September 2001
Your Turn
Re: For better or worse? The impact of divorce on children (June 2001 Fraser Forum)
Dear Editor:
Martin Zelder appears, in his article, to draw heavily upon research conducted by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher. To his credit, Mr. Zelder acknowledges that the findings of Ms. Waite and Ms. Gallagher pertain primarily to those children who are products of low-conflict relationships. However, after paying lip service to the one-third of marriages that are considered high-conflict, Mr. Zelder ignores this significant percentage and allows subsequent information to be reported—and interpreted—as applicable to the children of all divorces.
While I appreciate Mr. Zelder's need to focus on a specific element of Waite's and Gallagher's findings, I believe he unfairly has skewed his coverage to reflect the point he is trying to make. The detrimental effects of a high-conflict marriage on children have been left virtually ignored in his article.
I recognize that Mr. Zelder's article refers to the impact on the majority (approximately 66 per cent) of marriage breakdowns, and the attendant impact on the children who are products of those unions. However, by ignoring the substantial number of children who feel the impact of the remaining 33 percent of divorces, he has painted an incomplete—and inaccurate—picture.
As, no doubt, you are aware, children who are forced to live in families characterized by violence, poverty, neglect and/or substance abuse also suffer grave consequences, including impaired physical, mental and emotional health, decreased scholastic achievements, increased likelihood of criminal activity and reduced career success. Rather than exacerbating the problems associated with such environments, divorce incontestably provides relief and an opportunity to limit further damage for the offspring of such unhappy situations.
I have a particular axe to grind on this issue. Unlike Ms. Waite and Ms. Gallagher, I do not pretend to be "dispassionate" about this issue. As the product of a poverty-ridden family of six children, in which at least one alcoholic parent routinely was abusive and both were neglectful, I arrived at adulthood with a coloured perspective on marriage and relationships, carrying much of the baggage Mr. Zelder's article attributes to divorce. My parents remained married until my father's death earlier this year.
A high school drop-out, I became pregnant at 16 and married the father of my child a few months later. Within five years, we were the mutually unhappy, overweight parents of three children, living near the poverty line in a turbulent (if non-violent) marriage. A divorce, five years of equivalency and post-secondary education, and thousands of dollars in student loans later, I (along with my children) embarked on the road to renewal and success. Today, 15 years later, I am inordinately happy, healthy, a leader in my community and considered successful by my peers and the community at large.
My children are healthy, well-adjusted young adults who are all university graduates well on their way to success in their chosen fields. None bear any visible scars of divorce. We remain a tightly-knit family unit, minus the requisite father figure, that boasts a healthy optimism and shared concerns, support, and love for each other and our community.
The point to this diatribe? Sometimes, divorce is the best thing that can happen to a family. By concentrating on the two-thirds of children who feel the negative impacts of divorce, Mr. Zelder's article has perpetuated a disservice to those children—and parents—who benefit from a parting of the ways. From my admittedly biased perspective, a little balance in the article would have been appreciated.
Sincerely,
Judy Imerson (by e-mail)
info@fraserinstitute.ca
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3G7
Tel: (604) 688-0221 Fax: (604) 688-8539 Book Orders: 1-800-665-3558 ext. 580
You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.