help and hindrance: parents of divorcing children

6
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 1987, Vol. 13, No. 2,197-202 HELP AND HINDRANCE: PARENTS OF DIVORCING CHILDREN* Elena K. Lesser Joel J. Comet State Uniuersity of New YorklBrooklyn Much research exists on the impact of divorce on the nuclear family. Less is known about the response of the extended family to a divorce. Zn this study, the authors examined divorcing children’s perceptions of their parents’ behavior; divorcing children experienced their parents’ reactions as supportive, non-sup- portiue, or “mixed.”Types of helpful behaviors were categorized and patterns of unhelpful parental behavior were elaborated. Zmplications of the study for ther- apy and for an understanding ofparent-adult child relationships are discussed. Divorce is a multi-generational process which typically taxes a family’s resources to its limits. The marital system is disrupted and, in crisis, marital partners reach out to the generations above and below them. Most divorce research has focused on the divorcing generation and its children; little attention has been paid to the extended kin of the divorcing pair. This research gap exists despite studies showing that of all the extended kin relationships, the greatest amount of interaction occurs with parents (Spicer & Hampe, 1975), and that during the year following the divorce there is a significant increase in the amount of contact with parents (Ahrons & Bowman, 1982). Studies generally report clinical impressions of the positive impact of parental support on the divorcing child’s adjustment (Matthews & Sprey, 1984; Spanier & Casto, 1979) and conclude with calls for further research on the extended family and divorce (e.g., Ahrons & Bowman, 1982). Initial research by Spanier and Hanson (1982) contradicted the clinical impressions noted by the above authors. They reported either no correlations, or negative correla- tions, between post-divorce adjustment scales and the independent variables of support from, and interaction with, extended kin. Their results are problematic, however, in that “support” and “interaction” were measured quantitatively. The attitudes that accompanied the support and the quality of the interactions were not considered. From a research perspective, it is, therefore, clear that to be able to better under- stand parental behaviors and divorcing children’s adjustment, the quality and range of their interactions need to be elaborated. An additional goal of this exploratory study was to identify factors of parental support and nonsupport from the divorcing child’s perspective and to explore potential parental resources. Divorcing children might then be prepared for parents’ reactions and be able to maximize whatever support their parents can provide. *This article is based on a paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Asso- Elena K. Lesser, EdD, is Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry, State University Joel J. Comet, PhD, is Clinical Instructor in the Department of Psychiatry, State University ciation for Marriage and Family Therapy, October, 1985, New York City. of New York, Health Science Center at Brooklyn, 450 Clarkson Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11203. of New York, Health Science Center at Brooklyn, 450 Clarkson Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11203. April 1987 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 197

Upload: elena-k-lesser

Post on 21-Jul-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: HELP AND HINDRANCE: PARENTS OF DIVORCING CHILDREN

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 1987, Vol. 13, No. 2,197-202

HELP AND HINDRANCE: PARENTS OF DIVORCING CHILDREN*

Elena K. Lesser Joel J. Comet State Uniuersity of New YorklBrooklyn

Much research exists on the impact of divorce on the nuclear family. Less is known about the response of the extended family to a divorce. Zn this study, the authors examined divorcing children’s perceptions of their parents’ behavior; divorcing children experienced their parents’ reactions as supportive, non-sup- portiue, or “mixed.” Types of helpful behaviors were categorized and patterns of unhelpful parental behavior were elaborated. Zmplications of the study for ther- apy and for an understanding ofparent-adult child relationships are discussed.

Divorce is a multi-generational process which typically taxes a family’s resources to its limits. The marital system is disrupted and, in crisis, marital partners reach out to the generations above and below them. Most divorce research has focused on the divorcing generation and its children; little attention has been paid to the extended kin of the divorcing pair. This research gap exists despite studies showing that of all the extended kin relationships, the greatest amount of interaction occurs with parents (Spicer & Hampe, 1975), and that during the year following the divorce there is a significant increase in the amount of contact with parents (Ahrons & Bowman, 1982). Studies generally report clinical impressions of the positive impact of parental support on the divorcing child’s adjustment (Matthews & Sprey, 1984; Spanier & Casto, 1979) and conclude with calls for further research on the extended family and divorce (e.g., Ahrons & Bowman, 1982).

Initial research by Spanier and Hanson (1982) contradicted the clinical impressions noted by the above authors. They reported either no correlations, or negative correla- tions, between post-divorce adjustment scales and the independent variables of support from, and interaction with, extended kin. Their results are problematic, however, in that “support” and “interaction” were measured quantitatively. The attitudes that accompanied the support and the quality of the interactions were not considered.

From a research perspective, it is, therefore, clear that to be able to better under- stand parental behaviors and divorcing children’s adjustment, the quality and range of their interactions need to be elaborated.

An additional goal of this exploratory study was to identify factors of parental support and nonsupport from the divorcing child’s perspective and to explore potential parental resources. Divorcing children might then be prepared for parents’ reactions and be able to maximize whatever support their parents can provide.

*This article is based on a paper presented a t the Annual Conference of the American Asso-

Elena K. Lesser, EdD, is Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry, State University

Joel J. Comet, PhD, is Clinical Instructor in the Department of Psychiatry, State University

ciation for Marriage and Family Therapy, October, 1985, New York City.

of New York, Health Science Center a t Brooklyn, 450 Clarkson Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11203.

of New York, Health Science Center at Brooklyn, 450 Clarkson Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11203.

April 1987 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 197

Page 2: HELP AND HINDRANCE: PARENTS OF DIVORCING CHILDREN

The three generations discussed in our study will be referred to as follows: (a) the divorcing generation is called the “divorcing children,” (b) their parents are called “the parents,” and (c) their children are called “the grandchildren.”

METHOD

Subjects Subjects were recruited through the authors’ professional and social network. Of

33 adults solicited, only 3 declined to participate, fearing loss of confidentiality. The sample consisted of 12 men and 18 women who were divorced, or well into the process. All subjects had at least one parent alive during the period of their divorce, and grand- children were present in 26 cases. The group was primarily Caucasian, with 2 minority members, and reflected a range of religious backgrounds including Protestant, Funda- mentalist, Catholic and Jewish, Mean age at the time of divorce was 36 years, with a range from 19-55. Mean number of years married was 13, with the range from 2-28. The socio-economic status of the divorcing child ranged from lower middle class to upper middle class. A variety of professions were represented. These included doctors (3), secretaries (3), administrators (61, psychotherapists (5), designerslarchitects (3), liberal arts professors (3), scientists (21, a businessman, a construction contractor, a real estate broker, an advertising executive, and a caterer. All respondents were fully functioning in their professional lives.

Procedure Each divorced child was personally interviewed by one of the authors. Interviews

lasted between 30 and 60 minutes, and were conducted in private, either in subjects’ homes or the authors’ offices. A structured interview format was utilized in conjunction with a questionnaire, containing both open-ended and Likert-type scale questions.

The questionnaire was designed to elicit the following information: (a) The number of cases in which parental response was experienced as positive, negative, or mixed; (b) those parental behaviors felt to be helpful and unhelpful; and (c) strategies children successfully employed to change their parents’ unhelpful behavior.

RESULTS

Parental Response Forty percent of divorced children experienced their parents’ response as purely

positive. Another 20% experienced their parents’ reactions as purely negative. The remaining 40% supported our expectation that parental support, or lack thereof, can be a complex blend of support and nonsupport. This latter group reported a mix of positive and negative behaviors.

An illustration of this complexity is seen in the comments of one divorcing woman who described her mother as very supportive in terms of babysitting, hosting weekly family get-togethers, and showing maternal concern. A t the same time, this mother also induced strong feelings of guilt with statements such as “ever since your sister’s divorce I’ve had a knife in my heart and now you’re turning the blade.”

Helpful Parental Behaviors The reported helpful parental behaviors fit into 5 general categories of support: (a)

emotional, (b) financial, (c) childcare, (d) good rational advice, and (e) allowance for autonomy or regression.

1. Emotional support. Seventy-three percent of the divorcing children reported receiving emotional support from their parents. Listening and showing empathy were

JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 1987 198

Page 3: HELP AND HINDRANCE: PARENTS OF DIVORCING CHILDREN

described as very important, as was concrete affirmation of love and affection. Several divorcing men and women found it reassuring to be told: “Just remember, no matter what, we still love you . . . you’ll never be alone.” A statement of parental loyalty was also important. Several children had parents who helped them get over the period of shock or depression and who encouraged them to get on with their lives. For example, one set of parents helped a daughter, in shock over her husband’s departure, express her anger. Another set of parents made a point of taking their depressed son to the movies or the country, even though they ordinarily disliked both activities.

2. Financial support. Thirty percent of the divorcing children received financial support. Financial support included giving or lending money, or simply offering to do so. It was very important to some divorcing children to be asked if they needed financial help as they were too uncomfortable to ask on their own. One set of parents offered to “hold their child‘s money to keep it from being “exploited” in the divorce settlement.

3. Child care. Thirty-nine percent of the divorcing children received help with childcare from their parents. This support ranged from occasional babysitting to taking children for weekends. In one case, grandchildren were taken care of for 2% years.

4. Good rational advice. Twenty-seven percent of the divorcing children felt that their parents provided them with good rational advice which gave them needed per- spective. For example, one man was so distraught when his wife left that he impulsively decided to leave the country with his children. He called his mother in New York from California (where he was living) and asked her to help him get passports. He remembers her “calming me down. She told me it took time to get passports, and reminded me that the children had a mother who was crucial to their adjustment and that it might be harmful to the children to take them away from her so precipitously.” This mother did not question her son’s authority to make decisions but presented the consequences of the action he was contemplating. He stayed in California.

5. Respect for autonomylregression. Ten percent of the divorcing children reported that their parents were attuned to their needs for autonomy or temporary regression. Two quotes illustrate these contrasting needs: “My parents always allowed me to make my own decisions. I cannot imagine them interfering, and I wouldn’t have allowed them to help me in any way. They respect my space.”; “My mother let me come over and be her little girl again. She knew I needed it, and that it wouldn’t last forever.”

Unhelpful Parental Behaviors The unhelpful parental behaviors reported by the divorcing children were placed

into 7 categories. 1. Punishing the child. Forty percent of the divorcing children felt punished by

their parents. Punishing behaviors included both verbal attacks and hostile acts. They were either overtly or covertly expressed and frequently coexisted with other supportive behaviors.

For some parents, punishment took the form of criticism. Extreme punishment involved overt rejection or cutting off of the child. This constituted a second ruptured relationship for the divorcing child, the first being the break with the spouse. In these cases, the divorcing child was left in an especially vulnerable and isolated position. One example is the set of financially secure parents who refused a request from their daughter for a plane ticket to visit them because they opposed her divorce.

Punishment coexisting with support was present in the behavior of parents who acceded to their son’s request for a loan. Several months later they sent him a bill- with interest added of $37.50!

2. Repossesing the child. Holding onto the consanguineal child and not permitting autonomy took on many forms. Thirty-three percent of our divorcing child sample felt this “pull.”

April 1987 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 199

Page 4: HELP AND HINDRANCE: PARENTS OF DIVORCING CHILDREN

Some parents intruded into the life of their adult child. One mother had a key to her daughter’s apartment for emergency use. After the separation, she began to enter her daughter’s apartment at will, refusing to return the key when requested.

Other parents infantilized their children. More than one set of parents tried to get their children to move “back home.” Others treated their children as if they were no longer capable of decision making. (“Infantilization” describes the parents’ need to treat the child as an infant, in contrast to “regression,” which describes the child‘s need to be taken care of.)

Still other parents aggressively took over their children’s responsibilities. 3. Denying the divorce. Seven percent of the divorcing children said their parents

simply refused to accept their divorce. Denial involved parental maneuvers designed to keep the family intact. To maintain this fiction, an artificial wall was built around the family.

Some parents refused to discuss the divorce, others continued to invite the couple, together, after it was clear that they were separating, and others kept the divorce a secret. One daughter was asked by friends of her parents how her husband was, as long as two years after her separation.

4. Holding on to the divorcing child‘s spouse. Holding on to the ex-spouse involved parents’ manipulation to effect a reunion. Seven percent of the divorcing children experienced this.

One son-in-law was offered money by his father-in-law to stay married. In another case, a mother continued to invite her former son-in-law to her country home for weekends, against her daughter’s expressed wishes.

5 . Extruding divorcing child‘s spouse. In this instance, the parents reacted to their child’s divorce by prematurely severing ties with their child’s spouse. By rushing to reorganize and stabilize the family into a new unit, parents attempted to avoid dealing with the conflicting and painful emotions aroused. Seven percent of the divorcing chil- dren reported this type of parental response.

These behaviors included extreme criticism of their child’s ex-spouse or refusing to have any contact with the ex-spouse. Other parents criticized their child’s former spouse in front of their grandchildren. One father tried to convince his son to take the son’s ex- wife to court despite the fact that his son wanted to settle amicably.

6. Bypassing the divorcing child’s generation. Seven percent of the parents showed overconcern for grandchildren. Rather than attending to the needs of their divorcing child (who, reinforced, would then be better able to focus on the grandchildren), all attention and worry was focused on the grandchildren. In one case, this led to envy of the grandchildren which produced guilt feelings. In another case, it interfered with the divorcing child’s ability to effectively discipline the grandchildren.

7. Parental personalization. Parental personalization involved the reactivation of parents’ personal or marital problems in the wake of their children’s divorce. The resulting stress between the parents often triangulated the child. Thirteen percent of the divorcing children reported that their parents reacted in this way. Personalization could lead to dogmatic insistence that the child maintain the marriage. One child was told: “Think of what you are doing to me.”

Personalization led to increased pressure on the child to take more responsibility for, and care of, the parent. This pressure could be both direct (guilt, demandingness) or indirect (illness).

Children’s Ability to Modify Parents’ Unhelpful Behavior Those divorcing children who reported that they experienced negative parental

behavior were asked if they were able to modify those behaviors. Forty-five percent of this group reported that they were able to do so. Significantly, the age of the divorcing

200 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 1987

Page 5: HELP AND HINDRANCE: PARENTS OF DIVORCING CHILDREN

child was found to be related to his or her ability to influence the parents (r = .611; p < .05). The older the divorcing child, the more influence he or she exerted. Younger divorcing children did not seem to perceive that they could have an effect.

Seven approaches to changing parental behavior were mentioned: 1. Demonstrating self-sufficiency. Showing parents the willingness and ability to

manage their new lives had a positive affect on parental behavior. Comments from subjects included “I’m making a new life for myself and my child. I told my parents: ‘It’s better to have nothing than something terrible.’ ” “My parents saw I was happier alone. I told my father I couldn’t live my life so he’d be happy.” One person said that “even acting like I was doing well seemed to be enough.”

2. Confrontation. Clear statements of self-assertion seemed to have power to limit intrusion and lack of respect for the divorced child’s decision. “I confronted my parents. I asked them how they could let one decision they didn’t like ruin the good relationship we had had.”

The mother who criticized her daughter for spending too little time with her children was admonished: “Trust my judgment and stop interfering with my parenting.” The daughter whose parents kept inviting the son-in-law to their country home made a definite rule: “Only see my ex-spouse when he has the children, or run the risk of losing me.”

3. Allowing time to pass. Some divorcing children found that their parents just needed time to adjust. One man succeeded in reconnecting with his parents by spending pleasant times with them and avoiding the subject of divorce. Another man, who had not seen his parents for months at a time while he was married, visited his parents every weekend the first year after his separation.

4. Explaining the circumstances of the divorce. Especially in extreme circumstances, explaining the reasons for the divorce was helpful: “When my mother heard that my husband had been abusive she stopped bothering me. I wish I had told her before.”

5. Differentiating from parents. Learning in therapy, or on one’s own, to care less about parental approval allowed some children to accept their parents’ fallibilities and not be led by parental provocation into an escalating pattern of hostility.

6. Establishing a new relationship. Forming another significant relationship had a positive influence in one case-but only so long as it did not occur too soon after the divorce.

7. Preemption. Preempting the parents’ upset to enlist their aid worked in one case. The mother who threatened suicide was warned by her daugther: “Don’t talk to me about suicide because I’m thinking of it myself.”

DISCUSSION

Earlier studies assessing parental “support” following a child’s divorce did not succeed in measuring the complex mixture of parental support and nonsupport we frequently found to coexist in clinical situations. This exploratory study was undertaken in order to gather more specific information about parental reactions during a child’s divorce. The findings of this study demonstrate the importance of viewing parental response to a child‘s divorce as a complicated mixture of positive and negative behaviors.

The supportive parental behaviors reported by the divorcing children in our sample fit into five general categories: (a) emotional, (b) financial, (c) childcare, (d) good rational advice, and (e) respect for autonomylregression. These categories were independent of each other in that parents could be supportive in any one, while nonsupportive in another. Seven patterns of nonsupportive parental behaviors were discovered: (a) pun- ishing the divorcing child, (b) repossessing the divorcing child, (c) denying the divorce,

April 1987 JOURNAL OF MARITAL. AND FAMILY THERAPY 201

Page 6: HELP AND HINDRANCE: PARENTS OF DIVORCING CHILDREN

(d) holding on to the divorcing child's spouse, (e) extruding the divorcing child's spouse, (0 bypassing the divorcing child's generation, and (g) parental personalization.

The helpful categories and unhelpful patterns elaborated in this study should not be considered exhaustive. Further research on a larger, more random sample is neces- sary to confirm the results obtained here. Research is also necessary to elucidate the relationship between parental support and post-divorce adjustment using the distinc- tions detailed in this study. These categories need to be assessed and related, both individually and in the aggregate, to post-divorce adjustment.

We have found clinical applications for our findings as well. In therapy with divorc- ing children we have become more discriminating in analyzing the reported parental responses. We specifically look for indications of ambivalence, then work to highlight the positive and reframe the negative.

The frequency with which we encountered ambivalent reactions leads us to nor- malize this phenomenon for children, to identify its time boundedness, and to reframe it as parents' response to a perceived threat to the family system.

Our general approach to working with divorced children now incorporates the data of this study. Our approach, and the specific interventions developed to handle each of the non-supportive situations, will be presented in a subsequent paper.

REFERENCES

Ahrons, C. R. & Bowman, M. E. (1982). Changes in family relationships following divorce of adult

Matthews, S. H. & Sprey, J. (1984). The impact of divorce on grandparenthood: An exploratory

Spanier, G. B. & Casto, R. S. (1979). Adjustment to separation and divorce: A qualitative analysis.

Spanier, G. B. & Hanson, S. (1982). The role of extended kin in the adjustment to marital separation.

Spicer, J. W. & Hampe, G. D. (1975). Kinship interaction after divorce. Journal of Marriage and

child Grandmothers perceptions. Journal of Diuorce, 5,49-68.

study. Gerontologist, 24,41-47.

In G. Levinger & 0. C. Moles (Eds.), Separation and divorce. New York: Basic Books.

Journal of Divorce, 5,33-48.

theFarnily. 37, 113-119.

202 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY April 1987