Are children damaged by divorce?

Hi Ron:  I think it depends a lot on the age of the children and the circumstances of the parents' marriage.  I don't think there's any denying that in a situation that includes a lot of physical or verbal abuse the best course is to get children out of that environment.  But I read somewhere once that it's a child's worst nightmare come true when his or her parents divorce.  Children don' t have the life experience to understand and they often blame themselves. And I think once a child reaches adolescence, they really need the parent of the same gender, and this is especially true for boys.

A lot of couples, I think, tough it out while the kids are small and stay together.  That's probably what's best for the kids, but not always possible.  I've known many couples who you think are happy together and as soon as the last one leaves the nest they split up.

If a couple divorces, probably the best thing they can do for their children to help them adjust is not bad mouth the former spouse or try to turn the kids against each other.  That's pure selfishness and spite and it's really the kids who suffer most from that kind of behavior.

I concur with Ruth's statement. If there is abuse in the family then the best thing to do is to get out of it. Even if the children are not being physically abused themselves, seeing one parent abusing the other sets a child up for all kinds of psychological problems. Boys who see this kind of behavior often grow up to be abusive themselves, and the girls grow up expecting abuse and allowing themselves to be bullied.

If both the parents are emotionally and psychologically healthy and can come to a mutual understanding while continuing to remain married until the children are out of the house, then by all means I think they should. Children have a right to both their parents. But I think it's a rare situation today when you see both parents healthy enough to put their children first.

I think the question will also provides skewed answers as to how many children are affected.  40 % of children are now born outside marrige anyway, so they wouldn't be considered from a divorce/now single parent point of view. More couples are co-habitating and might well have children then later split up; their kids aren't going to appear in divorce records as there wasn't one.

Seems to me, the real question is the effects of children being brought up by lone parents, not matter how that situation has come about. To consider it soley by divorce only, loads of kids will be left out from this perspective.

A sad reflection of the social situation that has evolved in more recent years, I think Ron.  But, only the other day, a friend commented----In Victorian times, very few people divorced; that is, to imply marriages were more stable is those days, which to some extent may well be true. But, it leaves out the points that---  prior to 1857 you could only get a divorce by Private Act of Parliament of which not many did.  Then the laws were altered to make it easier---for the man at least---for he only had to prove one thing against his wife; she had to prove two things against her husband, who in all likelihood, would end up with the children.Plus it was still expensive. So, an easier alternative was to go their own ways; keep quiet about any previous marriage if they later chose to marry.

Putting Widow/ Widower on the Census forms was no guarantee that was the true situation, though in cases it of course, would be. It would also put a stop the the vicar asking further questions about any other parent doing the Census round, and where were they?