in the absence of norms or social supports for divorced families. Consequently the changes are a source of great stress, creating added conflict that interferes with making the transitions.

For the couple the process of terminating the marital relationship while maintaining interdependent ties as parents is difficult, especially since there are few useful role models to use as a guide. In fact many divorced people are clearer about what they do not want to do, based on seeing the experience of others, than what they do want to do. What makes the process even harder is that any ongoing relationship is considered suspect--a form of holding on. A recent five-year study that examined the nature of former spousal relationships (all parents) found that half the couples studied were able to achieve an amiable relationship: 12% were "perfect pals," 38% "cooperative colleagues," 25% "angry associates," and 25% "fiery foes" (Ahrons, 1985).

Other studies looking at the quality of the coparental relationship indicate that the first year is the hardest, with 95% reporting that their feelings changed considerably in the year after the divorce in a way that enabled a better relationship (Goldsmith, 1980). Preliminary findings of a recent study by Kelly (1986) found that child-focused communication was significantly better than discussion of marital issues, an encouraging indicator for cooperative postdivorce parenting. A combination of positive and negative feelings coexist, though neither to an extreme. Most discussions center around issues of parenting, with the major areas of disagreement revolving around finances and child rearing practices. Some former spouses get together as a family for such events as children's birthdays, school plays, graduations, and other events related to the children's lives (Ahrons, 1981; Goldsmith, 1980).

Despite a high incidence of conflict (Ahrons, 1981; Goldsmith. 1980), on the whole the relationship is satisfactory to most, though there are significant differences in the way men and women perceive the relationship, with men reporting considerably more parental involvement than their former spouses reported for them (Goldsmith, 1980; Ahrons, 1981). What makes the relationship work is not the interaction itself but clear and agreed-upon boundaries (Ahrons, 1981; Goldsmith, 1980).

For the spouses, the single most powerful factor in defusing the marital bond and restoring self-esteem is the establishment of a new love relationship (Hetherington, 1982; Spanier & Casto, 1979). Just as a new relationship aids the emotional adjustment process, economic stability eases the transition to a new life. For some the adjustment to a new life may be the hardest part (Spanier & Casto, 1979). Frequently a host of practical and financial concerns serves to escalate the crisis, and unless there is a great deal of money, economic necessity will dictate many changes. Separation may herald an entire change in life-style; in any case financial concerns become a major preoccupation for most divorcing people, regardless of income level.

The economic consequences are significantly different for men and women; with the majority of men reporting themselves as financially "well off," women as worse off after divorce (Spanier & Casto, 1979). Sweeping changes in divorce laws across the country, intended to treat both sexes more fairly, have led to some form of no-fault divorce in 48 states, with the financial decisions based on the view of marriage as an economic partnership. Marital assets are evenly or equitably divided, and, for the most part, alimony has become outdated. In a ten-year study on the effects of no-fault divorce in California, Weitzman (1985) concluded that women and children have become "the victims of the divorce revolution." With the exception of young women with marriages of brief duration and/or women who have always worked during the marriage and make enough money to be self-supporting, most women are unprepared financially or occupationally for divorce. This is especially difficult for women who have been out of work for along time or have never worked at all, have no marketable skills, or have young children.

Women with children depend in part on the father for support, which may or may not be forthcoming--47% of support agreements are not adhered to (U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1983). The incidence of defaulting on support during the first year postdivorce is estimated to be as high as 75% (U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1983). In 1984 Congress enacted legislation to enforce child-support collection through mandatory income withholding to cover overdue payments. However, even when support is forthcoming, the average child support payment (averaging 13% of the husband's income) is only $2110 per year (U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1983), a small portion of the actual costs. The average annual income for women with children receiving support is $9,000, and $6,500 without support (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983). As a result we are faced with a new, divorce-related social problem, called "the feminization of poverty," with over 50% of mother-headed households living in poverty (The New York Times, Sept. 7, 1983).

(5) The fifth and final stage (System Redefinition) begins when the family has resolved the tasks of the previous stages and has a new self-definition. New roles and boundaries have been clarified, and all members are included if good parenting is to take place. Where there are continued, cooperative ex-spousal relationships, the family restabilizes faster and more effectively. Wallerstein's (1986) ten-year follow-up to the Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) study on divorce found that the mutuality of the decision to divorce often remains an issue, with the initiator spouse reporting significantly greater satisfaction in the quality of life than the noninitiator spouse.

While divorce may be perceived as a solution to parents' problems, few children seem to want divorce, no matter how much marital tension preceded the split (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). Their reactions varying according to age, temperament, sex, position in the family, past experiences, support systems, and cognitive and social competence. For many children divorce means a change in the nature of the relationship with and access to extended-family members as well--grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins. Where there is a bitter divorce, loyalty conflicts often become transmitted across the generational lines in ways that serve everyone poorly.

In the past, research focused on the impact of father absence on children and examined the connection between delinquency, underachievement, promiscuity, and confused sexual identity and father absence. A review of 200 studies on father absence found that while father absence is indeed a factor, the cumulative impact of other psychosocial factors (such as poverty) was more central to the behavioral disturbances (Herzog & Sudia, 1973).

More recent studies have examined the impact of divorce on children by comparing the two-parent household with one-parent households. Lowery and Settle (1985), in their comprehensive review of the research literature on children and divorce, found that while some studies showed statistically significant differences between children in intact families and children in divorced families, others showed no differences at all. Further, they found that there were favorable findings in different areas for children in both intact and divorced families. Some children were able to adapt successfully to the stresses associated with divorce, whereas others had more difficulty. It seems that it is not divorce per se that creates long-range disturbances, but the specific circumstances emanating from the separation--namely, the loss of a parent, ongoing conflict between parents (Ahrons, 1980: Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980), the quality of the postseparation life, and the number and degree of other stress-inducing changes resulting from the separation. Lowery and Settle (1985) concluded that the data are more meaningful when looking at specific variables, such as age, sex, parental conflict, life changes after divorce, and the nature of the parenting arrangement.

The consensus of many studies of all types of arrangements was that the younger children are at the time of divorce, the greater the short-term impact. (While the findings may well apply to infants and toddlers, there has been little systematic investigation on the effects of children less than two years old.) However, in the ten-year follow-up to Wallerstein and Kelly's (1980) study, Wallerstein (1984) found young children who have no memory of the predivorce life adjust better over time than older children, who remember the family that was and consider the divorce the central event of their childhood. In addition, recent research indicates that many young adult children whose parents have recently divorced experience a number of difficulties involving loyalty conflicts and anger at their father, no matter who initiated the divorce (Ahrons, 1986; Cooney et al., 1986).

Many studies indicate that divorce is harder on boys than girls, though the reasons have not been examined. There may be correlation between distress and the leaving of the same-sex parent, affecting the structure and/or functioning of the one-parent household. Another possibility is that since boys appear to have a greater constitutional vulnerability to stress (Rutter, 1979), the moving about involved in joint custody is inherently harder on them.

Several studies on children's adjustment have found a strong correlation between poor adjustment in children and parental conflict, regardless of marital status (Hess & Camera, 1979; Raschke & Raschke, 1979). The results of many different studies indicate that the postdivorce relationship between the parents is the most critical factor in the functioning of the family. While an important factor in children's postseparation adjustment is the continuing, qualitative contact with both parents, the level of interparental conflict may be more central to the child's postdivorce adjustment than parental absence or the divorce itself (Hetherington, 1977; Emery, 1982). Luepnitz's study (1982) of nonclinical families' coping styles in different kinds of custody arrangements found that ongoing conflict was the only predictor of poor adjustment in children.

The number and degree of changes to which the children are exposed affect their ability to adapt. As has been noted, father absence is directly related to economic instability, which in turn affects adjustment.

Many studies have indicated that children want and need a qualitative, ongoing relationship with both parents. In the vast majority of cases, children reside with their mother, by mutual parental agreement. However, in a study on women and custody of children, Chester (1986) reported that where there is a custody battle and both parents are "fit," the father stands a far greater chance of getting the children.

Common divorce terminology refers to the mother-headed household as the single-parent family, conceptually wiping out the role of the father in a way that all too often parallels reality. Furstenburg and colleagues' (1983) sociological study revealed that 50% of the children of divorce have had no direct contact with the noncustodial parent in a year. By six years after the divorce, less than a quarter of the noncustodial fathers see their children more than monthly, with contact less likely if the children are girls and if the father has remarried (Hetherington, 1982). For all children the father remained a significant person, even if there had been no actual contact.

Different studies have found that all family members benefit when there is continued shared parenting. Where there is mutually supportive, cooperative coparental relationship, there is a greater chance that the father will remain involved, both physically and financially (Ahrons, 1981). Fathers, as well as children, do better when there is continued contact (Jacobs, 1982; Greif, 1979). Single mothers, often pushed into the role of emotional and financial caretaker of the family, experience tremendous task overload, which diminishes their capacity to adjust in all areas (Ahrons, 1981; Hetherington et al., 1978).

Most children are dissatisfied with traditional access (every other weekend with their father), feel cut off from the noncustodial parent, and want more contact (Wallerstein &. Kelly, 1980; Ahrons, 1981). Joint custody is emerging as a possible replacement for the traditional sole-custody arrangement, based on the assumption that it more closely parallels the structure and functions of the predivorce family, allowing greater and more natural access to both parents. In addition, with the vast majority of single mothers working, the assumption that the mother is at home and available is no longer valid. Both mother and father now have about the same time available for their children.

While most. if not all, studies report a high degree of satisfaction with the arrangement (Greif, 1979; Abarbanel. 1979; Ahrons, 1981), most research has been conducted on the response of early enthusiasts of the concept and little on the children's experience. One study found that a third of the children experience intense loyalty conflicts and an overconcern for being fair to both parents (Steinman, 1981). Another small study conducted on same-sex custodv found evidence that children like and do well with same-sex custody (Santrock & Warshak, 1979). However, the impact of splitting siblings--a bond that tends to strengthen with divorce--was not measured and cannot be overlooked. Luepnitz (1982) examined all types of arrangements, interviewing all household members, and found that joint custody at its best is superior to sole custody at its best.

From the research findings to date, it would seem that no matter what role the father held in the predivorce family, he is capable of assuming all the responsibility involved in single parenting. A different quality of psychological involvement grows out of the father's participation in a joint-custody arrangement. However, despite the notion that shared parenting might be the ideal solution to divorce, it is by no means a panacea for all. When the mother has assumed primary responsibility for the children prior to separation, tremendous adjustments must be made by both parents. Women are significantly less positive about shared-parenting arrangements and want their children with them for a greater amount of time than men--70% versus 40% of the time (Kelly, 1986). And while it may be hard for the mother to let go of her role as primary parent, it will also be an adjustment for the father to take a more active role, especially if there are young children.

For the former spouses, joint-custody arrangements may tie them together in a way that impedes forward movement of their own lives. For the children coparenting in the presence of continuing, intense conflict appears to be more harmful than no contact. In short, continued access to and qualitative relationships with both parents appear to be more important than the particular form of custodial arrangement.

In any case, despite all the talk about joint custody, there has been little change in type of arrangements in the past ten years. The judicial system may force the issue, however, by defining that what is "in the best interests of the child" is joint custody. A handful of states already have joint-custody statutes in effect, and the majority of states have joint-custody statutes pending.

As previously noted, divorce is a crisis in the family life cycle, creating a state of disequilibrium for everyone at all generational levels throughout the nuclear- and extended-family system. The disruption is associated with shifts and changes in membership and boundaries, requiring a major reorganization of the family system. The degree to which the family will be affected depends on the phase of the family life cycle during which the divorce occurs, as well as on other factors related to the ethnic. social, and economic context of the family. The work outlined in the following section will cover divorce at each family life cycle stage using the paradigm defined earlier in this book.

Sociological data support the view that divorce during this phase is more likely to occur when any one or more of the following factors are present: the couple meets or marries after a significant loss; one or both partners wish to distance from their families of origin; family backgrounds are significantly different; the couple marries after an acquaintanceship of less than six months or after more than a three-year engagement; or either spouse has a tentative or a poor relationship with his/her siblings or parents (McGoldrick, Chapter 10).

Divorce is the least disruptive at this phase of the life cycle. Fewer people are involved, less distinct roles have emerged, fewer social ties as a couple have been formed, and fewer traditions have been established. Without children the complex process of role redefinition is vastly altered. The couple has no real reason to maintain a relationship unless they choose to do so.

Starting over is less difficult, as each has a fairly recent experience of being single to use as a frame of reference. Financial independence, career issues, and socialization tasks are easier as well, especially in today's climate of dual-career families. Each spouse has most likely already been pursuing such tasks.

Marriage may have been an attempted solution to one or both spouses' inability to "leave home." Consequently the chief form of redefinition that may have to take place often involves unresolved family of origin issues. The age of the couple and length of the marriage may not always be the clue; rather it is important to see where each spouse is in relation to completion of the transitional developmental processes involved in separating from his/her family of origin. Treating divorce at this stage as a nonevent (a common occurrence) disqualifies the emotional process, which often manifests itself in anger, shame, loss, and confusion.

The following case illustrates how the decision to divorce is arrived at when the couple recognizes that they married as a "solution" to unresolved family-of-origin issues. Initially the therapist explored the couple's commitment to work on marital issues as well as the relationship between their marital problems and their own family-of-origin issues. The husband's unwillingness to commit to the therapy ultimately led to the wife's decision to divorce. The focus then shifted to helping the couple understand the reasons behind their "reactive" marriage.

Research has shown that the family is most at risk to divorce during this phase of the family life cycle--coinciding with the fact that children at this developmental stage are initially most affected by divorce. Once children arrive the couple has to make the transition involved in redefining the relationship to one another, in assuming the role of caretaker, and in realignment with family, friends, and community. For families with young children, the impact of divorce differs for children. parents, and grandparents according to the developmental ages of the children. Some of the research cited below comes from Wallerstein and Kelly's (1980) five-year study on the specific impact of divorce on children at different developmental phases. Their finding must be viewed within the context of their sample, chosen from a clinic population, some of whom were distressed prior to the separation.

Babies appear less directly affected by divorce, experiencing mainly the distress of the parents--although as they form emotional ties, they start to become aware of the changes, of the comings and goings of both parents and other caretakers (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). The combination of distressed and/or unavailable parents and inconsistent child-care arrangements can create demanding or withdrawn children (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). As they approach age two, their striving toward independence is closely tied to feeling secure. With the loss of a parent, their security is threatened.

Divorce is very hard for preschoolers (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). Developmentally they are starting to move away from home, toward peers and school. They have the beginnings of a sense of morality, combined with difficulty in distinguishing between their thoughts and reality, and thus are especially vulnerable to guilt and confusion. They may regress developmentally in a number of ways: separation anxiety, sleep disturbances, bed wetting, clingingness, fear of any leave taking, aggressive fantasies. (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). These manifestations of the child's reactions to divorce and the response by the parents can interfere with the development of sexual identity. When this occurs the child may become vulnerable to sexual acting-out behavior in adolescence.

The parents who are struggling with their own sense of failure, anger, guilt, and loss have difficulty providing a stabilizing, consistent environment for their children. Divorce is hard on both, but in very different ways. Hetherington and co-workers (1977) studied the impact of divorce on different family members in mother-headed families with pre-school-age children, with follow-ups one and two years later. Unless otherwise cited, the information that follows is based on their findings. It could be assumed that much of what they found could apply to families with older children as well.

Single parenthood creates tremendous stresses for women, especially when economic hardship is involved, making them feel unhappy, frustrated, anxious, incompetent, imprisoned, and distressed by the distress of their children. The relationship between the custodial mother and her children is intense and initially difficult for a variety of reasons, especially during the first year. If she is a housewife, she has to deal with the isolation of caring for young children alone. Working mothers (supermothers), burdened by two full-time jobs, will have very little time, energy, or resources for any life outside of job and home. Experiencing the combined effects of task overload, economic hardship, and social isolation, the mother's relationship with her children is stressed. The continued support of extended-family members--parents and siblings--and friends enhances the mother's parenting. By the end of the second year, life is becoming predictable once again: new routines, patterns, and responsibilities have been set; the parents' lives are settled; they are more available to their children; the visitation pattern is set; the support (or nonsupport) pattern has been established. Often restabilization is achieved when a new person is brought into the family system (extended-family member, housekeeper, babysitter, lover, etc.) (Isaacs, 1982).

Divorce is painful for men who lose the day-to-day contact with their children. There may be a sense of rootlessness, loss, and lack of continuity. They have to deal with being apart from their children and making a new home. Infants and toddlers need continuity in order to develop relationships: bonding develops as the parent shares in the day-to-day routines, such as feeding, bathing, and putting children to bed. Many men view themselves as inadequate for the caretaking role, especially when they have left the bulk of child rearing to the mother. Feeling at a loss, they gradually distance themselves from the relationship. As they withdraw they feel less connected to their children, and consequently their children often experience them as distant. Without frequent contact with very young children, bonding never occurs. There is a tendency for the father to be excluded or to exclude himself from the family as a boundary naturally forms around the mother and the children. This alienates the father, increasing the burden on mother and creating more distress and family dysfunction for all the participants (Ahrons, 1980). For some men this becomes so painful that they withdraw altogether.

The amount of contact and the quality of the relationship with the father undergo many transitions, some of which are unrelated to the children. The nature of the father's preseparation relationship with the children is not indicative of the role he may develop in the postdivorce family. In the beginning the father's contact with the children may be more frequent than preseparation for many reasons: attachment to children and/or to the wife, duty, guilt, inability to let go, or as a ploy to irritate the wife. However, this pattern declines rapidly over a two-year period, dropping off after a year. then leveling off after two years (Furstenburg et al.. 1983).

Many men call upon their parents and girlfriends to help with child care. Grandparents and extended family can be of help during the transition if loyalty is not demanded by either spouse. All too often the extended family experiences confusion with the disruption of the divorce and is unsure of what is expected of them.

The dangers at this phase are that the father may lose his sense of primary connection to his children and/or that the mother's attachment to the children will leave no room for father. The key factor in helping the family through this stage is recognition by the ex-spouses that a coparental relationship would benefit them and their children. The redefinition process that takes place when the spouses are able to separate the parental role from the marital role allows the family to restabilize (Ahrons, 1980a). The challenge is to enable children to experience sustained contact with both parents throughout their childhood.

To begin the reorganization and redefinition process, parents need to talk to the children together about the impending divorce. Children need to be able to express a wide range of emotions. To decrease their confusion, parents should try to prepare them for all the changes (Messinger & Walker, 1981). Most important, pre-school-age children need to be given a well-defined plan for visitation and contact with both parents, to reassure them that they will still be loved and cared for (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980).

The following case illustrates a couple's attempt to resolve visitation and custody issues. The central issues in their therapy involved helping the couple work at nonreactive coparenting arrangements for their child and getting some perspective on personal issues that were contributing to their custody disputes.

The impact of divorce on children of this age is more profound. Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) found that children six to eight seem to have the hardest time of any age group. as they are old enough to realize what is happening but do not have adequate skills to deal with the disruption. They often feel a sense of responsibility, experience tremendous grief, and have a pervasive sadness and yearning for the departed parent. At the same time, they experience recurring fantasies of reconciliation and often think that they have the power to make it happen.

When the divorce is bitter, children may be at risk psychologically if involved in loyalty conflicts. Some children assume or are drawn into parentified roles, taking on inappropriate adult responsibilities that are damaging emotionally They may develop school and/or peer problems characterized by poor performance, problematic behavior with peers or authority, and/or somatic symptoms (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980).

The older the children are at the time of separation, the easier it will be for the father to establish an effective parental role as he knows them as people, with personalities and interests to which he can relate. However, as they get older and more involved with peers and outside involvements, they may draw back from the father both physically and emotionally, unless he is sensitive to their general desire to cut back on their time with parents, and does not take it personally.

Again, parents need to present the fact that they are divorcing to the children together, giving them time to process the idea. Children need a chance to think and talk about their reactions and help in understanding the consequences for them in terms of the impact it will have on their lives and their continuing relationships with parents. relatives, and friends.

The potential for unresolved marital issues to become smoke-screened through the children increases as children get older, with the result that children may carry the loss, anger, and guilt for their parents.

The following case illustrates three goals of clinical work with divorcing parents. The first goal was to slow down the divorce decision so that if and when the couple decided to separate, it could happen in a less disruptive way. The second goal was to prevent the noninitiator spouse from drawing the children into taking sides against the parent who chose separation. The third goal was to help the couple recognize the benefits for the children of a cooperative coparental relationship.

Once again, the issues families face relate to the developmental phase of the children. Adolescence is a stage filled with many changes, physical and emotional. It is a time when children are beginning their own process of leaving home, forming an identity separate from their parents. This family lifecycle phase requires a new definition of children within the family and of parents' roles in relation to their children. Families need to establish qualitatively different, more permeable boundaries. Parents are no longer the complete authority; yet the children still need the stability they represent. Adolescents tend to want to be dependent at times and to test their independence at other times.

Because of their own unsettled nature, adolescents' reactions to divorce include anger, a desire for a stable home, and a need for clear boundaries between them and their parents, especially around such issues as sexuality, dating, and household responsibilities. As with toddlers, adolescents depend upon a secure base so they can leave. Divorce threatens this base, and they are angry with the changes. They do not want to have to think about their parents' lives. Many feel they have to hurry and grow up, others that they cannot leave. They worry about sex and marriage and may become preoccupied with their parents' sexuality.

Teenagers can go two ways. For those who are already having difficulties, divorce creates an added burden, increasing the risk of emotional problems. For others the change in participation in family life is a maturing experience. However, they may get drawn into unwanted loyalty conflicts or assume positions of blame. They want their parents' lives to be in order; they want parenting. They may be pushed into or assume parentified roles with siblings. They want to be left alone, but each parent may seek their companionship to fill the loneliness. When children do fill that void, it isolates them from peers and prevents them from moving on. Children at this age may engage in self-destructive behavior: truancy, school failure, substance abuse, sexual acting out. When divorce occurs, the transitional process needs to allow for continued adolescent movement. Divorce is further complicated because of the convergence of many similar issues for adolescents and parents--dating, dealing with one's own sexuality, learning to be independent.

Managing teenagers is difficult, even when the marriage is intact. Handling adolescents without the support of the other spouse compounds the difficulty, especially for mothers with sons (Hetherington, 1982), who accept the social myth that adolescent boys can only be "controlled" by men or the psychoanalytic myth that the mother-son relationship is somehow prone to becoming eroticized if there is no husband around. Continually confronted with new situations, the single parent can feel overwhelmed and not in charge. Coparenting may become nasty. When the teenager's behavior is problematic, neither parent knows what to do, and may compound the difficulty by blaming one another. The ability to coparent is directly related to the capacity to communicate and cooperate.

Each parent will have already established a relationship with the children. To the extent that it is a close tie, it will remain intact--unless the children are drawn into loyalty issues. While they have more contact with the custodial parent, teenagers usually see the other parent as often as they choose and/or is feasible. Depending upon the ages of the children, they often have input into the custodial arrangement. The danger is when they find themselves called upon to fulfill the role of the absent spouse, to become mother or father's confidant and coparent, especially if there are younger siblings.

For women at this stage, the economic ramifications of divorce vary greatly depending upon whether they worked during the marriage. Few can depend upon receiving ongoing alimony, and even if it is forthcoming, it is unlikely that it would allow them the same life style. Most will either have to seek employment based on whatever skills they have or struggle to upgrade their skills, seeking greater economic self-sufficiency for the long haul.

Most men at this stage have invested 15-20 years in developing themselves vocationally and are at their peak, with many productive years ahead. While they may anticipate hefty college tuitions for their children in the near future, it is unlikely that they will have to support their former wives indefinitely, and their concern often centers around preparing for a future in which they may have another family to support.

The following case illustrates the problems involved in single parenting an adolescent when the father effectively cuts off from the family after a bitter divorce. The presenting problem was the adolescent daughter's running away from home. The first phase of this postdivorce therapy treatment involved the mother and daughter. Once their relationship was restored, the next step involved opening up the system by bringing the father back into an active parenting role. This led to work in restructuring the coparental relationship for the benefit of the child. The third phase focused on the mother working on her own personal issues and their relation to her family of origin. As is often the case, the father was not interested in any further therapy.

Because of increased life expectancy, this phase of the family life cycle is the newest and the longest. At this time, after a long-term marriage, divorce can create a great upheaval because the couple has such a long history together. The children, generally, are on their way out of the home. Caretaking functions of the couple often switch to responsibility for elderly parents. Marriages can become vulnerable when children are no longer the major focus of the couple, and the restructuring of the marital relationship necessitated by their leaving home can bring with it the decision to divorce.

Children can have a separate well-defined relationship with each parent. However, despite the fact that they may be out of the parental home, divorce can be very stressful for young adult children, with a sense of increased responsibility to their parents and a vulnerability to loyalty conflicts (Ahrons, 1986; Cooney et al.. 1986). Often much of the anger is directed at the father for leaving the mother in their care, even when he did not initiate the divorce (Ahrons, 1986). The father-daughter relationship seems particularly at risk (Cooney et al., 1986). In addition, young adults may experience a sense of loss of family home, abandonment by their parents, and a concern about their own marriage (Ahrons. 1956). There is evidence of an increase in alcohol abuse (Cooney et al., 1986). The biggest risk for children is when the parents hold on to them or they assume the role of substitute spouse to fill the loneliness. When the parents are unable to make a meaningful new start, the children may have difficulty moving forward with their own lives.

It may be that the divorce occurs when parents who have stayed together "for the children" now feel free to end a long and unhappy marriage. Under those circumstances each spouse will have spent years disengaging and have developed enough separate friends and interests to make the transition relatively easier. One or both may have a new mate waiting in the wings. Unhampered by parental responsibilities, divorce can be a welcome chance to start a new life.

When a spouse is left unwillingly at this phase, however, divorce is devastating, especially for women, in terms of adjustment both to the separation and to the new life. Wallerstein (1986) found that women over 40 have a harder time rebuilding their lives socially, economically, and psychologically. For those whose primary role has been inside the home, divorce can be extremely difficult with both husband and children leaving at the same time. The social aspects are particularly difficult due to changes in the friendship network and reentry into an alien dating world in which youth and beauty are sought in women. For the wife who has never worked and now must support herself, the challenge may be impossible to meet. The job market is competitive, with age and lack of experience severe handicaps. Combined with all this is the continuing desire to have someone to depend upon. There may be the additional burden of caring for sick or aged parents. Some may develop psychological or physical symptoms that prevent forward movement. Other women may rise to the challenge, tackling the changes well. Much depends on age, career opportunities, interests and network outside the home, and the willingness to give up the idea of marriage as essential to happiness.

For a man divorce at this stage of life is usually inherently easier from a financial standpoint, as he has, most likely, been self-supporting all his adult life. The more difficult adjustments involve loss of home and being taken care of and beginning to date. Statistics show that while women at this and later stages have a remote chance of remarrying (Glick, 1984), men often deal with the difficulties by quickly recoupling; for which they find easy opportunity.

Children can have a separate well-defined relationship with each parent. However, recent research by Constance Ahrons on the impact of divorce of young adults ages 19-24 (AFTA Conference, Washington. D.C., June 1986) indicates that parental divorce can be very difficult. Although they do not feel responsible for the divorce, they experience loyalty conflicts, a sense of loss of family home, abandonment by their parents, anger toward dad at their increased responsibility for having to take care of mom, even when he did not initiate the divorce, and a sense of concern about marriage. There is evidence of an increase in alcohol abuse. The biggest risk for children is when the patents hold on to them or they assume the role of substitute spouse to fill the loneliness. When the parents are unable to make a meaningful new start, the children may have difficulty moving forward with their own lives.

The tasks of this transitional phase fall less on the parenting aspects of family life and more on the individual ability to adapt to life alone. This includes maintaining connections to children, relatives, and friends of the past, as well as having the ability to make new friends and engage in new activities and lifestyles.

The following case illustrates how the decision to divorce evolves when neither spouse is willing to make a commitment to work on marital issues. The technique of "future orientation" was used in an attempt to help the couple test the ramifications of their decision on all generations. They were also able to make cooperative plans for their postseparation lives, based on a discussion of their individual needs.

When divorce occurs for the couple in later life, it reverberates like a shock wave throughout the entire family, with every aspect of the previous phase that is problematic--financial insecurity and emotional adjustment--exaggerated. In addition, there are now three generations of family members whose lives will be altered by divorce.

There are many ties that bind after a long marriage--children, probably grandchildren, family, and friends. Because the individuals identify themselves in relation to the roles that emerged from the marriage, the process of redefinition is very difficult, especially in light of the fact that they grew up at a time when divorce was less accepted and that the present social climate is so changed.

The children's reactions and perceived responsibilities become key aspects of the divorce-adjustment process during this phase. Each parent may want to become reinvolved with the children in a way that is inappropriate. In a role reversal, children may now feel burdened by their parents.

Much of how people manage depends upon the circumstances of the divorce decision. An unwanted, unexpected divorce at this stage is traumatic, even when the marriage has been unsatisfactory to each for many years. When this is the case, much of the brunt of the hostility and bitterness will be felt by the younger generations (Ahrons, 1986). Starting over as a single person is very difficult. particularly when there is not a clear sense of identity apart from the roles within the marriage. It is especially hard to find renewed meaning in life at this stage of life. Loneliness is a big problem. Emotional support may have to come from outside the family. The spouse's parents may be dead, their children and siblings involved with their own lives. They may feel very isolated from their usual social network to the degree that it involves couples, finding that social life revolves around couples and that their opportunities are limited. If one spouse has been left by the other, he/she often feels ashamed, humiliated, and as a result may isolate him/herself from former ties and may not have the energy or desire to form new relationships.

There are individual adjustment issues for men and for women. For the housewife who has not worked in many years or never worked at all, divorce may bring with it drastic financial changes. There may be ongoing alimony, but unless there is a great deal of money, it will not be enough to manage the same life-style. If the woman must start work, job opportunities are extremely limited. The husband may be facing retirement, which means he will in all likelihood have less money to live on and more time on his hands. The divorce may be welcomed; however, more likely it will bring with it a void, accompanied by depression. The tasks for each spouse revolve around maintaining their own lives and continuing nonburdensome relationships with people in their support network-family and friends. The children's and grandchildren's reactions and perceived responsibility become key aspects of therapy as well. Pitfalls of this phase include "choosing sides" and reversing of roles.

The following case illustrates short term divorce counseling for an entire family when an elderly couple decides to divorce. Because it had been a well thought out, mutual decision, the focus of the concern was on the impact of the decision on the children and grandchildren of the couple rather than on adjustment issues relating to the couple. As the separate lives of both parents were discussed, their children calmed down and the family was able to productively plan for the changes ahead.

As we have stated repeatedly throughout this chapter, the divorcing family presents itself with a multitude of complex and far-reaching issues for which there are no simple solutions. All family members are emotionally at risk at the time of separation and divorce, the issues depending, in part, on the particular life cycle phase of the family. Each family has its own idiosyncratic set of associations and behaviors that will unleash strong feelings, depending on its ethnic and family patterns. Certain events inherent in the separation process are potential emotional landmines for every couple: the decision-making period, announcing the decision to family and friends, the actual separation, the initial and ongoing discussions around finances and the children, consulting with lawyers, and. finally, redefinition to a new life.

Individuals within the family, the couple, and the family as a whole may seek therapy at different points along the route. Clinical assessment and interventions vary according to the stage of the separation process and the nature of the presenting problem. Given the charged emotional atmosphere and the complexities inherent in the three-generational relationships of divorcing families, it is easy for therapists to become overwhelmed and narrow the field, accepting the family definition of its membership and excluding, in particular, the noncustodial father or one or more grandparents. In treating these families, therapists must include all family members in their understanding of the problems. If there is a history of abuse of any kind (addictions, spousal or child abuse), the clinical assessment and treatment plan must incorporate this information. Interventions must then be based on dealing with the ongoing problem in the context of the divorce-adjustment process.

During the decision-making phase, either one spouse or the couple may seek therapy. If it is one spouse, the first task is to convince the person to bring the other spouse in to discuss the decision together. With the couple the therapist's initial goal is to slow down the process sufficiently so that the couple can contract to explore the divorce decision and related issues. The decision belongs solely to the couple and not the therapist. It is the job of the therapist to help them clarify the process that brought them to view divorce as a solution, and each spouse needs to understand his/her share of responsibility in the disintegration of the marriage. This will allow them to come to a well-thought-out decision.

Another tactic is to raise future-oriented decisions, helping the couple to see the ensuing ramifications of such a decision, identifying issues specific to their particular life cycle stage. For many women, who may not have thought through the economic consequences of the decision and are totally unaware of the realities facing them, therapy should include a complete discussion of future plans. It might be appropriate to refer the spouse(s) to a psychoeducational group focussing on the process of divorce and encompassing financial and child-related issues.

Another alternative might be to recommend a trial separation with no legal implications, as a cooling-off period. For a trial separation to be effective, the couple needs to structure the following: a time limit, at the end of which the relationship will be evaluated and a decision will be made on whether to extend the separation, reconcile, or divorce; temporary non-binding living arrangements with provisions for money and children; if, when, and how the couple will have contact, including phone calls, dating, and sex; and the forum for working on the marriage (i.e., therapy). During the specified time period, rather than allow the couple to obsess about whether or not to divorce, the decision itself will be put on hold. The focus shifts to examining the relationship and the participation of each in the problems.

Another intervention aimed at helping the couple face reality is to recommend a consultation with a divorce mediator. A new field, divorce mediation, has emerged in the past decade as a rational and humane alternative to the adversarial divorce process. Basically a systems approach to divorce, mediation requires the couple to meet with a trained third party, the mediator, to discuss and negotiate any or all of the terms of the separation agreement: child and spousal support, property division, and child custody and visitation. Thus the couple participates in the process of reorganizing the family rather than turning the decisions over to lawyers. Lawyers are used instead at the end of mediation in order to formalize it. As a therapeutic strategy, referring a stalemated couple to a mediation consultation challenges their decision. When confronted with the reality of changed access to the children and financial hardship, they may return to therapy to work out the marital issues if their ambivalence, regarding divorce, is high enough.

Once the decision is made, the focus for therapy becomes the separation itself: how to make the decision public, discussions around children and finance, and the initial adjustment to the separation and the new life. If the couple has been in marital therapy, it is not the time to terminate therapy. Rather the focus of treatment shifts to divorce counseling--work with the couple and family in planning moves for the transitions ahead. It is a time of important decision making that affects the long-range future of all family members at a time the couple is least emotionally or intellectually prepared to think and act clearly. The therapist can walk the couple through the steps, taking into consideration the needs of everyone involved. Ironically, while in marital therapy the couple is directed toward separate spheres of interest, in divorce counseling the focus is on making sure they maintain appropriate roles together as coparents, with the emphasis on working out cooperative parenting and financial arrangements. In addition, since their relationships with their parents and in-laws will be affected, it is important to help them make the necessary adjustments while staying connected to them.

Children need to be prepared, yet most couples overlook this critical step or think that if they tell the children once that their parents no longer love each other but still love them, that constitutes preparation. The therapist can help the couple figure out what to tell children and extended families about the impending separation. This becomes the beginning of a process that will continue for years. Often the burden of responsibility for the children's well-being falls on--or is assumed by--the woman. When this occurs, the therapist can help both parents share parental responsibility.

The resolution of the emotional attachment, commonly referred to as the emotional divorce, becomes a key therapeutic focus (Bowen, 1978). For each spouse to get on with his/her life, it is necessary to disengage emotionally, to retrieve a sense of self from the marriage that enables him/her to go forward alone. Working through the emotional divorce is a threefold process: mourning the lost marriage and family, examining one's own role in the deterioration of the marriage, and working out a sway to go forward without distortion or cutoff from the past.

There are different strategies to use when confronted with a high level of emotional attachment. The initial task is the grief work. The person has to mourn many losses: the hopes, dreams, and expectations of a shared life that have now been shattered as well as the loss of the marital partner and the family unit. Concurrently the individual needs to look at his/her own role in the breakup with perspective rather than blame. Unless and until he/she is able to assume some responsibility for the problems, he/she will never be free to move forward without repeating the same mistakes in the future relationships.

Different members of the family--adults, children, and/or grandparents--may best be directed into psycho-educational or support groups as a follow-up to or instead of divorce counseling or one-on-one therapy. These modalities of treatment provide input and support from others going through the same experience.

Another painful aspect of divorce is the business of the legal dissolution of the marriage. Any and all discussions around the pragmatics of parting arc potentially inflammatory, especially when the legal proceedings are initiated. The adversarial nature of the traditional divorce process makes it difficult for even the most amicable of couples to remain on good terms, and yet, as we have seen, it is essential for the well-being of all family members that the spouses maintain a coparental relationship. Anyone looking to do battle or prolong the marriage can make use of the legal arena. And when the divorce process itself becomes bitter, it is extremely costly, financially and emotionally, hindering the emotional adjustment process for everyone involved. Therapists have a professional responsibility to inform their clients about divorce mediation, a process that has the potential of fostering healing and allowing for closure in a way that is lacking in the adversarial divorce process. By now it should be apparent that divorce therapy is a difficult business. The therapist must maintain a position of neutrality while joining with each member. In order to explore the issues with an open mind, the therapist needs to be very clear about his/her own personal issues and biases. It is probably not possible for a therapist who "doesn't believe in divorce" to be helpful to couples struggling with the decision or going through the process of divorce. On the other hand, therapists in the process of going through their own divorce, a process that takes at least one to three years, are going to have a hard time being objective and dealing with the pain triggered in themselves. Under all circumstances it is helpful for a therapist dealing with many divorces to have a peer-group or colleague-support system.

Abarbanel, A. (1979). Shared parenting after separation and divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry April.

Ahrons, C. R. (1980). Divorce: A crisis of family transition and change. Family Relations 29.

Ahrons, C. R. (1980a). Redefining the divorced family: A conceptual framework. Social Work Nov.

Ahrons, C. R. (1981). The continuing co-parental relationship between divorced spouses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry July.

Ahrons, C. R. (1986). Divorce when the children are older. American Family Therapy Association Conference, Washington, D.C., June.

Ahrons, C. R., & Rodgers, R. H. (1987). Divorced families: A multi-disciplinary developmental view. New York: Norton.

Berman, W. H. & Turk, D. C. (1981). Adaptation to divorce: Problems and coping strategies. Journal of Marriage and the Family 43.

Bloom, B. L., White, S. W., & Asher, S. J. (1978). Marital disruption as a stressor: A review and analysis. Psychological Bulletin June.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson.

Briscoe, C. W., Smith. J. B., Robins, E., Marten. S.. & Gaskin, F., (1973). Divorce and psychiatric disease. Archives of General Psychiatry 29.

Bumpass. L., & Rindfuss. R. (1979). Children's experience of marital disruption. American Journal of Sociology 85.

Cherlin, A., (1979). Work life and marital dissolution. In G. Levinger & O. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and separation: Context, causes, and consequences. New York: Basic Books.

Chester, P. (1986). Mothers on trial. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chiriboga, D. A., Roberts. J.. & Stein, J. A. ( 1978). Divorce, stress and social supports: A study in help seeking. Journal of Divorce 2.

Cooney, T., Smyer, M., Hagestad, G., & Klock, R. (1986). Parental divorce in young adulthood: Some preliminary findings. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry July.

Emery, R. (1982). Interparental conflict and the children of discord and divorce. Psychological Bulletin 91.

Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., Nord, C., Winquist Peterson. J. L., & Zill, N. (1981). The life course of children of divorce: Marital disruption and parental contact. American Sociological Review 48.

Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (1976). Premarital pregnancy and marital instability. Journal of Social Issues 32.

Glick, P. C.. (1984). How American families are changing. American Demographics Jan.

Glick. P. C.. (1984a). Marriage, divorce, and living arrangements: Prospective changes. Journal of Family Issues March.

Goldsmith, J. (1980). Relationships between former spouses: Descriptive findings. Journal of Divorce 4.

Greif, J. B. (1979). Fathers, children, and joint custody. American Journal of Psychiatry April.

Herzog, E., & Sudia, C. (1973). Children in fatherless families. In B. M. Caldwell & H. N. Ricuiti (Eds.), Review of child development research: Volume 3: Child development and child policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hess, R., & Camara, K. (1979). Post-divorce family relationships as mediating factors in the consequence of divorce for children. Journal of Social Issues 35.

Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1978). The development of children in mother headed households. In H. Hoffman & D. Reis (Eds.), The American family: Dying or developing. New York: Plenum.

Hetherington, E. M. (1982). Modes of adaptation to divorce and single parenthood which enhance healthy family functioning: Implications for a preventative program. University of Virginia.

Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M.. & Parker, R. D. (1977). Beyond father absence: Conceptualization of the effects of divorce. In Contemporary Readings in Child Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Holmes, T., & Rane, R. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 11.

Isaacs, M. (1982). Helping Mom fail: A case of a stalemated divorcing process. Family Process 21 (2).

Jacobs, J. (1982). The effects of divorce on fathers: An overview of the literature. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 139.

Kelly, J., Gigy, L., & Hausman, S. (1986). Mediated and adversarial divorce: Initial findings from the Divorce and Mediation Project. In J. Folberg & A. Milne (Eds.), Divorce mediation: Theory and practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Kivnick, H. Q. (1982). Grandparenthood: An overview of meaning and mental health. The Gerontologist 22.

Levinger, A. (1976). A social psychological perspective on marital dissolution. Journal of Social Issues 32.

Lowery, C., & Settle, S. (1984). Effects of divorce on children: Differential impact of custody and visitation patterns. Family Relations 34.

Luepnitz, D. (1982). Child custody: A study of families after divorce. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

McGoldrick, M., Pearce, J. K., & Giordano, J. (1982). Ethnicity and family therapy. New York: Guilford Press.

Messinger, L., & Walker, K. (1981). From marriage breakdown to remarriage: Parental tasks and therapeutic guidelines. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 51 (3).

Mueller, C. W., & Pope, H. ( 1977). Transmission between generations. Journal of Marriage and the Family 39.

National Center for Health Statistics (1984). Advance report of final divorce statistics, 1981. Monthly Vital Statistics Report. Vol. 32, No. 9 (Supplement 2). DHSS Pub. No. (PHS) 84-1120. Public Health Service. Hyattsville. Md. Jan.

National Center for Health Statistics (1984a). Births, marriages, divorces and deaths, U.S. 1983. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 32, No. 13. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 84-1120. Public Health Service, Hyattsville, Md., March 26.

Norton, S. J., & Glick, P. C. (1976). Marital instability: Past, present, and future. Journal of Social Issues 32: 5-20.

Raschke, H., & Raschke, V., (1979). Family conflict and children's self concepts: A comparison of intact and single-parent families. Journal of Marriage and the Family 41.

Ross, H. L., & Sawhill, I. V. (1975). Time of transition: The growth of families headed by women. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.

Rutter, M. (1979). Sex differences in children's responses to family stress. In E. J. Anthony & C. Koupernik (Eds.), The child in his family. Huntington, N.Y.: Krieger.

Santrock, J., & Warshak, R. (1979). Father custody and social development in boys and girls. Journal of Social Issues 35.

Spanier, G. B., & Casto, R. F. ( 1979). Adjustment to separation and divorce: An analysis of 50 case studies. Journal of Divorce 2.

Steinman, S. (1981). The experience of children in a joint custody arrangement: A report of a study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 51.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1983). Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 380. Marital statistics and living arrangements: March 1982. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Wallerstein, J. (1986). Women after divorce: Preliminary report from a 10-year follow up. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry Jan.

Wallerstein, J., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the breakup: How children and parents cope with divorce. New York: Basic Books.

Weiss, R. S. (1979). The emotional impact of marital separation. In G. Levinger & O. Moles. (Eds.). Divorce and separation: Context, causes and consequences. New York: Basic Books.

Weiss, R. S. (1973). Marital separation. New York: Basic Books.

Weitzman, L. (1985). The divorce revolution. New York: Free Press.