Effect of divorce on children

[Rick]

Hi
I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful responses, but
thought it might also be appropriate to post here. Does anyone know a good
resource for real research on the effect of divorce on children? I would be
very grateful for a pointer if you do. I would really like to find some
dispassionate, non-partisan research material, rather than rely on feel-good
(or feel-bad!) assertions! I'm interested in both what the short and long
term effects might be, and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the
way you do things.
Many thanks.

[Sh3||]

"Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote in message news:2GYBb.119$J_4.123179@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...

Hi I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful responses, but thought it might also be appropriate to post here. Does anyone know a good resource for real research on the effect of divorce on children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if you do. I would really like to find some dispassionate, non-partisan research material, rather than rely on feel-good (or feel-bad!) assertions! I'm interested in both what the short and long term effects might be, and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the way you do things. Many thanks.

Actually if you go to the local school they could hook you up on groups and such that meet for kids of divorce parents, also If you are actually doing a research project of some sort any family councellor or childrens doctor can hook you up with the right reference material. Thats usually what they specialize in.

[Jim Justjim]

"Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote:

Hi I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful responses, but thought it might also be appropriate to post here. Does anyone know a good resource for real research on the effect of divorce on children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if you do. I would really like to find some dispassionate, non-partisan research material, rather than rely on feel-good (or feel-bad!) assertions! I'm interested in both what the short and long term effects might be, and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the way you do things. Many thanks.

Judith Wallerstein did (and is still doing) the largest longitudinal study
on divorce. She started in the early 1970s and the study is still going
on. She has published a lot of papers and books regarding divorce. Here
are two citations:

Wallerstein, J., Lewis, J., & Blakeslee, S. (2002). The unexpected legacy
of divorce: A 25 year landmark study. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(3), 359-360.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Lewis, J. (1998). The long-term impact of divorce on
children: A first report from a 25-year study. Family and Conciliation
Courts Review, 36(3), 368-383.

[NJ]

These guys http://www.marriagemovement.org/ have pointers to divorce effects



"Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:2GYBb.119$J_4.123179@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...

Hi I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful responses, but thought it might also be appropriate to post here. Does anyone know a good resource for real research on the effect of divorce on children? I would

be

very grateful for a pointer if you do. I would really like to find some dispassionate, non-partisan research material, rather than rely on

feel-good

(or feel-bad!) assertions! I'm interested in both what the short and long term effects might be, and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the way you do things. Many thanks.

[Doug Anderson]

justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:

"Rick" <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote:

Judith Wallerstein did (and is still doing) the largest longitudinal study on divorce. She started in the early 1970s and the study is still going on. She has published a lot of papers and books regarding divorce. Here are two citations:

There are two really important criticism of Wallerstein's work.

First her work is anecdotal; she is following a small number of
children (131 I think), and has no real control group nor any way to
correct for researcher bias.

Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a
bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_.

[Jim Justjim]

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:

justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:

There are two really important criticism of Wallerstein's work. First her work is anecdotal;

Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's adjustment
in school by the number of school problems (referals, etc). This isn't a
GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal.

she is following a small number of children (131 I think),

In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is
pretty damn big).

and has no real control group nor any way to correct for researcher bias.

This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a
control group.

Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_.

That would be true of any research in divorce. How many good marriages end
in divorce?

[Bill]

Jim Justjim wrote:

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:

Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's adjustment in school by the number of school problems (referals, etc). This isn't a GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal.

In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big).

This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a control group.

That would be true of any research in divorce. How many good marriages end in divorce?

Related to this, it is probably better for the children if the parents DO get a
divorce and can be on friendly terms (in some cases), versus just staying
together "for the sake of the marriage commitment", while constantly fighting
and disrespecting each other.

The issue is more complex than it seems on the surface, and I'm not sure if it
is even possible to delineate the two with any research methodology. After
all, we're dealing with a *human* "control group", if there really is such a
thing.

[Doug Anderson]

justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:

Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's adjustment in school by the number of school problems (referals, etc). This isn't a GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal.

It is still fundamentally anecdotal information in the absence of a
control group. Just like "my divorced cousin's daughter* didn't make
it into Harvard" is accurate information that says something about her
high school performance, but is still anecdotal.

she is following a small number of children (131 I think), In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big).

Unfortunately this is true in sociology. And control groups are rare.
Which shows you just how fragile the "science" part of social science
is.

and has no real control group nor any way to correct for researcher bias. This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a control group.

You need a control group if you wish to draw conclusions about the
_effect_ of divorce. Otherwise she is, at best, noticing phenomena
which are correlated with divorce, but which aren't necessarily caused
by them.

Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_. That would be true of any research in divorce.

Exactly. Hence the scarcity of any real data.

If your point is "it would be hard to do better than Wallerstein," I
agree. If your point is "because it would be hard to do better, we
are justified in concluding that she is saying something serious about
the effects of divorce" then I disagree.


*my divorced cousin doesn't actually have any children, and if he did,
they'd be too young for college anyhow, but you get the point.

Doug

[Rauni]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:27:58 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:

justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:

It is still fundamentally anecdotal information in the absence of acontrol group. Just like "my divorced cousin's daughter* didn't makeit into Harvard" is accurate information that says something about herhigh school performance, but is still anecdotal.

Unfortunately this is true in sociology. And control groups are rare.Which shows you just how fragile the "science" part of social scienceis.

You need a control group if you wish to draw conclusions about the_effect_ of divorce. Otherwise she is, at best, noticing phenomenawhich are correlated with divorce, but which aren't necessarily causedby them.

Exactly. Hence the scarcity of any real data.If your point is "it would be hard to do better than Wallerstein," Iagree. If your point is "because it would be hard to do better, weare justified in concluding that she is saying something serious aboutthe effects of divorce" then I disagree.

So did she use any divorced couples who got along and didn't fight
over custody issues? I am curious as my daughter was very well
adjusted, a lot better than her friends who had intact families with
parents who didn't get along.

My daughter's teachers were always surprised as how well my ex and I
got along. People were always suggesting that we remarry because of
how well we got along (the main reason we got along was the fact that
we weren't married)

*my divorced cousin doesn't actually have any children, and if he did, they'd be too young for college anyhow, but you get the point. Doug

[Jim Justjim]

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:

justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:

It is still fundamentally anecdotal information in the absence of a control group. Just like "my divorced cousin's daughter* didn't make it into Harvard" is accurate information that says something about her high school performance, but is still anecdotal.

Unfortunately this is true in sociology. And control groups are rare. Which shows you just how fragile the "science" part of social science is.

I agree. In psychology this is also very true.

and has no real control group nor any way to correct for researcher bias. This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a control group. You need a control group if you wish to draw conclusions about the _effect_ of divorce. Otherwise she is, at best, noticing phenomena which are correlated with divorce, but which aren't necessarily caused by them.

Exactly. Hence the scarcity of any real data. If your point is "it would be hard to do better than Wallerstein," I agree. If your point is "because it would be hard to do better, we are justified in concluding that she is saying something serious about the effects of divorce" then I disagree.

My point is that Wallerstein is a good starting point for future studies.
You have to start somewhere. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on
how you look at it) social scientists will not be "assigning" children to
experimental and control groups for divorce, anytime soon.

*my divorced cousin doesn't actually have any children, and if he did, they'd be too young for college anyhow, but you get the point.

Hmmmm... but this is purely anecdotal. :-)

Doug

[Bill]

Rauni wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:27:58 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:

So did she use any divorced couples who got along and didn't fight over custody issues? I am curious as my daughter was very well adjusted, a lot better than her friends who had intact families with parents who didn't get along.

Exactly. I think it basically comes down to: "the strife in the life".....is
bad for the kids. Hell, it's bad for ALL parties! In those cases, divorce
would be a better option than staying married, I believe (unless the strife and
lack of respect issues could be resolved).

My daughter's teachers were always surprised as how well my ex and I got along. People were always suggesting that we remarry because of how well we got along (the main reason we got along was the fact that we weren't married)

Which is sadly ironic, in some cases.....

[Doug Anderson]

justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:

My point is that Wallerstein is a good starting point for future studies.

Yes, I agree with this. My point though, is that one really can't
draw any conclusions about the effects of divorce from her work.

You have to start somewhere. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it) social scientists will not be "assigning" children to experimental and control groups for divorce, anytime soon.

Exactly. Fortunately (or unfortunately). In fact to do real work on
this, you would want very carefully matched families.
Unfortunately, even this seems impossible since the fact that one pair
of parents divorced and the other didn't already tells you they are
too different to match up.

I think "divorce" just can't be separated from its correlate "unhappy
marriage." And without doing that, you can't separate the effects of
"divorce" from the effects of "unhappy marriage."

[Emma Anne]

Rick <rick.40@virgin.net> wrote:

Hi I posted this in alt.support.divorce, and had some useful responses, but thought it might also be appropriate to post here. Does anyone know a good resource for real research on the effect of divorce on children? I would be very grateful for a pointer if you do. I would really like to find some dispassionate, non-partisan research material, rather than rely on feel-good (or feel-bad!) assertions! I'm interested in both what the short and long term effects might be, and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the way you do things. Many thanks.

The last time I checked there really wasn't any ggod research, but that
was a few years ago. All there was was collections of anecdotes and
nothing ressembling a control group.

[Emma Anne]

Jim Justjim <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote:

In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big).

Not if there's no control group. It wouldn't be that hard. Start with
a bunch of people having marital difficulties and follow them through
life. Some will get divorced and some won't. Choosing only divorced
peoples guarantees you won't know how the other group did.

[Paul Botts]

"Jim Justjim" <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20031211221712.883$bF@newsreader.com...

Secondly, it is impossible in her work to separate the effects of a bad marriage between the parents from the effects of the _divorce_. That would be true of any research in divorce. How many good marriages

end

in divorce?

Well, exactly. There is little point to comparing how children of divorced
parents do compared to children of all married parents, since the second
group includes parents who are happy with each other but the first doesn't.
Wallerstein has successfully shown that kids of parents who are happy with
each other do better than kids whose parents aren't happy with each other,
but I'm not sure how important a research achievement that is.

The relevant research would be comparing kids whose unhappy parents get
divorced to kids whose unhappy parents stay together (either by becoming
happier or simply by declining to divorce regardless). That is the choice
that families actually face in real life. Wallerstein did not make that
comparison and I'm unaware of any other long-term rigorous research that
has. It wouldn't be easy to pull off, I imagine.

[Doug Anderson]

mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes:

Jim Justjim <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote:

Not if there's no control group. It wouldn't be that hard. Start with a bunch of people having marital difficulties and follow them through life.

Unfortunately, that _still_ doesn't give you a control group. You won't be
able to know if problems in the "divorced" group came from getting
divorced, or from whatever led them to get divorced in the first
place! Maybe if they'd lived in a society that forced them to stay
married even though they wanted to separate, the resulting problems
would be as bad or worse.

[Doug Anderson]

"Paul Botts" <paulspammerbotts@sbcglobal.net> writes:

"Jim Justjim" <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:20031211221712.883$bF@newsreader.com...

end

Well, exactly. There is little point to comparing how children of divorced parents do compared to children of all married parents, since the second group includes parents who are happy with each other but the first doesn't. Wallerstein has successfully shown that kids of parents who are happy with each other do better than kids whose parents aren't happy with each other, but I'm not sure how important a research achievement that is.

Hey, this is sociology. It is acceptable to work hard to prove the
obvious.

The relevant research would be comparing kids whose unhappy parents get divorced to kids whose unhappy parents stay together (either by becoming happier or simply by declining to divorce regardless). That is the choice that families actually face in real life. Wallerstein did not make that comparison and I'm unaware of any other long-term rigorous research that has. It wouldn't be easy to pull off, I imagine.

It wouldn't. And even if you did, you'd still have the fact that
there would be a fundamental difference between the parents who
divorced and those who managed to repair things, or who just refused
to divorce. So you wouldn't know whether to attribute differences in
the children to the divorce, or to the different nature of the parents.

[Jim Justjim]

mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) wrote:

Jim Justjim <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote:

Not if there's no control group. It wouldn't be that hard. Start with a bunch of people having marital difficulties and follow them through life. Some will get divorced and some won't. Choosing only divorced peoples guarantees you won't know how the other group did.

In the social sciences 131 subjects is pretty damn big.

You can't really have a "control group" in these situations. You might be
able to have a comparison group, but you would need really big samples when
you are talking about something with some many confounding variables.

[Jim Justjim]

"Paul Botts" <paulspammerbotts@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Jim Justjim" <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:20031211221712.883$bF@newsreader.com...

end

Well, exactly. There is little point to comparing how children of divorced parents do compared to children of all married parents, since the second group includes parents who are happy with each other but the first doesn't. Wallerstein has successfully shown that kids of parents who are happy with each other do better than kids whose parents aren't happy with each other, but I'm not sure how important a research achievement that is.

The important findings from Wallerstein are that just because parents put
their lives back together doesn't mean that the child's life comes back
together, as well.

The relevant research would be comparing kids whose unhappy parents get divorced to kids whose unhappy parents stay together (either by becoming happier or simply by declining to divorce regardless). That is the choice that families actually face in real life. Wallerstein did not make that comparison and I'm unaware of any other long-term rigorous research that has. It wouldn't be easy to pull off, I imagine.

[Rick]

Many thanks for all this - although I feel pitifully underqualified to
assess the Wallerstein debate!

[Rauni]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:57:08 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:

Rauni wrote:

Exactly. I think it basically comes down to: "the strife in the life".....isbad for the kids. Hell, it's bad for ALL parties! In those cases, divorcewould be a better option than staying married, I believe (unless the strife andlack of respect issues could be resolved).

Which is sadly ironic, in some cases.....

Yeah it is. But it is good that were remained friends

[Rauni]

On 12 Dec 2003 11:08:48 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com>
wrote:

justjim67@hotmail.com (Jim Justjim) writes:

Yes, I agree with this. My point though, is that one really can'tdraw any conclusions about the effects of divorce from her work.

Exactly. Fortunately (or unfortunately). In fact to do real work onthis, you would want very carefully matched families.Unfortunately, even this seems impossible since the fact that one pairof parents divorced and the other didn't already tells you they aretoo different to match up.I think "divorce" just can't be separated from its correlate "unhappymarriage." And without doing that, you can't separate the effects of"divorce" from the effects of "unhappy marriage."

I agree. I find a lot of these kinds of *studies* suspect! Because
either the researcher has a preconceived idea or has't a clue what
they are looking for.

[Joy]

"Jim Justjim" <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20031211221712.883$bF@newsreader.com...

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:

be,

> and on how you can minimise any bad effects by the way you do

things.

> Many thanks. Judith Wallerstein did (and is still doing) the largest longitudinal study on divorce. She started in the early 1970s and the study is still going on. She has published a lot of papers and books regarding divorce. Here are two citations: There are two really important criticism of Wallerstein's work. First her work is anecdotal; Not all of her study is anecdotal. She also measured children's

adjustment

in school by the number of school problems (referals, etc). This isn't a GREAT measure, but it isn't just anecdotal.

In the social sciences (and especially in a longitudinal study) 131 is pretty damn big).

This is true, but because her work is anecdotal you wouldn't really need a control group.

That would be true of any research in divorce. How many good marriages

end

in divorce?

Well, what was suggested to complement Wallerstein's work wasn't really a
comparison of good marriages and bad marriages - it is a comparison of bad
marriages that end in divorce and bad marriages that don't end in divorce.
I think a more revealing study would be a comparison of the effect on
children of high-strife domestic lives versus low-strife domestic lives.

While this is anecdotal, and therefore no more valuable than Wallerstein's
study, my kids seem to be *much* better off with divorced parents than they
ever would have been if we had stayed married. Both kids have independently
and separately volunteered that they thought we should have divorced much
earlier. I have to confess that an awareness of Wallerstein's work is one
of the reasons that I didn't divorce earlier - which is something I know
deeply regret. This no doubt causes some bias on my part.

Joy

[Doug Anderson]

"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutsp amyahoo.com> writes:

Well, what was suggested to complement Wallerstein's work wasn't really a comparison of good marriages and bad marriages - it is a comparison of bad marriages that end in divorce and bad marriages that don't end in divorce. I think a more revealing study would be a comparison of the effect on children of high-strife domestic lives versus low-strife domestic lives.

I agree. In fact that is essentially what I think Wallerstein's work
shows (in so far as it shows anything). Only it gets presented as
being about divorce.

While this is anecdotal, and therefore no more valuable than Wallerstein's study,

Unless you have 132 kids, in which case it is slightly more valuable
than Wallerstein's study!

my kids seem to be *much* better off with divorced parents than they

ever would have been if we had stayed married. Both kids have independently and separately volunteered that they thought we should have divorced much earlier. I have to confess that an awareness of Wallerstein's work is one of the reasons that I didn't divorce earlier - which is something I know deeply regret. This no doubt causes some bias on my part.

Having never been divorced, and never having been the child of
divorced parents (though sometimes wishing I was), I have the same
bias.

[Bill]

Joy wrote:

"Jim Justjim" <justjim67@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:20031211221712.883$bF@newsreader.com...

Well, what was suggested to complement Wallerstein's work wasn't really a comparison of good marriages and bad marriages - it is a comparison of bad marriages that end in divorce and bad marriages that don't end in divorce. I think a more revealing study would be a comparison of the effect on children of high-strife domestic lives versus low-strife domestic lives. While this is anecdotal, and therefore no more valuable than Wallerstein's study, my kids seem to be *much* better off with divorced parents than they ever would have been if we had stayed married. Both kids have independently and separately volunteered that they thought we should have divorced much earlier. I have to confess that an awareness of Wallerstein's work is one of the reasons that I didn't divorce earlier - which is something I know deeply regret. This no doubt causes some bias on my part. Joy

But Wallerstein didn't say that it was better for the kids if the parents
didn't divorce under all circumstances, did he? (I haven't read it)

[Bill]

Bill in Co. wrote:

Joy wrote:

But Wallerstein didn't say that it was better for the kids if the parents didn't divorce under all circumstances, did he? (I haven't read it)

Or maybe it's a she. Is her name Judith? I should get off my *** and look
it up.

[Rauni]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:41:35 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:

Joy wrote:

But Wallerstein didn't say that it was better for the kids if the parentsdidn't divorce under all circumstances, did he? (I haven't read it)

Limitations of Wallerstein's Research

http://www.divorceinfo.com/judithwal...tm#Limitations

First and most important, Wallerstein's research is of necessity
anecdotal. That means she has not conducted scientific sampling or
rigorous "double-blind" methodologies to ensure correction for any
researcher bias. This means in turn that it's somewhat risky to
interpret her findings and assume that they apply across a broader
cross-section of children. It also means that, despite Wallerstein's
unquestioned professionalism, her very humanity is a variable that,
again of necessity, has most certainly colored the conclusions she
reaches.

Second, Wallerstein's subjects are not necessarily typical. By her own
admission, her subjects have been predominantly white, predominantly
upper middle class, and predominantly well-educated. That's another
reason why it may be risky to assume that her findings apply to other
groups.

I think the most important limitation of Wallerstein's research,
however, particularly as it relates to those of you who are struggling
with a high-conflict marriage, is what she did not study. She did not
study -- in fact she could not study -- whether the effects she
studied flowed from the divorce itself or from the conflict that
caused the divorce.

And that's where the misinterpretation comes in. Wallerstein's
research has already been cited, and I'm sure it will be cited more
now after the release of her latest installment in June of 1997, as
grounds for making divorce more difficult to get. Those seeking to
require waiting periods, pre-divorce counseling, parent education, and
proof of fault in divorce have all have used Wallerstein's research as
evidence that divorce is the problem, and if we can just stop people
from divorcing, we'll correct the problem.

[Joy]

"Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dulmtvcm52paj58p89u4gk35tsvb42k3lo@4ax.com...
Those seeking to

require waiting periods, pre-divorce counseling, parent education, and proof of fault in divorce have all have used Wallerstein's research as evidence that divorce is the problem, and if we can just stop people from divorcing, we'll correct the problem.

That is the biggest problem that I see with the research. A lot of people
don't realize how limited this research is, and *do* seem to use it to claim
that "divorce is the problem, so stopping divorce is the solution". It helps
to create a skewed view of reality.

Personally, I think it should be harder to get *married*. If we required
waiting periods, pre-marital counseling, pre-marital education in things
like interpersonal relationships, financial management, communication
styles, etc, I think the marriage rate would drop - but the divorce rate
would drop a lot more because a lot of the issues that cause marital strife
would become evident *before* the wedding, not *after*. I think it would
weed out a significant percentage of the unsuited couples.

[Rauni]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 14:13:48 -0500, "Joy"
<fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutsp amyahoo.com> wrote:

"Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:dulmtvcm52paj58p89u4gk35tsvb42k3lo@4ax .com... Those seeking to

That is the biggest problem that I see with the research. A lot of peopledon't realize how limited this research is, and *do* seem to use it to claimthat "divorce is the problem, so stopping divorce is the solution". It helpsto create a skewed view of reality.Personally, I think it should be harder to get *married*. If we requiredwaiting periods, pre-marital counseling, pre-marital education in thingslike interpersonal relationships, financial management, communicationstyles, etc, I think the marriage rate would drop - but the divorce ratewould drop a lot more because a lot of the issues that cause marital strifewould become evident *before* the wedding, not *after*. I think it wouldweed out a significant percentage of the unsuited couples.

Yup that makes a lot more sense. Much better to prevent the problem.

[JWB]

"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutsp amyahoo.com> wrote
in message news:QwJCb.6996$z24.1923@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

Personally, I think it should be harder to get *married*. If we required waiting periods, pre-marital counseling, pre-marital education in things like interpersonal relationships, financial management, communication styles, etc, I think the marriage rate would drop - but the divorce rate would drop a lot more because a lot of the issues that cause marital

strife

would become evident *before* the wedding, not *after*. I think it would weed out a significant percentage of the unsuited couples.

In your scenario, could unmarrieds still have kids?