Children and Divorce

A Michigan Family Impact Seminars Briefing Report

Edited by

April 2000

Michigan Family Impact Seminars are jointly sponsored by

Wayne State University
State Policy Center, College of Urban, Labor, and Metropolitan Affairs
School of Social Work

Copies of this report are available from:

An electronic version is also available at:

Acknowledgments

Wayne State University
State Policy Center, College of Urban, Labor and Metropolitan Affairs
School of Social Work

Michigan State University
Families and Communities Together Coalition
Institute for Children, Youth, and Families

We also are grateful to the following individuals for their contributions to our 2nd seminar, "Children and Divorce," and its accompanying briefing report:

• Karen Bogenschneider of The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars, University of Wisconsin-Madison, for sharing lessons learned from her years of experience in conducting Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars.
• Stephanie Jacobson of the Institute for Children, Youth, and Families at Michigan State University, for her excellent organizational ability and support in working to organize the seminar.
• Linda Chapel Jackson of the Institute for Children, Youth, and Families at Michigan State University, for her editorial expertise and careful attention to briefing report details.
• Cindy Wilson of the Institute for Children, Youth, and Families at Michigan State University, for her outstanding organizational ability and unfailing good cheer in preparing for the seminar.
• Members of the Michigan Family Impact Seminar Legislative Advisory Committee, for their wise counsel:

Representative Patricia Birkholz, District 88
Representative Douglas R. Bovin, District 108
Representative Irma Clark, District 11
Representative Hansen Clarke, District 7
Representative Paul N. DeWeese, District 67
Representative Stephen R. Ehardt, District 83
Senator Robert L. Emerson, District 29
Representative Valde Garcia, District 86
Representative Belda Garza, District 8
Representative Patricia Godchaux, District 40
Senator Joel Gougeon, District 34
Senator Beverly S. Hammerstrom, District 17
Representative Michael J. Hanley, District 95
Representative Doug Hart, District 73
Senator George Z. Hart, District 6
Representative Gilda Z. Jacobs, District 35
Representative Mark C. Jansen, District 72
Representative Janet Kukuk, District 33
Representative Edward LaForge, District 60
Representative Charles LaSata, District 79
Representative Lynne Martinez, District 69
Representative Charles R. Perricone, District 61
Representative Hubert Price, Jr., District 43
Senator Dale L. Shugars, District 21
Representative Tony Stamas, District 98
Representative Joanne M. Voorhees, District 77

About Family Impact Seminars

• Family Impact Seminars are nonpartisan educational forums on family issues for state policymakers.
• The seminars analyze the consequences to families of an issue, policy, or program.
• The seminars provide objective non-partisan information on current issues. They do not advocate or lobby for particular policies.
• The seminars are designed to allow frank and open discussion among state legislators and their aides, Governor's Office staff, state agency representatives, and educators.
• A Legislative Advisory Committee selects issues for seminars based on emerging legislative need.
• National scholarly experts bring state of-the-art research on current family issues to policymakers.
• Briefing reports make scholarly findings available in an accessible format.

Eileen Trzcinski, Associate Professor
School of Social Work
College of Urban, Labor, and Metropolitan Affairs
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI 48202
(313) 577-4422
e.trzcinski@wayne.edu

Marguerite Barratt, Director
Institute for Children, Youth, and Families
Suite 27, Kellogg Center
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1022
(517) 353-6617
mbarratt@pilot.msu.edu

Table of Contents

About Family Impact Seminars

Executive Summary
Eileen Trzcinski, Ph.D. and Eric Genheimer, M.S.W.

The Presenters

Children and Divorce: Overview for Michigan
Eileen Trzcinski, Ph.D. and Eric Genheimer, M.S.W.

Children and Divorce: Outcomes for Children and Young Adults
Paul R. Amato, Ph.D.

Children's Adjustment in Conflicted Marriage and Divorce: Outcomes and Interventions
Joan B. Kelly, Ph.D.

Promoting Marriage and Regulating Divorce: Legal and Therapeutic Interventions
Robert E. Emery, Ph.D.

References

Selected Resources

Executive Summary

Eileen Trzcinski and Eric Genheimer

This edition of the Michigan Family Impact Seminars Briefing Report addresses the issue of children and divorce. First, we provide an overview focused on divorce law and policy in Michigan. Then we provide summaries of leading research, presented by nationally renowned experts on the topic of children and divorce.

Paul R. Amato, Professor of Sociology at the Pennsylvania State University, addresses the question of what are the consequences of divorce for children. He presents key findings from extensive research that examines the stressors that divorce can create; the issue of resiliency in children; and factors that affect individual differences in the adjustment to divorce.

Overall, his findings show that children who experience parental divorce, compared with children in continuously intact two-parent families, exhibit more conduct problems, more symptoms of psychological maladjustment, lower academic achievement, more social difficulties, and poorer self-concepts. However, the overall group differences between offspring from divorced and intact families are small, with considerable diversity existing in children's reactions to divorce.

Joan B. Kelly, Founder and former Executive Director of Northern California Mediation Center, examines what we know about how high conflict families affect children before and after divorce. She reports on research findings from the past 10 years that provide provocative and helpful information for legislators and other key policy makers regarding high conflict families and the interventions that can help children before, during, and following divorce.

Her work indicates that more recent studies investigating the impact of divorce on children have found that many of the psychological symptoms seen in children of divorce can be accounted for in the years before divorce. While children of divorce, as a group, have more adjustment problems than do children of never-divorced parents, the view that divorce, per se, is the major cause of these symptoms must be reconsidered in light of newer research documenting the negative effects of troubled marriages on children.

Robert E. Emery, Professor of Psychology and Director of the Center for Children, Families, and the Law at the University of Virginia, analyzes different law and policy alternatives for promoting marriage and regulating divorce. He draws upon several decades of research on children, families, and divorce to provide empirical evidence that can be used to help determine the appropriate goals of legal intervention. His chapter examines law and policy on the regulation of divorce; financial and child-rearing settlements; and the process of dispute resolution. It also discusses interventions that help parents and children cope with the process of divorce.

The Presenters

Paul R. Amato, Ph.D.

Paul Amato received his Ph.D. in social psychology from James Cook University in Australia. He spent four years working for the Australian Institute of Family Studies conducting research on factors that affect family stability and well-being. After returning to the United States, he joined the Department of Sociology at the University of Nebraska. More recently, he became a member of the department of Sociology at Pennsylvania State University. He has authored four books, edited one volume, and published over 75 journal articles. Most of his published work deals with families, with particular attention to marital quality, parent-child relations, and the long-term adjustment of children and adults to marital disruption.

Robert E. Emery, Ph.D.

Dr. Emery is Professor of Psychology, Director of Clinical Training, and Director of the Center for Children, Families, and the Law at the University of Virginia. He has published extensive research on children and family relationships, served on the editorial boards of eight journals, and been a member of the NIH study section. His books include Marriage, Divorce and Children's Adjustment (1999, 2nd Edition), Renegotiating Family Relationships: Divorce, Child Custody, and Mediation (1994), and Abnormal Psychology (2nd Edition, 1998). He lectures widely about children, divorce, and mediation, and he maintains a limited practice as a clinical psychologist and divorce mediator.

Joan B. Kelly, Ph.D.

Dr. Kelly, the Founder of the Northern California Mediation Center, was its Executive Director from 1981 to 1999. She is an experienced mediator in divorce, family, business, and organizational disputes. She is Past President of the Academy of Family Mediators and Past President of the Northern California Mediation Association. Her research, clinical, and teaching career has focused on child and family adjustment to divorce, custody and access issues, and the effectiveness of divorce and custody mediation for divorcing families. Her book, Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce, published in 1980, has remained a classic resource for clinicians, lawyers, judges, graduate students, and parents. She has published more than 60 articles and chapters in the area of her interests.

Children and Divorce: Overview for Michigan

Eileen Trzcinski, Ph.D. and Eric Genheimer, M.S.W.

In Michigan, divorce rates and the rates of children affected by divorce mirror national trends. Historical and recent changes in policies and laws within Michigan also reflect broader developments in family law that have occurred throughout the country. Within Michigan, however, many alternatives for future changes in law and policy have yet to be fully explored.

Chart 1 provides a graph of divorce rates for Michigan from 1900 to 1998. Although Michigan rates have fluctuated above and beneath national averages, the same basic trends apparent in the national data are evident for Michigan.

As divorce rates increased, the rate of children under 18 years of age affected by divorce also increased. Table 1 compares rates of children affected by divorce for the United States and Michigan. Within Michigan and in the United States, the rate of children affected by divorce reached all-time highs in the early 1980s, while the 1990s were marked by modest declines at the state and national level.
 

Table 1. Children Involved in Divorces and Annulments Rate per 1,000 Children Under 18 Years of Age (Selected Years 1960-1998)

Source: 1990-1998 Michigan Occurrence Divorce Files, Division for Vital Records and Health Statistics, Michigan Department of Community Health. http://www.mdmh.state.mi.us/

Based on these trends, current projections for Michigan indicate that nearly 50% of all first marriages are likely to end in divorce. Approximately 40% of all Michigan children are projected to be affected by a parental divorce before they reach age 18 [58].

No major research studies exist that specifically focus on outcomes for children of divorce in Michigan. In comparisons of Michigan and the United States, however, more similarities than differences are evident in divorce rates, demographics, and poverty and income rates for families and children. These similarities suggest that Michigan children are affected by divorce in ways that parallel the outcomes for children of divorce that have been identified through several decades of research using national samples. (See Amato, this report.)

Within the United States, major changes in the incidence of divorce have triggered major changes in family laws and policies that deal with divorce and its impact on families and children. The debate on how best to respond to these changes continues, with considerable variation in how state laws promote marriage and regulate divorce. (See Emery, this report.)

Extensive research and practice experience concerning how the process of divorce affects families and children have also led to the development and implementation of a wide range of interventions. These interventions are designed to assist families and children before, during, and following divorce. Within the legislative arena, debate on these interventions centers (1) on whether interventions are voluntary or mandated by law, and (2) on how much public funding is available to enable families to make use of these interventions. (See Emery and Kelly, this report.)

The following sections of this chapter briefly highlight major characteristics of Michigan law for the five areas of potential dispute in divorce cases identified by Emery (this report). It also briefly reviews the state of Michigan law concerning divorce interventions, such as parenting education and mediation.

Major Initiatives in Michigan Law and Policy

Property Division

Spousal Support

Child Support

Although the Friend of the Court must use the Child Support Formula when making support recommendations, a Circuit Court judge may differ from the formula as long as reasons are stated for not following the formula in a specific case. In keeping with many child support formulae in the United States, the Michigan child support formula is marked by greater complexity and discretion than formulae of child support determination available in many other industrialized countries [48,83].

Enforcement of child support orders are the responsibility of the Friend of the Court. Available mechanisms to ensure compliance with child support orders include income withholding, income tax intercept, license suspension, consumer reporting, and liens.

Despite recent substantial Michigan and national initiatives to establish and enforce payment of child support awards, the percentage of women in the United States and in Michigan receiving child support payments remains low. In contrast to countries such as Sweden and Germany [48,83], where nearly all single mothers receive child support payments, only 32% of single mothers in Michigan received child support payments in 1996 [58].

Child Custody and Parenting Time

Parent Education and Mediation

Within Michigan, the most widely available parent education program is SMILE (Start Making It Livable for Everyone) [80,85,86]. SMILE is an educational program for separating/divorced parents with children under the age of 18. The program provides information to help parents better understand the effects of divorce on children and to assist parents in understanding and meeting the needs of their children surrounding the parents' divorce.

A more recent initiative developed by the Oakland County Family Division Court is entitled COPE (CO-Parenting Effectively). This program represents a form of alternative dispute resolution and uses mental health professionals to assist families with custody or parenting problems to resolve their conflicts [85].

Although Michigan does not mandate mediation, the Office of the Friend of the Court must offer mediation that is free of charge when couples are unable to reach voluntary agreements. Participation is voluntary and both parties must agree to participate.

In conclusion, historical and recent changes in policies and laws within Michigan reflect broader developments in family law that have occurred throughout the country. Many alternatives for future changes in law and policy, however, have yet to be fully explored.

Given the pervasive, positive outcomes associated with parent education, mediation, and other interventions, legislative initiatives in this area might provide a useful means of helping to minimize negative outcomes for children whose parents divorce.

Children and Divorce: Outcomes for Children and Young Adults

Paul R. Amato, Ph.D.

Abstract

Children who experience parental divorce, compared with children in continuously intact two-parent families, exhibit more conduct problems, more symptoms of psychological maladjustment, lower academic achievement, more social difficulties, and poorer self-concepts. Similarly, adults who experienced parental divorce as children, compared with adults raised in continuously intact two-parent families, score lower on a variety of indicators of psychological, interpersonal, and socioeconomic well-being. However, the overall group differences between offspring from divorced and intact families are small with considerable diversity existing in children's reactions to divorce.

Children who experience parental divorce, compared with children in continuously intact two-parent families, exhibit more conduct problems, more symptoms of psychological maladjustment, lower academic achievement, more social difficulties, and poorer self-concepts. Similarly, adults who experienced parental divorce as children, compared with adults raised in continuously intact two-parent families, score lower on a variety of indicators of psychological, interpersonal, and socioeconomic well-being.

The view that children adapt readily to divorce and show no lingering negative consequences is clearly inconsistent with the cumulative research in this area. However, the average differences between children from divorced and continuously intact families are small rather than large. Furthermore, there is a great deal of overlap between the two groups. Many children from divorced families are functioning at a higher level than the typical child from a two-parent family, and many children from two-parent families are functioning at a lower level than the typical child from a divorced family [1].

Children's adjustment to divorce depends on several factors, including the amount and quality of contact with noncustodial parents, the custodial parents' psychological adjustment and parenting skills, the level of interparental conflict that precedes and follows divorce, the degree of economic hardship to which children are exposed, and the number of stressful life events that accompany and follow divorce. These factors can be used as guidelines to assess the probable impact of various legal and therapeutic interventions to improve the well-being of children of divorce.
 

Divorce may represent a severe stressor for some children, resulting in substantial impairment and decline in well-being. But for other children, divorce may be relatively inconsequential. And some children may show improvements following divorce. In other words, to inquire about the effects of divorce, as if all children were affected similarly, is to ask the wrong question. A better question would be, "Under what conditions is divorce harmful or beneficial to children?"

HOW DO CHILDREN OF DIVORCE DIFFER FROM OTHER CHILDREN?

The work of Wallerstein and Kelly suggests that children at every age are affected by divorce, although the nature of their reactions differs [87,88].
 

A meta-analysis comparing adults from divorced families with adults raised in intact two-parent families suggests that parental divorce has a detrimental impact over the life course [5].

Compared with offspring from continuously intact families of origin, those who experience parental divorce are more likely to drop out of high school, are less likely to attend college, are more likely to be unemployed, and enter adulthood with fewer financial resources [1,5]. This research also indicates that adults who grew up in happy intact families reported the highest level of happiness with their own marriages. Those who grew up in unhappy but intact families and those whose parents divorced reported lower levels of marital happiness. A similar pattern appeared for conflict and instability. Those from happy intact families of origin had low levels of conflict and instability in their own marriages. Offspring had the strongest affection for parents when their parents' marriages were happy and intact.
 

Overall, young adults who grew up in happy intact families had the highest levels of happiness and satisfaction, whereas those from divorced families had the lowest (these differences across groups are statistically significant) [1].

WHY DOES DIVORCE LOWER CHILDREN'S WELL-BEING?

WHAT INTERVENTIONS MIGHT BENEFIT CHILDREN OF DIVORCE?

Increasing Marital Happiness

Child Support Reform

Economic Self-Sufficiency for Single Mothers

Improving the Quality of Contact with Nonresident Parent

Therapeutic Interventions for Children

CONCLUSIONS

We need to keep in mind, however, that many children are better off living in single-parent households than in two-parent families marked by conflict. Furthermore, we need to recognize that most single parents work hard to provide their children with a loving and structured family life. Many single-parent families function well, and most children raised in these settings develop into well-adjusted adults.

Growing up in a stable, two-parent family does not guarantee a happy future, and growing up in a divorced family does not preclude the possibility of future happiness. Although divorce increases the risk of a variety of negative outcomes, most children from divorced families develop into competent citizens. These considerations suggest that the current high divorce rate is not placing future generations of youth, and society itself, in serious danger.

In conclusion, it is important to focus on establishing policies that will help narrow the gap in well-being between children of divorce and children from intact families. High divorce rates are facts of life in American society. If it is impossible to prevent children from experiencing parental divorce, steps must be taken to ease the transition.

Children's Adjustment in Conflicted Marriage and Divorce: Outcomes and Interventions

Joan B. Kelly, Ph.D.

Abstract

More recent studies investigating the impact of divorce on children have found that many of the psychological symptoms seen in children of divorce can be accounted for in the years before divorce. The past decade also has seen a large increase in studies assessing complex variables within the marriage which profoundly affect child and adolescent adjustment, including marital conflict and violence, and related parenting behaviors. While children of divorce, as a group, have more adjustment problems than do children of never-divorced parents, the view that divorce, per se, is the major cause of these symptoms must be reconsidered in light of newer research documenting the negative effects of troubled marriages on children.

More recent studies investigating the impact of divorce on children have found that many of the psychological symptoms seen in children of divorce can be accounted for in the years before divorce. The past decade also has seen a large increase in studies assessing complex variables within the marriage which profoundly affect child and adolescent adjustment, including marital conflict and violence, and related parenting behaviors. While children of divorce, as a group, have more adjustment problems than do children of never-divorced parents, the view that divorce, per se, is the major cause of these symptoms must be reconsidered in light of newer research documenting the negative effects of troubled marriages on children.

This newer research, generally more large-scale and sophisticated in design and statistical analysis, provides us with a more complex understanding of the source of children's adjustment problems in both married and divorced families. Such studies have found that the adjustment problems of children of divorce can in part be accounted for by the experiences of these children within marriages that later end in divorce.

This chapter will highlight the most important findings of the past decade regarding children's adjustment in the high conflict marriage. Interventions for divorcing families will also be discussed. All research findings reported here were statistically significant findings, in large carefully matched samples of divorced and never-divorced children, or in national survey studies involving thousands of families. These studies controlled for background or other relevant differences where appropriate.
 

HIGH CONFLICT AND CHILD ADJUSTMENT

Research indicates that the intensity and frequency of parent conflict, the style of conflict, its manner of resolution, and the presence of buffers to ameliorate the effects of high conflict are the most important predictors of child adjustment. The severity of fighting has been documented in many studies to have a central role [22,23]. Severe marital conflict that focuses on the child is more predictive of child behavior problems than is frequency of marital conflict or conflict that is not child-centered. These children express more self-blame, shame, and fear of being drawn into the conflict [47].

Direct and Indirect Effects of Marital Conflict

High marital conflict indirectly affects child adjustment, mediated through the mother-child and father-child relationship. Persistent, intense marital discord, and marital dissatisfaction, pervasively undermine the quality of parenting, including discipline, parent-child aggression, and affective responses [36].

Mothers in high conflict marriages are less warm and empathic toward their children, more rejecting, more erratic and harsh in discipline, and use more guilt and anxiety-inducing disciplinary techniques, compared to mothers in low conflict marriages. Fathers in high conflict marriages withdraw more from the parenting role and from their children compared to fathers in low conflict marriages.

Resolution of Conflict by Parents

Violence and Child Adjustment

Clinical research with preschool children traumatized by the earlier battering of their mothers demonstrates pervasive and differentiated negative effects on their development [65]. Repeated exposure to violence is predictive of posttraumatic stress disorder in children, particularly when combined with other risk factors, such as child abuse, poverty, and the psychiatric illness of one or both parents [10,24,59].

Compounding the effects of marital violence is the fact that there are higher rates of both child abuse and sibling violence in violent compared to non-violent high conflict marriages.

In a review of 31 studies, using a conservative definition of child abuse, the co-occurrence rate of abuse of children in samples of battered women was 40% [6]. This is similar to other estimates that between 40%-60% of children in all marriages with violence are targets of violence from both mother and/or father. Not surprisingly, children in violent, high conflict marriages have more symptoms than children in nonviolent, high conflict marriages [52], who in turn are significantly more symptomatic than children in non-violent, low conflict marriages [68].

Parent Conflict After Divorce

Adolescents who are caught in the middle of their parents' disputes after divorce are more poorly adjusted than those whose parents have conflict but do not use their children to express their disputes. Children caught in the middle are asked to send hostile messages or requests to the other parent, spy on a parent, and feel the need to conceal their feelings and thoughts about the other parent. If parents have substantial conflict, but avoid placing their youngsters in the middle, these children are not significantly different from youngsters in families with low conflict [18]. Such findings emphasize the need for divorce interventions and legal processes which will promote cooperation and reduce ongoing conflict.

INTERVENTIONS WITH DIVORCING FAMILIES

Divorce Education Programs

Empirical research indicates that client satisfaction is quite high, even among those mandated to attend [7,45]. It appears that programs incorporating video, skill-building demonstrations and exercises, discussion, handouts, and some didactic presentations are more effective than single format programs [45,63].
 

Divorce and Custody Mediation

Empirical research in five countries and two decades of experience lead to the conclusion that custody mediation should be not only widely available but also mandatory. Mediation should be a first-step effort toward settlement for all parents disputing custody and access, before proceeding to more adversarial processes [33,56,57].

Mediation is efficient in time and expense, and effective even with angry clients. Settlement rates range from 50% - 85%, depending on the setting, content, and prescreening processes. In contrast to the adversarial process where parents saw themselves as either a winner or loser, in mediation, both parents were more likely to report that they had "won" and that they were heard [33].

Mandatory mediation in the public sector requires protective policies for those unable or afraid to negotiate on their own behalf, including the routine utilization of screening, opt out provisions for victims of domestic violence, separate sessions, use of support persons, and protective orders [56,57].
 

Divorcing or separating parents should have available a hierarchy of programs or services in the public sector that address their particular needs and conditions. The most effective hierarchy will include parent education, self-help legal information and processes, divorce and custody mediation, attorney representation, custody evaluation, arbitration, settlement conferences, and judicial determination.

Forums that present opportunities to reach settlement and move out of the adversarial system should be available at each step of the way, commencing immediately after separation, so as to reduce interparental conflict and enhance the possibility of effective parent communication. However, in circumstances of child abuse and neglect, substance abuse, violence, reduced mental capacity, and mental illness, less coercive processes may not be appropriate. In such cases, the adversarial system provides an effective process for protecting children and parents.

Adapted with permission of the author from Children's Adjustment in Conflicted Marriage and Divorce: A Decade Review of Research, under review for publication

Promoting Marriage and Regulating Divorce: Legal and Therapeutic Interventions

Robert E. Emery, Ph.D.

Abstract

Several decades of research on children, families, and divorce provide empirical evidence that can be used to help determine the appropriate goals of legal intervention. In considering how children cope with divorce, we must neither minimize the difficulties involved in the process of transition or overstate the risk for abnormal outcomes. This chapter examines law and policy on the regulation of divorce, financial and child-rearing settlements, and the process of dispute resolution. It also discusses interventions that help parents and children cope with the process of divorce.

To suggest that the impact of divorce on children is inevitably pathological is an injustice to a great number of families. To suggest that divorce is an insignificant transition simply is insensitive. Perhaps what is most insensitive and unjust is to arrive at conclusions and implement policies that deal with divorce and its effects on children without carefully considering what we know, not just what we believe.

Based on the evidence reviewed in Marriage, Divorce, and Children's Adjustment [30], the following appear to be the overriding goals for divorce law and policy:

1. Encourage parents to take the long view and recognize that, despite their divorce, they have an ongoing and ever-changing relationship with their children and each other.
2. Support residential parents, usually mothers, who have the most responsibility for, and influence over, children.
3. Help parents contain conflict by treating them fairly in divorce settlements and making both feel empowered in the dispute resolution process.
4. Expect nonresidential parents to support their children financially, but income transfers should not be seen as unfair or undermine the nonresidential parent's incentive to earn.
5. Encourage nonresidential parents, typically fathers, to be involved in rearing their children and also encourage them to support residential parents in child rearing. In some cases, this will lead to joint physical custody.

This chapter highlights key developments in law and policy in the United States in the past two decades and also includes some discussion of proposals for reform. It also discusses interventions that help parents and children cope with the process of divorce.

THE REGULATION OF DIVORCE

The introduction of no-fault divorce was designed to achieve some specific legal goals, for example, eliminating collusion and often perjury in providing proof about the grounds for divorce. No-fault laws removed one mechanism for discouraging divorce, however, no-fault laws cannot be blamed for high divorce rates. The divorce rate has risen gradually over the past 100 years, and the introduction of no-fault laws in various states was not followed by a dramatic increase in divorce [46]. In addition, many disincentives to divorce still exist, for example, the inevitable decline in living standards.

Promoting Marriage and Deregulating Divorce

Perhaps the solution is to promote marriage positively rather than negatively. There are numerous opportunities for enhancement, from attitudinal (e.g., public discourse and public education about the benefits of marriage) to interventions (e.g., premarital counseling, couples therapy) to economic (e.g., eliminating marriage penalties in tax law).

DIVORCE SETTLEMENTS

In the last two decades, the rules governing financial and child care settlements have become more general to accommodate a diversity of families. In theory, the indeterminacy of divorce law gives the judiciary flexibility to respond to individual families, but it has a number of undesirable consequences. Many divorced adults feel that they are treated unfairly because the state's conception of the marriage contract, as communicated by the divorce settlement, does not match their own.

A family's standard of living must fall as a result of divorce because two households are more expensive to maintain than one. Divorced mothers and their custodial children suffer a greater proportion of the economic decline relative to fathers [30].
 

In large part, these differences are explained by (1) the added expenses of raising children, (2) differences in the employment and compensation of men and women, (3) the financial settlements negotiated at divorce, and (4) poor compliance with negotiated income transfers.

Property Division

The expanding definition of property has been another important development in the past two decades. Most state statutes (38 in 1995) now explicitly recognize nonmonetary contributions to the marriage. For many couples, the most significant consequence of the changing definition of property is the inclusion of pension plans in a property settlement. The disposition of the family home is another key issue in property division, although legislatures generally have not addressed the topic.

These and other changes in property definition and division have been a tremendous step toward achieving equity in many individual cases. On average, however, the impact has been minimal because most divorcing couples have few fixed assets to divide [78,89].
 

Spousal Support

Child Support

Major federal legislation enacted in 1984 (Child Support Enforcement Amendments) and 1988 (Family Support Act) provided money for enforcement programs and incentives to states to collect child support.

Despite strong talk and seemingly widespread changes, the present success of stringent child support enforcement appears to be limited. Still, evidence on reforms in various states, particularly in Wisconsin, which has been a leader in innovation, indicate that reforms can lead to better enforcement. [71,72].

In addition to enforcement, another major problem is the determination of the amount of child support awards. One problem, however, is that schedules differ between states, sometimes dramatically [75].

The biggest problem with child support is the least tractable one. In order to support children at the higher standard of living of the nonresidential parent, the residential parent must share in that standard.

LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUSTODY

The distinction that is used most commonly by professionals and increasingly by statute is between physical custody and legal custody. Physical custody pertains to decisions about children's residence, including their time with each parent, while legal custody deals with parental authority to make major child-rearing decisions.

Rules for Determining Custody

Most state statutes contain guidelines for determining children's best interests (43 in 1995) [29]; but these, too, are very general. For example, judges may be urged to consider factors such as the capacity of the parents to give love to the children and to care for their material needs, the stability of the family home, and the mental and physical health of all parties. A recent trend has been to add the important issue of family violence (child abuse and spousal abuse) to the list of considerations (included by 38 states in 1995) [29]. Still, the present guidelines offer little specific guidance.

Joint Custody

As a way out of the dilemma created by indeterminate sole custody standards, it has been suggested that both parents should retain custody of their children upon divorce. Joint custody has also been said to benefit children [30]. In 1995, 42 states had statutes that allowed or encouraged joint custody [29]. Every state has case law on the matter [37]. Joint custody statutes and case law differ widely from state to state, however, as do opinions about the arrangement.

The first major debate concerns differences between joint legal and joint physical custody. In joint legal custody, parental rights and responsibilities (decision making) are shared, but the children typically spend a considerably greater portion of their time with one parent. In joint physical custody, not only is legal guardianship shared, but children also spend approximately the same amount of time with each parent.

Between 1980 and 1992, joint legal custody in Wisconsin increased from 18% to 81% of cases while joint physical custody increased from 2% to 14% of cases [69]. The rates for the Wisconsin study are very similar to those reported for other large samples.

The second major debate about joint custody concerns how strongly it should be encouraged. The full gamut of options have been proposed [37,77]. Most state statutes simply define joint custody and allow it as an option, but some state laws indicate a preference or a presumption in favor of joint custody (a presumption is stronger than a preference). Some laws allow judges to make joint custody awards even against the parents' wishes [37]. Thus, no clear consensus has yet emerged.

Primary Caretaker Parent

THE APPROXIMATION RULE

Thus, the approximation rule is both pluralistic and determinative. The proposal allows for highly individualized parenting arrangements after divorce, but it offers parents and the courts specific guidelines in shaping those arrangements. For these and other reasons, the approximation rule has been embraced as the new physical custody standard in a proposal for reform put forward by the American Law Institute (ALI) [11]. In order for the rule to work in practice, the approximation rule may need to:

(1) accommodate the norm of increased paternal involvement as children grow older, a particular issue when children are very young at the time of divorce, and/or
(2) incorporate some mechanism for encouraging the increased involvement of the nonprimary parent over time.

Parenting Plans and Other Developments

FAMILY INTERVENTIONS

Divorce Mediation

Evidence that mediation leads to more settlement, increased party satisfaction, and more cooperative coparenting is compelling; however, mediation apparently does not achieve all of its goals. (See Kelly this report for a more extended discussion of the benefits of mediation.) In particular, mediation does not lead to improved mental health among members of divorcing families [30,55].

Mediation is not a panacea, but it clearly is step in the right direction for legal intervention in divorce. In fact, mediation likely should be mandatory, or more precisely, an attempt at mediation should be mandated, with parents given the opportunity to withdraw after attending one educational session. In circumstances in which parents feel threatened, educational sessions can be conducted separately [11,32]. In addition to settling many cases, mandatory mediation should help to foster the expectation that, even after divorce, parents need to find some way to cooperate in childrearing.

Parenting Groups and Parent Education

Bloom and colleagues conducted one of the first systematic investigations with experimental and control groups [14]. At 6 month follow-up, the adults in the treatment group reported less anxiety and fatigue and increased well-being in comparison to no-treatment controls. At a 30-month follow-up, treatment effects were even greater than at 6 months. Some significant treatment benefits remained 4 years after the initial intervention.

Wolchik and colleagues also systematically studied parenting groups [90]. In their study, mothers reported fewer negative events related to the divorce and a more positive attitude about changing fathers' visitation schedules. According to mothers' reports, children of treatment-group mothers showed drops in aggression but were no different from controls in anxiety, behavior problems, or depression.

School-Based Groups for Children

The most thorough studies to date have been conducted on Pedro-Carroll's Children of Divorce Project (CODIP) [74]. In a comparison of treated and demographically matched untreated children, significant improvements in teachers' ratings of problems and competencies were found for children in the program. In addition, parents reported improved communication with their children and significant decreases in anxiety were reported by the children themselves.

Stolberg's Divorce Adjustment Project (DAP) also provides some support for the effectiveness of school-based groups [81]. Based on 5-month follow-up evaluations, data indicated that the support groups improved children's self-esteem and social skills compared to the untreated controls.

The results of these two projects together with more informal program evaluations provide some optimistic evidence about school-based support groups. The opportunity to share with peers, together with the mastery of specific skills for dealing with divorce, can be helpful to children. Although school groups and other child interventions can be helpful, treatment also needs to focus on the primary source of children's distress: changing family relationships.

CONCLUSION

1. Property and Spousal Support

Clear rules for determining spousal support would be useful in this regard.

2. Child Support

A percentage formula, automatic collections, and standardization across states comparable to the payment of federal income taxes are important directions for the future.

3. Postdivorce Child Rearing

Parental agreement should be the overriding goal in determining physical custody, but the proposal that postdivorce residential arrangements should approximate predivorce parenting arrangements offers important guidance to parents and professionals.

Because adversarial custody disputes can harm children, policies mandating that parents first attempt to resolve their disputes in mediation should also be encouraged.

Adapted with permission of the author from Marriage, Divorce, and Children's Adjustment, 2nd Edition, 1999.

References

1. Amato, P. R. (1999). Children of divorced parents as young adults. In Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage: A risk and resiliency perspective. E. M. Hetherington (Ed. ). Mahwah, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Amato, P. R. & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and children's well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 557-573.
3. Amato, P. R. (1994). Life span adjustment of children to their parent's divorce. In The Future of Children: Children and Divorce, 4, 143-164. Los Altos, CA: David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
4. Amato, P. R. & Keith, B. (1991a). Consequences of parental divorce for children's well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26-46.
5. Amato, P. R. & Keith, B. (1991b). Separation from a parent during childhood and adult socioeconomic attainment. Social Forces, 70, 187-206.
6. Appel, A. E. &, Holden, G. W. (1998). The co-occurrence of spouse and physical child abuse: A review and appraisal. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 578-599.
7. Arbuthnot, J. & Gordon, D. A. (1996). Does mandatory divorce education for parents work? A six month outcome evaluation. Family Conciliation Courts Review, 34, 60-81.
8. Arbuthnot, J., Kramer K., & Gordon D. A. (1997). Patterns of relitigation following divorce education. Family Conciliation Courts Review, 35, 269-279.
9. Arditti, J. A. (1992). Differences between fathers with joint custody and noncustodial fathers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 186-195.
10. Ayoub, C. C., Deutsch, R. M., & Maraganorr, A. (1999). Emotional distress in children of high-conflict divorce: The impact of marital conflict and violence. Family Conciliation Courts Review, 37, 297-314.
11. Bartlett, K. (1999). Improving the law relating to postdivorce custody of children. In R. A. Thompson & P. R. Amato (Eds. ). The postdivorce family: Research and policy issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Beller, A. H. & Graham, J. W. (1993). Small change: The economics of child support. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13. Belsky, J., Youngblade L., Rovine, M., & Volling, B. (1991). Patterns of marital change and parent-child interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 487-498.
14. Bloom, B. L., Hodges, W. F. & Caldwell, R. A. (1982). A preventive intervention program for the newly separated: Initial evaluation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 251-264.
15. Bowman, M. & Ahrons, C. R. (1985). Impact of legal custody status on fathers' parenting postdivorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 481-488.
16. Braver, S. L., Salem, P., Pearson, J., & Deluse, S. R. (1998). The content of divorce education programs: Results of a survey. Family Conciliation Courts Review, 34, 41-59.
17. Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1996). Adolescents after divorce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Buchanan C. M., Maccoby E., Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Caught between parents: Adolescents' experience in divorced homes. Child Development, 62, 1008-1029.
19. Cherlin, A. (1992). Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Cherlin, A., Furstenberg, F., Chase-Lansdale, L., Kiernan, K., Robins, P., Morrison, D., & Teitler, J. (1991). Longitudinal studies of divorce on children in Great Britain and the United States. Science, 252, 1386-1389.
21. Conger, R., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, K. J., Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L., Huck, S., & Melby, J. N. (1990). Linking economic hardship to marital quality and instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 643-656.
22. Cummings, E. M. & Davies, P. T. (1994). Children and marital conflict. New York: Guilford.
23. Dadds, M. R., Atkinson, E., Turner, C., Blums, G. J., & Lendich, B. (1999). Family conflict and child adjustment: Evidence for a cognitive-contextual model of intergenerational transmission. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 194-208.
24. DeBellis, M. (1997). Posttraumatic stress disorder and acute stress disorder. In: Handbook of prevention and treatment with children and adolescents: Intervention in the real world context. Ammerman, R. & Hersen, M. (Eds. ). New York: John Wiley.
25. Dudley, J. R. (1991). Exploring ways to get divorced fathers to comply willingly with child support agreements. Journal of Divorce, 14, 121-133.
26. Elliot, B. J. & Richards, M. P. M. (1991). Children and divorce: Educational performance and behavior before and after separation. International Journal of Law and Family, 5, 258-287.
27. Ellis, J. W. (1990). Plans, protections, and professional intervention: Innovations in divorce custody reform and the role of legal professionals. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 24, 65-188.
28. Ellis, D. & Stuckless, N. (1996). Mediating and negotiating marital conflicts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Elrod, L. D. & Spector, R. G. (1996). A review of the year in family law: Children's issues take the spotlight. Family Law Quarterly, 29, 741-774.
30. Emery, R. E. (1999). Marriage, divorce, and children's adjustment. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31. Emery, R. E. (1999). Psychological interventions for separated and divorced families. In Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage: A risk and resiliency perspective. E. M. Hetherington (Ed. ). Mahwah, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. Emery, R. E. (1995). Divorce Mediation: Negotiating agreements and renegotiating relationships. Family Relations, 44, 377-383.
33. Emery, R. E. (1994). Renegotiating family relationships: Divorce, child custody, and mediation. NY: Guilford.
34. Fantuzzo, J. W., DePaola, L., Lambert, L., Martino, T., Anderson, G., & Sutton, S. (1991). Effects of interparental violence on the psychological adjustment and competencies of young children. Journal of Consultation and Clinical Psychology, 59, 258-265.
35. Ferrier, J. T. (2000). The reform spirit in family law. Michigan Bar Journal, February, 184-185.
36. Fincham, F. D., Grych, J. H., & Osborne, L. N. (1994). Does marital conflict cause child maladjustment? Directions and challenges for longitudinal research. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 128-140.
37. Folberg, J. (1991). Joint custody and shared parenting. New York: Guilford.
38. Freed, D. J. & Walker, T. B. (1991). Family law in the United States: An overview. Family Law Quarterly, 24, 309-406.
39. Freed, D. J. & Walker, T. B. (1986). Family law in the United States: An overview. Family Law Quarterly, 19, 331-411.
40. Friend of the Court Bureau. (2000). Michigan Child Support Formula Manual 2000. Lansing, MI: Michigan Supreme Court.
41. Friend of the Court Bureau. (1998). Michigan Child Support Formula Facts. Lansing, MI: Michigan Supreme Court.
42. Friend of the Court Bureau. (1998). Model Friend of the Court Handbook. Lansing, MI: Michigan Supreme Court
43. Garfinkel, I. (1994). The child support revolution. American Economic Review, 84, 81-85.
44. Garrison, M. (1996). How do judges decide divorce cases? An empirical analysis of discretionary decision making. North Carolina Law Review, 74, 401-552.
45. Geasler, M. J. & Blaisure K. R. (1999). 1998 nationwide survey of court-connected divorce education programs. Family Conciliation Courts Review, 37, 36-63.
46. Glenn, N. D. (1997). A reconsideration of the effect of no-fault divorce on divorce rates. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 1023-1025.
47. Grych, J. & Fincham, F. (1993). Children's appraisal of marital conflict: Initial investigations of the cognitive-contextual framework. Child Development, 64, 215-230.
48. Haas, L. (1996). Family policy in Sweden. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 17(1): 47-92.
49. Harrist, A. & Ainslie, R. (1998). Parental discord and child behavior problems. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 140-163.
50. Hendricks, C. L. (1993-1994). The trend toward mandatory mediation in custody and visitation disputes of minor children: An overview. Journal of Family Law, 32, 491-510.
51. Hernandez, D. (1993). America's children: Resources from family, government, and the economy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
52. Johnston, J. R. & Campbell, L. (1993). A clinical typology of interparental violence in disputed custody divorces. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63, 190-199.
53. Jouriles, E. N., Norwood, W. D., McDonald, R., Vincent, J. P., & Mahoney, A. (1996). Physical violence and other forms of marital aggression: Links with children's behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 223-234.
54. Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Norwood, W. D., Ware, H. S., Spiller, L. C., & Swank, P. R. (1998). Knives, guns, and interparent violence: Relations with child behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 178-194.
55. Kelly, J. B. (1991). Parent interaction after divorce: Comparison of mediated and adversarial divorce processes. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 71-88.
56. Kelly, J. B. (1994). The determination of child custody. In The Future of Children: Children and Divorce, 4, 121-242. Los Altos, CA: David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
57. Kelly, J. B. (1996). A decade of divorce mediation research: Some answers and questions. Family Conciliation Courts Review, 34, 373-385.
58. Kids Count in Michigan (1996-1999). Kids Count in Michigan. Lansing, MI: KIDS COUNT.
59. Kilpatrick, K. L. & Williams, L. M. (1997). Posttraumatic stress disorder in child witnesses to domestic violence. American Journal Orthopsychiatry, 67, 639-644.
60. King, V. & Heard, H. E. (1999). Nonresident father visitation, parental conflict, and mother's satisfaction: What's best for child well-being? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 385-396.
61. Kline, M., Johnston, J. R., & Tschann, J. (1991). The long shadow of marital conflict: A model of children's postdivorce adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 297.
62. Kramer, L. & Kowal, A. (1998). Long-term follow-up of a court-based intervention for divorcing parents. Family Conciliation Courts Review, 36, 452-465.
63. Kramer, K., Arbuthnot, J., Gordon, D., Rousis, N., & Hosa, J. (1998). Effects of skill-based versus information-based divorce education programs on domestic violence and parental communication. Family Conciliation Courts Review, 36, 9-31.
64. Leupnitz, D. (1986). A comparison of maternal, paternal, and joint custody: Understanding the varieties of postdivorce family life. Journal of Divorce, 9, 1-12.
65. Lieberman, A. & Van Horn, P. (1998). Attachment, trauma, and domestic violence: Implications for child custody. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clin of North America, 7, 423-443
66. McKnight, M. (1991). Issues and trends in the law of joint custody. In Joint custody and shared parenting. J. Folberg (Ed. ). New York: Guilford.
67. McLanahan, S. & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68. McNeal, C. & Amato, P. R. (1998). Parents' marital violence: Long-term consequences for children. Journal of Family Issues, 19,123-139.
69. Melli, M. S., Brown, P. R., & Cancian, M. (1997). Child custody in a changing world: A study of postdivorce arrangements in Wisconsin. University of Illinois Law Review, 49, 773-800.
70. Mnookin, R. H. (1975). Child custody adjudication: Judicial functions in the face of indeterminacy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 88, 226-293.
71. Myer, D. R. & Bartfeld, J. (1996). Compliance with child support orders in divorce cases. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 201-212.
72. Myer, D. R., Bartfeld, J., Garfinkel, I., & Brown, P. (1996). Child support reform: Lessons from Wisconsin. Family Relations, 45, 11-18.
73. Oldham, J. T. (1997). ALI Principles of family dissolution: Some comments. University of Illinois Law Review, 49, 801-831.
74. Pedro-Carroll, J. & Cowen, E. L. (1985). The Children of Divorce Intervention Program: An investigation of the efficacy of a school-based prevention program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 603-611.
75. Pirog-Good, M. A. (1993). Child support guidelines and the economic well-being of children in the United States. Family Relations, 42, 453-462.
76. Scott, E. S. (1992). Pluralism, parental preference, and child custody. California Law Review, 80, 615-672.
77. Scott, E. S. & Derdeyn, A. P. (1984). Rethinking joint custody. Ohio State Law Journal, 45, 455-474.
78. Seltzer, J. A. & Garfinkel, I. (1990). Inequality in divorce settlements: An investigation of property settlements and child support awards. Social Science Research, 19, 82-111.
79. Shifflett, K. & Cummings E. M . (1999), A program for educating parents about the effects of divorce and conflict on children: An initial evaluation. Family Relations, 48, 79-89.
80. Soderman, A. K., Ellard, M. J., Eveland, T. S., Potter, P. K. & Vandlen, D. A. (1994). Evaluation of a court-mandated and community-based program for divorcing parents with dependent children: SMILE. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
81. Stolberg, A. L. & Garrison, K. M. (1985). Evaluating a primary prevention program for children of divorce: The Divorce Adjustment Project. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 111-124, 387-398.
82. Thoennes, N. & Pearson, J. (1999). Parent education in the domestic relations court: A multi-site assessment. Family Conciliation Courts Review, 37, 195-218.
83. Trzcinski, E. (2000). Family policy in Germany: Feminist dilemma. Feminist Economics 6(1): 21-44.
84. Vandewater, E. & Lansford, J. (1998). Influences of Family structure and parental conflict on children's well-being. Family Relations, 47, 323-330.
85. Victor, R. S. (2000). Protecting children of divorce through parent education. Michigan Bar Journal, February, 180-182.
86. Victor, R. S. (1991). SMILE: Start Making It Liveable for Everyone. Michigan Bar Journal, June, 560-561.
87. Wallerstein, J. S. & Blakeslee, S. (1996). Second chances: Men, women, and children a decade after divorce. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
88. Wallerstein, J. S. and Kelley, J. B. (1980). Surviving the breakup: How children and parents cope with divorce. New York: Basic Books.
89. Weitzman, L. J. (1985). The divorce revolution. New York: Free Press.
90. Wolchik, S. A., West, S. G., Westover, S., Sandler, I. N., Martin, A., Lustig, J., Tein J., & Fisher, J. (1993). The Children of Divorce parenting intervention: Outcome evaluation of an empirically based program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 293-331.

Selected Resources

BOOKS

Emery, R. E. (1999). Marriage, divorce, and children's adjustment (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Emery, R. E. (1994). Renegotiating family relationships: Divorce, child custody, and mediation. New York: Guilford.

Thompson, R. A. and Amato, P. R. (Eds.). (1999).The Postdivorce family: Children, parenting, and society. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Wallerstein, J. S. and Blakeslee, S. (1996). Second chances: Men, women, and children a decade after divorce. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hetherington, E. M. (Ed.) (1999). Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage: A risk and resiliency perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

INTERNET RESOURCES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National and State-Level Vital Statistics on Number of Divorces and Divorce Rates. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Children and divorce. The Future of Children, 4, 1, Spring 1994. Available on line at http://www.futureofchildren.org/cad/index.html

DivorceNet. This site provides summaries of state specific statutes on divorce law and provides links to each state's Supreme Court, Circuit Courts, and government agencies dealing with child support and other issues related to children and divorce. http://www.divorcenet.com

Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement Home Page, The Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse

Michigan Department of Community Health, Division for Vital Records and Health Statistics. Historical and current numbers of divorces, divorce rates, and children affected by divorce. Available on line at http://www.mdmh.state.mi.us

Michigan Friend of the Court Publications. Available on line at http://www.supremecourt.state.mi.us/courtdata/friend.html

Michigan Family Independence Agency Child Support Website. http://www.mfia.state.mi.us/chldsupp/cs-index.html

U.S. Census Bureau, Child Support Publications. Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/chldsupt.html