Home
A spectacular example of these truths emerged in the fallout from the Kavanagh v Kavanagh divorce case, when the two parties – lawyers themselves, middle aged, presumably rational and with three children – managed to fritter away their £3m fortune in fighting each other through the courts. Horrendous financial consequences, obviously, but ponder also the emotional impact, including the impact on the children.
An adversarial system inadvertently exploits the pain and disappointment of the relationship breakdown. It endeavours to soothe that hurt by turning ex-lovers into antagonists whose interests are now opposed to each other. With such practices, anger and fury come to stand in for broken hearts and they cast aside the capacity to mourn a lost love and think about what the children require of each parent.
Of course, it's all too easy to blame lawyers when a bullish stand is often appreciated by divorcing individuals who are devastated or who, conversely, feel guilty. The tough stances provide a temporary emotional shield against the continuing hurt and confusions.
But if antagonism becomes the form of engagement, then both parties get stuck in a ghastly pas de deux – see the Kavanaghs – creating a relationship in which the other is the enemy rather than a relationship that retains affection for what once was. The two people are as connected as ever before, but on the ghoulish basis of hate, rage and misunderstanding.
No one is released and perhaps that is the point. Some people will prefer to be connected negatively rather than not at all. If there is a third party involved, then antipathy with the ex can often be used to bolster potential cracks in the new relationship, particularly if that relationship had clandestine origins. The conspiratorial thrust may persist with a continuing need to bond against the "wicked" wife or husband. There is a threesome afoot, rather than a separated couple.
No one leaves a long-term relationship scot-free or without conflict. But as long as the healing is interrupted by continual belligerence on the side of one party, as can often happen when the law gets involved, we can assume that the belligerent is unsteady. She or he is using attack to bolster emotional fragility and treating the other as if they were still in a partnership and had emotional claims on one another. When this happens on both sides, it makes provision for the children extremely challenging.
From this regard, from the child's viewpoint, a new HBO documentary, Don't Divorce Me, extracts of which can now be seen online, promises more good sense from the children than was evident from the adults last week. "Try to make sure that your kids get both parents kind of equally"; "tell me it's not my fault"; "learn to get along" are some of the "rules" offered by the young children of divorce in the film. Common sense, you might think, but how often is this missing from their parents' outlook?
From a child's point of view, there is rarely a great time for parents to separate, even if there has been a lot of commotion and fighting. Children want what they have grown up with (which is an argument for very early separation if the couple are really unable to co-operate). They find change in familial arrangements disconcerting and painful. If their parents have been together until they are eight or 14, or even 19 and 26, their internal world is structured to see themselves in relation to that set-up.
What makes it harder or easier depends entirely on how the separating couple manage their own relationship and their arrangements with the children. At a minimum, consistency is what is required. It is also crucial that the children are allowed to have a relationship with each parent without being inveigled into spying or message- bearing. "Don't put me in the middle," says one of the children in the HBO documentary.
It isn't for children to sort out things for the parents. It isn't for children to take on the attitude of a parent who feels aggrieved and delivers that to the other parent. Both parents need to ensure that they have the "cleanest" possible relationship with their children so that the children can trust the parent to look out for them. The parents' job is to be there for their kids, not the other way round. Troubles between parents need to be talked through with friends and not visited on the children.
But since we all know these verities, the question arises: why do they get so easily derailed? Why do individuals who can be apparently wise and straightforward elsewhere in their lives so mistreat their children and their ex-loves? Perhaps it's something to do with a sense of responsibility, or lack of it.
The concept of no-fault divorce that is now legally enshrined (and is a good thing in itself) can unintentionally result in the individuals believing that they bear no responsibility for the breakdown. But "no fault" does not mean "no responsibility".
In fact, the eliding of the one into the other – confusing technical and moral terms, and adults not taking responsibility, can get in the way of managing the fallout. What's more, there are hardly children anywhere who don't worry that at some level it was their fault that their parents couldn't stay together or get on once they are separated..
Grow up, then, is the simple call to adults who are breaking up or divorcing. There is no way to avoid the pain of separation, but there is a means to shorten its duration.
Take charge of your own behaviour. And don't expect that others – the courts, the lawyers or the children – will solve the anguish and sorrows that divorce brings. You owe it to yourselves and your children.
An adversarial system inadvertently exploits the pain and disappointment of the relationship breakdown. It endeavours to soothe that hurt by turning ex-lovers into antagonists whose interests are now opposed to each other. With such practices, anger and fury come to stand in for broken hearts and they cast aside the capacity to mourn a lost love and think about what the children require of each parent.
Of course, it's all too easy to blame lawyers when a bullish stand is often appreciated by divorcing individuals who are devastated or who, conversely, feel guilty. The tough stances provide a temporary emotional shield against the continuing hurt and confusions.
But if antagonism becomes the form of engagement, then both parties get stuck in a ghastly pas de deux – see the Kavanaghs – creating a relationship in which the other is the enemy rather than a relationship that retains affection for what once was. The two people are as connected as ever before, but on the ghoulish basis of hate, rage and misunderstanding.
No one is released and perhaps that is the point. Some people will prefer to be connected negatively rather than not at all. If there is a third party involved, then antipathy with the ex can often be used to bolster potential cracks in the new relationship, particularly if that relationship had clandestine origins. The conspiratorial thrust may persist with a continuing need to bond against the "wicked" wife or husband. There is a threesome afoot, rather than a separated couple.
No one leaves a long-term relationship scot-free or without conflict. But as long as the healing is interrupted by continual belligerence on the side of one party, as can often happen when the law gets involved, we can assume that the belligerent is unsteady. She or he is using attack to bolster emotional fragility and treating the other as if they were still in a partnership and had emotional claims on one another. When this happens on both sides, it makes provision for the children extremely challenging.
From this regard, from the child's viewpoint, a new HBO documentary, Don't Divorce Me, extracts of which can now be seen online, promises more good sense from the children than was evident from the adults last week. "Try to make sure that your kids get both parents kind of equally"; "tell me it's not my fault"; "learn to get along" are some of the "rules" offered by the young children of divorce in the film. Common sense, you might think, but how often is this missing from their parents' outlook?
From a child's point of view, there is rarely a great time for parents to separate, even if there has been a lot of commotion and fighting. Children want what they have grown up with (which is an argument for very early separation if the couple are really unable to co-operate). They find change in familial arrangements disconcerting and painful. If their parents have been together until they are eight or 14, or even 19 and 26, their internal world is structured to see themselves in relation to that set-up.
What makes it harder or easier depends entirely on how the separating couple manage their own relationship and their arrangements with the children. At a minimum, consistency is what is required. It is also crucial that the children are allowed to have a relationship with each parent without being inveigled into spying or message- bearing. "Don't put me in the middle," says one of the children in the HBO documentary.
It isn't for children to sort out things for the parents. It isn't for children to take on the attitude of a parent who feels aggrieved and delivers that to the other parent. Both parents need to ensure that they have the "cleanest" possible relationship with their children so that the children can trust the parent to look out for them. The parents' job is to be there for their kids, not the other way round. Troubles between parents need to be talked through with friends and not visited on the children.
But since we all know these verities, the question arises: why do they get so easily derailed? Why do individuals who can be apparently wise and straightforward elsewhere in their lives so mistreat their children and their ex-loves? Perhaps it's something to do with a sense of responsibility, or lack of it.
The concept of no-fault divorce that is now legally enshrined (and is a good thing in itself) can unintentionally result in the individuals believing that they bear no responsibility for the breakdown. But "no fault" does not mean "no responsibility".
In fact, the eliding of the one into the other – confusing technical and moral terms, and adults not taking responsibility, can get in the way of managing the fallout. What's more, there are hardly children anywhere who don't worry that at some level it was their fault that their parents couldn't stay together or get on once they are separated..
Grow up, then, is the simple call to adults who are breaking up or divorcing. There is no way to avoid the pain of separation, but there is a means to shorten its duration.
Take charge of your own behaviour. And don't expect that others – the courts, the lawyers or the children – will solve the anguish and sorrows that divorce brings. You owe it to yourselves and your children.
