New research questions “good divorce” theory

In the 1990s many family scholars, therapists, lawyers and family courts were trumpeting the idea of a “good divorce.”   Essentially, the hypothesis is that post-divorce parents who cooperate in a low conflict, shared parenting arrangement can significantly protect their children from the behavioural, psychological and academic problems often associated with divorce.  However, a new study published in the journal Family Relations, led by noted family scholar Paul Amato, raises some serious doubts as to just how “good” is a good divorce for children.1

The national study examined 944 American post-divorce families, divided into three groups based on the parent-child involvement of the non-resident parent and the level of parenting conflict between the two parents.  The three groups were defined as follows:

• Cooperative co-parenting (the good divorce) – high contact between the non-resident parent and child, with high cooperation and low conflict between resident and non-resident parent
• Parallel parenting – moderate contact between the non-resident parent and child, with no cooperation and moderate to high conflict between resident and non-resident parent
• Single parenting – low contact between the non-resident parent and child, with low or no communication between resident and non-resident parent

Twelve adolescent/young adult outcomes were compared across each group. The study found youth from cooperative co-parenting environments exhibited fewer behavioural problems (as reported by the resident parent) and rated their relationship with their father more positively than children in the other two family types.  However, they were no better off than youth and young adults from the single parent family type when it came to self-esteem, school grades, liking school, substance abuse, life satisfaction, early sexual activity, number of sexual partners, cohabiting or marrying as a teen, and closeness to their mother.

These findings should serve as a real caution to parents contemplating divorce who feel somehow they’ll be different and their children will be spared the harms of divorce.  In the authors’ own words:

In conclusion, the notion of a good divorce has captured the attention of the general public, the media, marriage therapists, and the family court system. Interventions that help parents maintain strong relationships with their children and cooperate in the postdivorce years are undoubtedly of value. Nevertheless, these interventions may be insufficient to counter the full range of problems associated with divorce. Although additional research needs to be conducted, the current study suggests that a good divorce is not a panacea for improving children’s well-being in postdivorce families. Not all children with divorced parents experience long-term problems. But people’s willingness to accept the good divorce hypothesis is reason for concern if some parents are lulled into believing that their children are adequately protected from all of the potential risks of union disruption.2

• 1. P.R. Amato, J.B. Kane, and S. James, “Reconsidering the ‘Good Divorce’,” Family Relations 60.5 (December 2011): 511-524.
• 2. Ibid., 522.