Divorce

Nowadays we live in a world, where change is an integral part of human life. Fortunately or unfortunately things change constantly – jobs end, as well as relationships. couples bond in marriage, and couples get divorced, and friendship ends. The question is if you are capable to adapt to changes. I believe that our life only gets better by change First things first , I am convinced change affects all aspects of life. Changes happen everywhere. At home, at your working place, in friendship, in your team at work. I believe that today we have a lot of people, who are not capable to adapt to the changes. I am sure it happens because people are not prepared for changes or they never want anything to change. They just reached that comfort zone and they do not see the point in changes.

I believe that sometimes people just afraid of changes, sometimes people do not realize, that we and our lives became much stronger when we embrace change and manage these challenges in a positive way, than hide away and ignore the opportunities these challenges can bring to our lives. However, talking about changes in the working environment. this is one of the most difficult changes to deal with. Surely its always hard to leave your team , with who you used to work, with whom you had a special chemistry and go onto new collective. To help employees adapt to changes , companies can create special dinners between their workers, where they can find common ground. And of course office parties, which bring people closer together

Furthermore, In fact changes may be good as well as bad. And in my life I had both of them. From my personal life experience, i concluded, that I never have to regret anything. Because regrets have a huge impact on how we respond to change, surely they hold you back in life. In my opinion, letting go of your regrets is key to you being able to move forward in life. Moreover even in the worst moments i always try to look for positive sides. I believe, whatever happens, happens for the best. To be honest , I think those two abilities actually help me adapt to changes In the conclusion . i would like to say change is an integral part of human life. And people should not stay inside their comfort zone and be afraid of changes. People should be capable to adapt to changes

Traditional families that consist of two parents and their children with both parents in their first marriage have become less common in the United States. The increasing rate of divorce over the years resulted in an increasing number of binuclear, or single-parent families as well. Divorce is the most common reason for these types of families, which are also formed from those who have never married or chose the single life. This drastic experience can be stressful and uncomfortable because old familiar patterns are dismantled by the separation.

The new family form of a single-parent family reflects the child’s membership in two separate and distinct households. One usually is designated the physical custodian, meaning that the children reside the majority of the time in that parent’s household. New patterns, rules, roles, and modification are formed to restore equilibrium and allow the system to function.

Family systems theory predicts that all members are affected when one key member experiences a major change. Divorce dissolves the effective functioning of the committed relationship between the adult partners, which in return disrupts the functioning of parent-child relationships as well as the entire family system. Adults experience a variety of reactions including, depression, weight-loss, sleep disturbances, likelihood of substance abuse, anger, and hostility.

There are certain things with the adults which should take place for a smooth transition. First, a family metacognition which is the recognition that divorce is about to happen and the adults no longer share similar feeling of love and attachment. Second is physical separation, which is the actual physical splitting of parents. Third, family system reorganization which is when adults forge a new relationship with children with different rules, roles, and interaction patterns.

And lastly, family redefinition which takes place when the noncustodial parent reorganizes interaction patterns, boundaries, and rules governed how they relate to the single-parent family system and members. A major challenge for divorcing parents is to acknowledge that they continue to share parental responsibilities and relationships with their children, despite that their marriage has been dismantled.

Researchers have learned that children’s reactions to parental divorce involves a process of adjusting to change. This process is dependent on other factors including age, gender, and past experiences, which undergo in three distinct stages. The initial stage occurs after parents inform the child of the decision to separate.

Transitioning stage commences about a year after the parents separation and last up to approximately three years. Emotions are equaled out and new family patterns are evolved, change of the quality of life, and establishment of visitation routines with the noncustodial parent. Then finally, the restabilization stage occurs approximately five years after the separation, when the new single-parent family system is more stable.

Several factors appear to influence the course of children’s adjustment to the family crisis; gender and age of the child when the parental divorce occurs, adults’ use of available social support networks to help the child adjust, cultural attitudes towards divorce and single-parent families.

Single-parent families and its transition through parental divorce means a lot to me because such drastic affects it can have on children of any age. These effects on children may be short or long term, positive or detrimental. Short term effects include behavioral difficulties at home and a school that present in association with the initial reaction to the separation. Long term effects may not appear until adolescence or even adulthood, when individuals have trouble and difficulties establishing intimate relationships.

Other long term effects appear later during later development stages. The child’s gender can also mediate such reactions. Boys have more adverse reactions to parental divorce than girls, although girls act more adversely to parental remarriage. Also, children who become part of blended families as a result of death of one parent and the subsequent remarriage of the surviving parent also may face unique different emotional challenges.

Why important to you and your life?

This specific topic of single-parent families and transitioning of parental divorce applies to my life due to coming from a single-parent household myself. Although I was born into a two-parent household, my parents decided to mutually separate at the age of 16, the summer before my junior year in high school. This didn’t come to me by surprise though. Things were starting to change around the house that as a child I could still pick up on no matter how hard they tried to keep it hidden.

My father worked a night shift job of seven at night to seven in the morning about three to four days out of the week alternating weekends. Having a job like that can very time consuming when you have children because days that you have to work, you are sleep during the day and wake up in just enough time to get ready for work. But, during the times that he was off, he did NOTHING. Just sat on the couch all day long and watch television until he dosed off.

The father daughter days came to a halt and he gave off the impression that he would rather be left alone to sleep. So, everyone would always be upstairs in their own rooms doing their own thing. Even my mother, to the point where you wouldn’t even think that they were married, just simply roommates. After about two years of this nonsense, my mother sat down with the both of us, my younger sister and I, and asked us how we would feel if they were to separate or if we wanted them to stay together.

But, me and my sister had become so tired of her seeming like she wasn’t happy with him or that he was there, that we told that we didn’t need him. We could take care of everything on our own. It wasn’t like he was even contributing in the first place. And after this, the process began. August of that year came around and I remember the first day I saw boxes in their bedroom.

It hurt me a little bit to know that my dad was leaving, but I had to remind myself it was the best thing for us. And, I would have to gladly admit that there was definitely a difference afterwards. We moved to another house in the same area, due to other reasons, which helped with the refresh as well. My home was definitely a happier place.

How does it apply to the community?

This issue of single-parent households and parenting is such an issue in today’s community due to the harmful risks that can take upon your children and their lives. Regardless of family structure, the quality of parenting is one of the best predictors of children’s emotional and social well-being.

Many single parents, however, find it difficult to function effectively as parents. Compared with continuously married parents, they are less emotionally supportive of their children, have fewer rules, dispense harsher discipline, are more inconsistent in dispensing discipline, provide less supervision, and engage in more conflict with their children.

Many of these deficits in parenting presumably result from struggling to make ends meet with limited financial resources and trying to raise children without the help of the other biological parent. Also, children living with single parents are exposed to more stressful experiences and circumstances than children living with married parents.

Although scholars define stress in somewhat different ways, most assume that it occurs when external demands exceed people’s coping resources. This results in feelings of emotional distress, a reduced capacity to function in school, work, and family roles, and an increase in physiological indicators of arousal.

Why important to the field of parenting?

In conclusion, the study of this topic is rather important to the field of parenting due to its major contributions to all four parenting areas including; improving familial interactions, increasing psychological well-being, improving education, and increasing prosperity for the common good for society.

Reducing the amount of single parents would in hand reduce and improve the familial interactions because children would have both of their parents significantly in their lives, rather than one more than the other. Single parenting can have detrimental effects of the psychological being of the child. The possible worrisome of acceptance and wantedness of the noncustodial parent, lowered self-esteem, and higher chance of depression.

Which also comes in hand with a child’s school work and ethic of being stressed by other situations at home. And finally, increasing prosperity for the common good for society. According to research and studies, children from single parent homes are less likely to be disciplined and tend to be involved in more trouble and crime. Not only with discipline because there are children who are disciplined, but the less time thy are being looked after due to the parent having to work so much to make ends meet that they are barely home.

The term ‘family’ officially evokes the image of a heterosexual, nuclear institution where each member is related to the other by marriage/law or blood, and the state, religion, media and other important institutions in our society encourage this image. However, lived realities are often very different and in recent years this form of the family, which is assumed to be normal and the norm, has been displaced by various other family forms which are labeled as deviant and which are assumed to be the root of current social problems.

Hence has risen a ‘crisis’ in the British family. This crisis has been highlighted by the various social institutions mentioned above which encourage the heterosexual nuclear family form. Quoting Wright and Jagger, according to them ‘the turn of the century is marked by a growing crisis in the family, a crisis that may prove terminal unless decisive action is taken’, and the crisis has been pointed out as the collapse of marriage and the ‘family’. This crisis however is not new and a similar was said to have risen at the end of the 19th century.

Like now, the crisis then too had been a rise in social problems and women had been identified as the cause. Single mothers, working mothers, woman opposing the dominant ideology of ‘womanhood’ were and are labeled as the cause of the ‘crisis’! As Gittins say, ‘Ideals of family relationships have become enshrined in our legal, social, religious and economic systems, which in turn reinforce the ideology and penalise or ostracise those who transgress it. ‘[Gittins 1992]

The crisis in the family can thus be seen as nothing more than a gap between the ideological construction of the family and the diverse realities of family life. [Gittins,1993] The different alternate family forms that have come up and become increasingly common in the last few decades such as the single parent (specially single mother) family, extended families, communes, homosexual families are seen as social threats. This is because they resist the patriarchal ideology that is prevalent in the nuclear family form where the male is all-powerful.

Resistance to this form of the family has seen the rise of the gendering of the family crisis with the blame falling on the women. This crisis as mentioned above is not something new and was seen before in the 1890’s when the results of it were deemed to be the evils of those times – namely illegitimate children, women not having children, prostitution, homosexuality etc. The family – which by the way was the white, middle class, heterosexist family – was seen to be the buffer against these social evils.

In these families the sexual divisions of labor played an important part in the claiming of moral superiority. The industrial Revolution which preceded this period can this be seen as the time when the seeds of change were sown, because even though at this time the ‘domestic ideology’ of the middle class was established, working class women became increasingly involved in paid employment working away from home – and hence rose the first crisis. Indeed, the cause of the crisis at this time was seen to be the ‘bad’ mother – invariably a working class woman in paid labor.

With World War II however, women had to take up jobs and it allowed them more freedom. Gradually the 20th century saw changes in attitudes and legislation – though it did take a very long time. The most important legislative changes were perhaps the right of divorce for women and the decriminalization of gay relationships. These factors were important in the rise in the alternate family forms. The argument that the heterosexual family is the ‘norm’ can however no longer be held valid.

There is a vast discrepancy between the actual family forms and the ‘cereal-packet family’ considered the ideal! In 1961 over half of all households consisted of a married couple with dependent children and in 1992 this proportion had dropped to 24%. In 2001 19% all households consisted of an adult couple and dependent children – the couple not necessarily married. Marriage certainly has become less popular in the last 2 decades. Cohabitation, teen pregnancies, the number of children outside marriage has seen a marked increase.

Homosexuality also has become much more widely accepted in society and many homosexual couples live with their children – adopted or from previous relationships. Divorce rates have also shot up dramatically with 1 in every 3 marriages ending in a divorce. These changes have been constructed into a national crisis by the state and the media. The statistics have been used to create moral panic among the people. In Britain, the government whether the New Right or the New Left have supported the ‘traditional family’.

In the debates and policies of the New Right or the New Left, there is seen to be a particular connection between deviant family forms and social ills and there can be seen a particular vision of the individual, family and state responsibility. Policy units, the think tanks like the Social Affairs and the Economic Affairs units and the newspapers rather than the academic press stress are the agencies that stress more on the importance of the ‘traditional family values’. [Jagger and Wright, 1999] The lobbyists on behalf of the ‘ normal’ family say that government policies and feminist ideologies threaten it.

Government policies however far from threatening the nuclear family form strongly support it. In fact the Conservatives called themselves the party of the ‘family’ and deviant family forms such as homosexual relationships and cohabitation were actively discouraged. The 1988 Local Government Act stated that it was an offence for local government employees or institutions to promote the acceptability of homosexuality as a family relationship. The Conservatives also shifted away from state provision and the emphasis lay on the family as a source of provision and rhetoric as well as legislation supported this.

The moral panic shifted from the unemployed male scrounger to the female lone parent on benefit. The benefits given to single parents were cut down and the Child Support Act was introduced. Refamilisation – by which fathers were tried to be reinserted into the family by being made responsible for his child after separation made life very difficult for those people who had been divorced. This rhetoric of traditional family values however helped the state to back out of much of its fiscal responsibilities! The Labour Governments emphasis has also been on the family.

Legislation based on the ‘families role in society’ has been passed. As Frazer says, there is ‘an insistent emphasis on ‘the family’ as the relevant and significant institution’ together with ‘the insistence that rights must be correlated with duties, obligations and responsibilities’. It does seem from the government’s emphasis on the family that the terrain of family offers the illusion of a cheap and feasible political program. Other than this emphasizing on family also obscures the failure of the politicians in other spheres such as economics or likewise.

The media also plays an important role in this invocation of ‘the family’ – the ‘cereal-packet family’ being a noteworthy propaganda and the stress on the current ‘crisis’! Religion is another important social institution that encourages the nuclear family maintaining it to be moral and healthier that the other family forms. It has been seen that in all these cases of addressing this crisis by the state, the media or any other institution the focus has been on women as the cause of the crisis and consequently social problems.

The single mother is seen as the source of current social evils like poverty, children’s indiscipline, crime and juvenile delinquency. Fatherless families are seen to be more of a problem with no one to impose authority and discipline! The discourse of lone/single motherhood as a social threat as it helps to resist close scrutiny of the content of hegemonic masculinity and fatherhood. [Lister, 1996] and conceals the fear that if men lose their relevance to the family life they also lose control over women and children.

The traditional nuclear family, which is patriarchal, enforces this ideology through the strict gendered division of labor and other family forms without these gender divisions are not seen as desirable or normal. The traditional family is seen as one in which the male is the breadwinner and the woman is the homemaker – looking after the house and the children. This was in fact the Victorian middle class ideology. Though today women are no longer thought of as not going into paid work, it is still considered that her primary duty lies in looking after the home – thus she has a double burden of her job and housework.

Men however have no such responsibilities and the symmetrical family that Young and Willmott talk about in which housework is shared equally between men and women instead of men thinking that they are doing a favour by helping, will take a long time to come if it ever does come at all! These family relationships – the inequality of women in their relationships with men ( in either marriage or cohabitation) is linked to wider social and economic factors and is infact sanctioned by the power of the state.

Thus gendered division of labor is a part of the ‘normal’ family ideals. The crisis in the family means that this gender division no longer works within a majority of the families anymore. This is the feminist explanation for the rise of a ‘crisis’ in the family by the media and the state. The patriarchy that is based on the exploitation of women’s unpaid labor at home constructs alternate family forms as a ‘crisis’ and blames women as the cause of social problems, advocating the return to the ‘normal, heterosexual, nuclear family’ for a better and healthier society!

I will look mainly at the area of divorce and how this may have affected the relationships within marriage, within my chosen time scale, to explore how a changing society may have resulted in the breakdown (or choice to not undertake) marriage. I have looked at data from 1978 and then at 1998 from the official statistics for these two areas. I will look at data from two separate years, only twenty years apart to show what changes if any can be seen in such a small time scale.

The data I will use is taken from the ‘Office of Population Censuses Surveys’. Marriage and divorce Statistics (1980 &1998). I have converted them to percentages, to make them easer to understand and rounded them to the nearest 0. 01%. I have not included the widowed figures in this essay! As this is not a choice like divorce or marriage. Looking back over the divorce rates and how they have changed, showed that from as far back as 1901 to the late 1960’s with only a small increase from the 60’s to the late 1970’s.

Divorce rates were quite consistent from 1. 4% to 2%. Then between the late 1970’s to today a huge leap. Between 1978 and 1980, there was a vast amount of movement in the rights of women in respect of work and benefits rights. As well as social changes in respect of how divorce and signal mothers were viewed. Was there a shift from a patriarchy society? Women became able to function in society without a man or marriage. So what do the stats show? In 1978 Looking across all (adult) age groups, 50. 5% were marred, 40. % were single. With those divorced showing only 2. 1%, the figures for 1998 show that 43. 7% were single, with only 42. 8% marred.

This shows one area of change, less people getting marred, although the figures do not indicate those living together unmarried (which raises the question of value placed on the position or marriage in today’s society). When we look at the figures for divorce in 1978 then at 1998, the change is easy to see. In 1978 only 2. 1% of adults were divorced, only 20 years later it was 6. % an increase of 4. 7% more. The years after the war up to 1978 showed only a small difference form the 1945 to 1978, only 0. 5%. Yet in this 20 year section there is a rapid increase, the figures also shows an increase of remarriages. If we take away those remarried, the divorce rate is 10%. The age people marry today has also changed, 26. 8 % in 1978 were marred by 25 years old. By 1998 this had dropped to only 10. 3%. And later in life, age 65 to 70 years of age. Over 51% marred in 1998 as apposed to 29. 3% in 1978.

The figures show in 1978 marriage lasted longer with less ending in divorce, by 1998 marriage was ‘later in life’, with more chance of divorce, and this also raised the amount of 2nd marriages.

NOTE:[Divorce rates did jump between 1972 and 1972 but this is could be argued was a result of the Divorce Reform Act of 1969] The way we record ‘what is’ a family unit has been forced to change with less people marrying; a family in the 70’s was; “a social unit consisting of a wife, husband and dependent children” (Huges & Fergusson 2000, P49)

Whereas today; “a family is defined as a marred or cohabiting couple, with or with out their never married children (who have no children of their own), or a loan parent with such children. People living alone are not considered to form a family” (social trends, 1999, P43) In 1997 there were only 310,000 marriages altogether, this was the lowest recorded figures of the 20th century, and more divorces were brought by women on the grounds of ‘unreasonable behavior’ some 70% (ONS, 2000, p. 9)

This is could be argued marks a change with women now making sociality move away from a patriarchal ideology, some commentators in the 70’s talked of marriage moving towards one of symmetry; Michael Young and peter Willmott argued that women no longer needed the ‘male bread winner’, and with more legal support and better rights in/access to employment, the relationships within marriage hade to change, Young and Willmott said; this symmetry could be seen in division of labor in the home, with the old distinction between men’s and women’s jobs becoming increasingly blurred, a shift to joint decision making, and increasing sheared social life” Young and Willmott 1973 p. 343) So not only the way the family unit is seen in society has changed, it could be argued, but the relationships within marriage undergone change.

In this small gap of 20 years, women it could be argued have more control, no longer has the man got more power then the woman in the home relationship. Of course this is not true of the ‘older generation’, although with social change each generation brings its own values to the front. We can see today with marriage declining, more ending in divorce, modern society places less value on marriage than there parents did. Old moral values are been eroded away, for a faster consumer orientated society.

Things are for today and out of fashion next week. It would seam that if current trends continue as they have from 1978 to 1998; will anybody both to get married in 30 years time. Will relationships become more of a casual affair? Will women gain more control than men with in relationships. Women with the emergence of things such as ‘the pill’, sperm banks for single [potential mothers] women. The position of men within society us under more pressure and question the more we move into the ‘new’ modern equal society.

Divorce Across the Lifep Final Paper Elizabeth Seckler for Laurie Bulock FST 602 (Human Development Across the Lifep) MAFS-J003 October 27, 2011 “I do”. Two small words with such a big meaning. Although fewer individuals are marrying today, nearly 90% of Americans will eventually “tie the knot” (Goldstein and Kenney, as cited by Cherlin, 2011, pg. 300). However, the meaning of marriage is appearing to lose its effect on individuals, as divorce has become epidemic in the United States (Hoelter, as cited by Santrock, 2011, pg. 459).

Since 1960, the divorce rate has varied through the years, increasing considerably from 1960 to 1980, then gradually declining from the early 1980s to 2005, but recently increasing from 2005 to 2007 (Popenoe, as cited by Santrock, 2011, pg. 459). Divorce is a major disruption in the family life-cycling process, adding complexity to whatever developmental tasks the family member is experiencing in its present phase (Peck and Manocherian, 1988, pg. 335). The negative impact of divorce is so strong that children of divorced parents struggle as adults to create a positive, healthy family environment for their own children.

All too often, adults who experienced divorce as children prove less capable of breaking the cycle and instead pass on a legacy of tragedy to their children and their children’s children (Fagan and Rector, 2000, pg. 17). Therefore, divorce does not just impact the individual at the time of the dissolution. Instead, divorce negatively impacts an individual in every stage of life. Infancy Of the stages of development across the lifep, it may appear that infants are the least affected by divorce.

However, while babies may not understand anything about separation or divorce, they do notice changes in their parents’ response to them, which impacts future development. According to psychoanalytic theorist, Erik Erikson, who developed eight stages of human development, the first psychosocial stage experienced in the first year of life is called trust vs. mistrust. Trust in infancy sets the stage for a lifelong expectation that the world will be a good and pleasant place to live (Santrock, 2011, pg. 23).

Therefore, the foundation of all human interactions is trust. The degree to which trust is present will determine the nature and depth, as well as the length of relationships. If children develop basic trust, they progress through the rest of the developmental stages in a healthy way. However, if mistrust is the primary concept developed in infancy (as in a situation of divorce), the subsequent developmental stages are damaged (Rhodes, 2000, pg. 9). Still, Erikson’s trust vs. mistrust is not resolved once and for all in the first year of life.

Children who leave infancy with a sense of trust can still have their sense of mistrust activated at a later stage if their parents are separated or divorced under conflicting circumstances (Santrock, 20011, pg. 187). Additionally, babies experience the distress of the parents and become aware of the changes, and comings and goings of both parents and other caretakers as they form emotional ties. The combination of distressed and/or unavailable parents can create demanding or withdrawn children.

As children approach the age of two, their striving toward independence is closely tied to feeling secure; with the loss of a parent, this security is threatened (Peck & Manocherian, 1988, pg. 347). Early Childhood Parents who are struggling with their own sense of failure, anger, guilt, and loss have difficulty providing a stabilizing, consistent environment for their children. This is especially hard for preschoolers who are developmentally starting to move away from home and toward peers and school.

They have the beginnings of a sense of morality, combined with difficulty in distinguishing between their thoughts and reality, and thus are especially vulnerable to guilt and confusion (Peck & Manocherian, 1988, pg. 347). They may regress developmentally in a number of ways: separation anxiety, sleep disturbances, bed wetting, clinginess, fear of any leave taking, and aggressive fantasies (Wallerstein & Kelly, as cited by Peck & Manocherian, 1988, pg. 347). Middle & Late Childhood The impact of divorce on children of this age is more profound (Peck & Manocherian, 1988, pg. 51). Children six to eight seem to have the hardest time of any age group (Wallerstein and Kelly, as cited by Peck & Manocherian, 1988, pg. 351), as they are old enough to realized what is happening, but do not have adequate skills to deal with the disruption. They often feel a sense of responsibility, experience tremendous grief, and have a pervasive sadness and yearning for the departed parent. At the same time, they experience recurring fantasies of reconciliation and often think that they have the power to make it happen (Peck & Manocherian, 1988, pg. 51). Additionally, children of divorced parents have lower grades and other measures of academic achievement, are more likely to be held back, and are more likely to drop out of school (Institute for American Values, 2011, pg. 27). Adolescence Adolescence is a stage filled with many changes, both physical and emotional. It is a time when children are beginning their own process of leaving home and forming an identity separate from their parents. At the threshold of young adulthood, relationships take center stage (Wallerstein, Lewis and Blakeslee, 2000, pg. 32).

However, the divorce of parents make romance and courtship more difficult and tenuous for the adolescence as they reach adulthood, and the effects on dating seem to be the strongest when divorce takes place during the child’s teenage years (Fagan & Rector, 2000). Older teenagers and young adults date more often, have more failed romantic relationships, and experience a more rapid turnover of dating partners. Not surprisingly, this leads to a great number of sexual partners, which in itself creates a grave risk that one will acquire an STD (Fagan & Rector, 2000).

Because of their own unsettled nature, adolescents’ reactions to divorce include anger, a desire for a stable home, and a need for clear boundaries between them and their parents (Peck & Manocherian, 1988, pg. 354). For those teenagers who were already having difficulties, divorce creates an added burden, increasing the risk of emotional problems. In addition to the sexual acting out and multiple partners, children at this age may engage in self-destructive behavior, such as truancy, school failure and substance abuse, (Peck & Manocherian, 1988, pg. 354). Emerging Adulthood

While the effects on dating seem to be the strongest when the divorce takes place during the child’s teenage years, they also carry over into adulthood (Fagan & Rector, 2000). In a twenty-five year study, Judith Wallerstein (2000) found that the effects of divorce on children crescendo as they enter adulthood. Their relationships with the opposite sex were often impaired by acute fears of betrayal and abandonment, and many also complained that they had never witnessed a man and a woman in a happy relationship and doubted that achieving such a relationship was possible (Wallerstein, Lewis and Blakeslee, 2000, pg. 2). A recent growth of cohabitation flows in part from the loss of confidence that many children of divorce have in marriage. Having witnessed divorce up close, many young adults are afraid that they will not achieve lifelong love and they feel handicapped in their search for love and marriage by their lack of models of a happy relationship between a man and a woman, their lack of knowledge about how to resolve differences, and their expectation of betrayal and abandonment by their partner (Institute for American Values, 2011, pg. 3). In addition, parental divorce increases the odds by 50 percent that adult children who do choose to marry will also divorce; this is partly because children of divorce are more likely to marry prematurely and partly because children of divorce often marry other children of divorce, thereby making their marriage even more unstable and uncertain (Institute for American Values, 2011, pg. 19). Because of increased life expectancy, a growing trend is divorce in families with children being launched (Peck & Manocherian, 1988, pg. 56). While divorce in childhood affects the development of emerging adulthood, a parental divorce in emerging adulthood has a profound impact, as well. When children are no longer the major focus of a couple, marriages become vulnerable and a decision is made to divorce. It may be that divorce occurs when parents who have stayed together “for the children” now feel free to end a long and unhappy marriage (Peck & Manocherian, 1988, pg. 357).

Despite the fact that they may be out of the parental home, divorce can be very stressful for young adults, with a sense of increased responsibility to their parents and a vulnerability to loyalty conflicts. In addition, young adults may experience a sense of loss of family home, abandonment by parents, and a concern about their own marriage (Ahrons, as cited by Peck & Manocherian, 1988, pg. 356). The biggest risk for the adult child is when the parents “hold on to them” or assume the role of substitute spouse to fill the loneliness.

When the parents are unable to make a meaningful new start, the children may have difficulty moving forward with their own lives (Peck & Manocherian, 1988, pg. 357). Middle Adulthood Divorce in middle adulthood may be more negative than divorce in early adulthood (Santrock, 2011, pg. 515). When divorce occurs for the couple in later life, it reverberates like a shock wave throughout the entire family and there may be three generations of family members whose lives will be altered by divorce (Peck & Manocherian, 1988, pg. 59). The children’s reactions and perceived responsibilities become key aspects of the divorce-adjustment process during this phase. Each parent may want to become reinvolved with the children in a way that is inappropriate; in a role reversal, children may now feel burdened by their parents (Peck & Manocherian, 1988, pg. 359). In addition, the emotional and time commitment to marriage that had existed for so many years may be not lightly given up by one partner (Santrock, 2011, pg. 515).

Many midlife individuals perceive a divorce as failing in the best years of their life. The divorcer might see the situation as an escape from an unsustainable relationship, but the divorced partner usually sees it as a betrayal, or the ending of a relationship that had been built up over many years and that involved a great deal of commitment and trust (Santrock, 2011, pg. 515). An unwanted, unexpected divorce at this stage is traumatic, even when the marriage has been unsatisfactory to each for many years.

Starting over as a single person is very difficult, particularly when there is not a clear sense of identity apart from the roles within the marriage. It is especially hard to find renewed meaning in life at this stage of the lifep (Peck & Manocherian, 1988, pg. 359). Additionally, divorce has negative emotional effects on both divorced men and women as they complain of loneliness, diminished self-esteem, anxiety about the unknowns in their lives, and difficulty forming satisfactory new intimate relationships (Hetherington, as cited by Santrock, 2011, pg. 460).

A recent study reveled that following marital dissolution, both men and women were more likely to experience an episode of depression than individuals who remained with a spouse over a two-year period (Rotermann, as cited by Santrock, 2011, pg. 460). Other impacts include the lowering of the economic standing of some middle-aged and older women who have a limited number of options (Mitchell, as cited by Santrock, 2011, pg. 515). Late Adulthood As stated in infancy, Erikson developed eight stages of human development. Individuals experience the eighth stage, integrity versus despair, in late adulthood.

This stage involves reflecting on the past and either piecing together a positive review or concluding that one’s life has not been well spent (Santrock, 2011, pg. 594). A well-adjusted older adult feels acceptance with his life and choices; however, when an individual is embroiled in divorce, he has despair and regret over their marital outcomes, thus not experiencing his full potential at this last stage of development. Additionally, in this stage of life, the divorced individuals’ parents may be dead, and their children and siblings involved with their own lives.

As a result, they may feel very isolated from their usual social network and that their opportunities are limited. If one spouse has been left by the other, he often feels ashamed, humiliated, and as a result may isolate himself from former ties and may not have the energy or desire to form new relationships (Peck & Manocherian, 1988, pg. 360). Furthermore, there are social, financial, and physical consequences of divorce for older adults (Mitchell, as cited by Santrock, 2011, pg. 607). Divorce can weaken kinship ties when it occurs in later life, especially in the case of older men (Cooney, as cited by Santrock, 2011, pg. 07), and divorced older women are less likely to have adequate financial resources than married older women (Santrock, 2011, pg. 607). Divorce is also linked to more health problems in older adults (Lillard & Waite, as cited by Santrock, 2011, pg. 607). Why do individuals who are happily married live longer, healthier lives than divorced individuals? People in happy marriages likely feel less physically stressed, which puts less wear and tear on a person’s body; such wear and tear can lead to numerous physical ailments, such as high blood pressure and hart disease (Waite, as cited by Santrock, 011, pg. 459). Conclusion Divorce has universal ill effects on individuals in all stages of life development. If the family is the building block of society, then marriage is the foundation. However, as fewer adults enter into marriage, more adults leave it in divorce, and more adults begin cohabitating, the foundation of marriage is growing weaker and weaker (Fagan & Rector, 2000, pg. 32). It is best stated by Wallerstein et al. (2000): Divorce is a life-transforming experience. After divorce, childhood is different. Adolescence is different.

Adulthood- with the decision to marry or not and have children or not- is different. Whether the final outcome is god or bad, the whole trajectory of an individual’s life is profoundly altered by the divorce experience. Marriage is not merely a private preference, but also a social and public good. Concerned citizens, as well as scholars, need to be aware of the long-term consequences of divorces happening every day in America and the implications it has on the stages of development across the lifep. References Cherlin, A. J. (2011).

The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. In A. Guest (Ed. ), Taking Sides: Clashing views in life p development (3rd ed. , pp. 294-307). New York: McGraw-Hill Fagan, P. F. , & Rector R. (2000). The effects of divorce on America (Research Report No. 1373). Retrieved from the Heritage Foundation website: http://www. heritage. org/library/ backgrounder/bg1373. html Institute for American Values. (2011). Why marriage matters, thirty conclusions from the social sciences . New York: Institute for American Values. Peck, J. S. amp; Manocherian, J. R. (1988). Divorce in the changing family life cycle. In B. Carter and M. McGoldrick (Ed. ), Changing family life cycle: a framework for family therapy (2nd ed. , pp. 335-369). Prentice Hall College Div Rhodes, J. L. (2000, Winter). The impact of divorce across the developmental stages. Paradigm, winter 2000. Retrieved from http://www. sequeltsi. com/files/library/The_Impact_of_ Divorce_on_Development. pdf Santrock, J. W. (2011). Life-p development (13th ed. ). New York: McGraw-Hill Wallerstein, J. S. , Lewis, J. M. , and

While it is shown in everyday life that traditional two parent families can raise DOD, healthy children, there is no solid evidence and certainly no law against the less traditional single parent family or same-sex parent family. In the following paragraphs I shall discuss the above statement. The argument for a two parent family is often that a child raised by two parents receives more attention and care, and that they experience less distress as they don’t have to suffer a separation or the repercussions of one.

Although in many cases this can be true, it isn’t a solid argument as it is not certain that every child with only one arena receives little or less attention (it often depends on the parent(s’) profession(sub and It Is not certain that every child with only one parent Is In their situation because of a divorce or separation. Also, the effects of attention on children are not a case of ‘more attention means higher IQ’ or ‘more attention means happier child’, as the health and happiness of a child depends on a number of things.

However, it is true that in cases where the child does not experience a separation or divorce, the child is much more likely to have a happy childhood. Another argument for traditional two parent families is that the child is raised in a stable environment and would experience less or no trauma. A Canadian experiment carried out with mice found that offspring raised by both parents developed more brain cells, as the mice with two parents were better cared for.

However, the raising of mice is far simpler than the raising of human children, and the study depends on the Idea that If a child has two parents, they’re bound to have more attention. In reality, the amount of attention that a child gets depends on the nature of their arenas, their parents’ professions, the number of siblings that the child has, and perhaps whether or not the family has a nanny.

It appears that it is true to say that children who receive more attention and care in their early years are better off, but not necessarily that children in traditional two parent families are going to receive a lot of attention and care. A widely accepted opinion of single parent families is that if a person is raising a child or children alone, the parent experiences the stresses and strains of parenting n a much more intense way than if they were not single, as they do not have a partner to help them, and that this is unfair on the child and results in issues for the child or children.

Another Is that caring for a child alone means financial problems, as the family relies on only one wage rather than two, so children are more likely to be malnourished or face poverty in general. In the last 40 years, the number of single parent barnacles has almost tripled, and there Is a correlation In the number of teens and children being treated for eating disorders, which are often fuelled by unstable f things (for example, the pressure of society to have a certain type of body), but it is possible that the two things are connected.

There are few strong arguments for single parent families rather than two parent families as opinion usually seems to be either that single parent families aren’t as good as two parent families, or that single parent families can be Just as good as two parent families, but it could be argued that in a single parent family, there aren’t disagreements between the two parents and that in some cases a child can be raised tit a lot of stability as they’re relying on one person alone.

As a person who was raised in a two parent family but dealt with a parental separation in my late childhood, I can provide some insight to the effects of the two different types of family. I am thankful that I was raised in a two parent family, as it meant that overall there was a larger income for my family, which was fairly large, and I definitely agree that as an infant I received either the average or above average amount of attention needed for proper growth and development of a child, and this dead to me being an intelligent and functioning human being.

I also agree with the idea that the separation of parents induces stress in a child, which I certainly felt. Although the separation itself wasn’t traumatic at all and took place in what was probably the best and most gradual way, I picked up on the stress of my parents and of course it isn’t a pleasant experience for anyone. In conclusion, the development of a child depends on a large number of factors, and although the number of parents the child has is one of those factors, it is not the only one and it is often not the most important one.

I interviewed one of my former student’s who was considered to be a bully when he was in my classes as a student in 7th and 8th grade. The young man’s name is Dean Larges. When Dean was in my physical education classroom I had to constantly stay on him about his behavior towards other students. He would not only verbally abuse students but on occasion would get into physical altercations with some of his classmates. Recently Dean has come back to the area as a parole officer. I asked him if he was willing to be interviewed about his past behaviors during middle school. We sat down on a few occasions and talked about his past behaviors and actions. I also talked to him about the decision to work in the courts and schools with our troubled youth. The first thing we discussed during the interview was the environment in which he grew up. Dean was raised in a normal middle class family.

When he was in the 6th grade, which is the year before he attended the middle school that I work in, his parents divorced. He grew up with a brother who was four years older than him. Dean admittedly said that when his parents divorced, it was a changing point in his behavior. In his memory up to that point he did not consider himself to be a bully. He remembers being very happy while his parents were still married. He felt a lot of anger over the divorce and did not talk to either of his parents about it. He felt that the rules were different from house to house which confused him at a young age concerning rules. He feels now that his bullying increased as a way to “fill the void of not having both of his parents around”. He said during middle school most of the attention that he received from the bullying was positive from his peers.

Looking back he realized that he deemed the laughing from his peers to be positive but more than likely they were just trying to appease him so he wouldn’t bully them. He was fairly large for his age which made it more difficult for students to stand up to his bullying. By nature Dean was and still is very outgoing. This combined with his aggressive behavior and the anger he felt at this time was not a good combination. He had always been involved in sports and was aggressive but up until this point not overly aggressive with his classmates. He had a real problem not seeing his dad on a daily basis. He feels that he started to take this anger out on his classmates and at times his teammates in the various sports that he was playing.

Many of his coaches especially in football encouraged or rewarded the aggressive behavior so in his mind they were condoning it. He felt that this was one of the reasons the behavior started to increase, as he was being rewarded for it. When he got to middle school he had more freedom and more time to act out. When Dean first came to middle school he was not in my physical education class but he was in the gym and the locker room during an hour where I also taught a class. I had to deal with him multiple times either for being too aggressive or for verbally abusing students. He was always very apologetic after the fact but continued with his behavior. He was suspended from school once or twice due to bullying/fighting in other classes during his 6th grade year.

His 7th grade year he was in my class and after the start of the year his behavior was better, at least in my class. He seemed to have more issues in classrooms with female teachers. We talked about this and he said that his mom’s rules were not very strict compared to his dad’s so this was probably the reason for his lack of respect for female teachers. He claims that as he moved into high school his bullying behavior slowed and eventually stopped as he started to see that his parents’ divorce was actually a good thing for them. Both of his parents seemed to be happier now that they were divorced. Dean felt part of it was also just growing up and seeing the effects that his bullying behaviors had on his fellow students. During our interview we discussed if his mother or father were verbally or physically aggressive or abusive. Dean said that both of his parents were very loving and not abusive at all.

I do not feel that any genetic factors played much if any of a role in Dean being a bully. Dean and his older brother also had a good relationship. They played sports together and were fairly close even with the four year age difference. Dean felt that another factor at this age was that he started seeing less of his brother. His brother started driving and was playing different sports so he was not around as much as he had been. There were many sources that influenced the changes and or lack of changes in Dean’s behavior. As I discussed earlier his parents’ divorce had a big influence. Another factor that had influence was the changing of schools from elementary to middle school and the extra freedom that came with that. In talking to Dean he said that a big factor in changing his behavior were a few male teachers and coaches.

One in particular made a strong impact on helping to stop his bullying. He said that his junior varsity football coach played a big role in teaching him how to act properly and held him to a higher standard of behavior. This particular coach was also his U.S. History teacher so he spent quite a bit of time around him.

This teacher/coach helped him to understand why treating people, including classmates and teammates with respect is an important life skill. The last topic we discussed was how we can get through to young people so that we can stop the bullying. In Dean’s opinion and I agree, we need to continue as adults to take the time to get to know students and understand their individual situations. Once you have a better understanding of what’s happening in their lives you can figure out a better way to stop the bullying. His past behavior and the belief that he could help troubled youth turn their lives around was the main reason that he chose the career that he did.