Is divorce broken?

The news of Brian Philcox, who killed himself and his two children on Father's Day, is striking for its tragedy but for me it begs a larger question: are families cast adrift during divorce?

Our main image of divorce is based, one expects, on high-profile cases involving self-regarding fat cats and exes with an enlarged sense of entitlement.

But for regular couples, who struggle through without a bereavement coach, a team of accountants or a media spin professional, does the current system put too much pressure on everyone, including the children?

Separating couples are left to their own devices to sort themselves out, says Duncan Fisher, chief executive of the Fatherhood Institute, which bills itself as the UK's fatherhood think-tank. While the parents' lives fall apart and everything from the home to the pension to the daily responsibilities is thrown into the pot to be argued over and divided, children are left vulnerable.

"Two children died and there needs to be an investigation as to how this happened. Why was there no safety net?" asks Fisher. He believes that the risks to children during divorce should be assessed and we need to proactively counsel and support families. That would allow families to disentangle themselves rather than tear themselves apart.

Philcox contacted Fathers 4 Justice last week, as do thousands of others coping with separation and custody issues."We had over 1,000 inquiries [from men] from last week alone," says founder Matt O'Connor. Some consider the group a tireless campaigner for father's rights, others believe it's merely a gimmicky group of whack jobs who climb buildings in fancy dress. Whatever its reputation, it's not a support group.

While it operates a volunteer-staffed hotline and refers men to its online forums and support groups like Samaritans and Citizens Advice, it's raison d'etre is as a pressure group.

The UK remains the best place in Europe for women to get divorced. According to Ann Ison, partner at Hughes Fowler Carruthers law firm, in some EU countries, maintenance is shorter (in some places lasting only three years) or absent. Here, the starting point for dividing assets is 50/50 but if you're talking about a £150,000 house with a mortgage, it's hard to slice it up. "One thing the courts accept is that the mother with the younger children has the greater need," while still acknowledging that the father needs a home as well, she says. When you consider that spousal maintenance doesn't have accepted percentages the way child maintenance does (15  per cent for one child, 20 per cent for two…), each divorce means hammering out (and carving up) a deal anew.

It's a fraught system that overwhelms many people. Some plunge into depression. Others cope with drink or drugs. Some take their own lives and even murder their children.

Divorce happens. Surely this highlights we need to make sure it happens more smoothly for everyone involved.

"He phoned up Fathers 4 Justice," says Fisher of Philcox. "Oh, great. Is that all we can offer?"

Comments

[Sue]

I see that The Times has just opened a debate/started a campaign about Family Courts.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article4271773.ece?token=null&offset=0

I'd like to see an AM blog on this subject - would anyone else? This particular blog on Is Divorce Broken is already a bit long to continue!

All the best to all good parents trying to see their children/get them out of care.

[Dave Farmer]

Gypsy I will never stop talking about this till there is real justice!!

[Dave Farmer]

The failings in family Law and the naivety of cloistered Law Lords leads to much of the problems in our society and affecting our young.Until there is a review of this secret court where professionals plunder the legal aid fund in the name of 'the best interest of children' this problem will remain

[Dave Farmer]

Sorry to see Adrian Chiles and Jane Garvey in seperation talks now wonder if they might highlight the failings of the family law system from the "Womans Hour" prospective and the "One show" prospective?

[supermother]

There's a dreadful pro mother bias but part of the problem is in most marrigaes women work less and care more. Men allow that to happen and that pattern is obvoiusly continued after divorce. If couples could both work the same hours, men do as much domestically as women or more then you'd find more men are in a stronger position after divorce. Every time you let a wife give up work you are risking losing your children (never mind damaging the cause of women on this planet to work and take positions of leadership) so keeping women in work even at the expense of male careers is such a win-win situation even for men although at the time they just worry about having to rush from work the nursery, how to find after school childcare and might prefer woman at home and their shirts ironed! Suits them when they're married, doesn't suit them after.

In marriages where both work or the father is a house husband there have been some very good examples of courts awarding residence to fathers although even then it is harder than for women to achieve that in the reverse situation.

I am sure there are mental illness issues in many people. Too many people don't accept they're wrong. I'm often wrong about things and I am sure my divorce was not all my ex's fault. It's annoying that vast vast numbers of mothers after divorce in the UK want their ex husband's helping, dealing with sick children, ,taking days off when children are ill, washing children's clothes, dealing with child tantrums on a day to day and regular basis whilst the men skip their duties adn turn up once every 3 months or just at Christmas and other men are desperate to be involved and are refused contact. Women like me would love one of these men as an ex husband who might actually want the children to stay for say a whole weekend a year.

I suppose as more women work full time and earn more than their husbands and as more men are prepared to cope psychologically with women who earn more than they do and pull their weight at home in marriage then eventually the norms will be changed and more shared contact after divorce is possible. Most women I know who work full time in proper careers are happy to share childcare with an ex husband. It tends to be the housewives who cling to children 100% of the time as some sort of comfort blanket because hty enever had a career an their only role was as sexual partner to a man and carer of children. So the rot in a sense is caused by the sexism in the marriage originally.

[Peter]

hhhmmm checking the earlier post, the reference website for the quotes was stripped by Times from my post, try again:

www.anxietypanic.com/bpd.html

www. anxietypanic.com/bpd.html

web (www and alll that jazz before it): .anxietypanic.com/bpd.html

[Peter]

Perhaps Brian Philcox suffered Borderline Personality Disorder? CAFCAS have revealed in private that they had concerns for his state of mental health, but have not revealed this (avoiding recriminations for failing to act on an issue they had concerns about?). Certainly BPDs are prone to suicidal acts and violence. They suffer an inability to regulate emotional impulses. Certainly that would fit the small number of comments describing the issues I have heard...

[Peter]

I would suggest that in many of the cases where a mother denies the children contact with their father, it is because they are suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder. Talking to a researcher in this area, with many years experience of this issue, it would appear that a large portion of mothers creating this problem suffer this mental health issue.

They see the world as black and white, there are rarely greys. You are either an allay, or enemy, with almost nothing between, and that position can be determined from as little as your accent (my ex had decided that petty well everyone with the local accent, and 'colourful' speech, were her enemies, to the great discomfort of a number of people who passed an expletive near her at the wrong moment).

This mental health issue is difficult to address, as part of the problem can be (as with my ex) projecting her issues onto other people, partners / children etc. I would suggest should require supervised contact, although I suspect some would suggest exclusion of contact, however, I have seen research suggesting that children fare better with regular contact with an imprisoned father than having their father excluded from their lives.

Sadly it does seem to be more (not always) a female problem:

"While less well known than schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (manic-depressive illness), BPD is more common, affecting 2 percent of adults, mostly young women."

"While they can develop intense but stormy attachments, their attitudes towards family, friends, and loved ones may suddenly shift from idealization (great admiration and love) to devaluation (intense anger and dislike). Thus, they may form an immediate attachment and idealize the other person, but when a slight separation or conflict occurs, they switch unexpectedly to the other extreme and angrily accuse the other person of not caring for them at all."

This mental health issue is very very tough for children! The instability is very confusing, with children taking on personal responsibility for the parent's distress. Perhaps the current family law position of mum can do no wrong is putting too many children into the care of mums with Borderline Personality Disorder. Sadly my child's school results have deteriorated since separation. The family courts industry refuses to consider tracking the consequences of current policy, and have made it illegal so no one else can.

[supermother]

It's not just frustrating it's heart breaking. Unless men feel differently about their children than women do (and that's possible but a different topic for another thread - female and male brains do differ) surely every woman is outraged whenever they hear of another woman denying a man contact. It always upsets and appalls me because I think what would I feel in that position. Don't they have any compassion these women even if they don't want relief from the tedium of 365 day a year child care. Or does my ex not want the children or to see or help with them because he knows I want that and if I were different and didn't want him ever to see them then he would be wanting to?

[Dave Farmer]

Yes something flipped in this guys head which is hard for us to understand who love our kids come what may and if I am denyed access till they are old enough to make up their own minds I have to accept it whilst they are doing fine at school and appear to be happy what more could a parent want? it is just frustrating not being able to make a contribution when the courts say you ARE fit to do so!

[Gipsy]

The thing is Dave, and this is the last time I'm going to bother saying this, the fathers who are denied access and have abusive ex-partners etc aren't the ones going out there and killing their kids. This sort of thing has nothing to do with the problems faced by fathers in those heartbreaking situations.

It has everything to do with a personality type that sees everything (partner and kids especially) as something they 'own'. The only deterrent that these sociopaths face is that of society itself - the one thing that they can't face is the world thinking that they are a bad person, because no matter how evil they might be, they never see themselves to blame - they always see themselves as the victim. By according such actions 'victimhood', as in 'see what the poor man was driven to' you provide justification to these men for their actions. Ask yourself, is it, I can't see my kids woe is me that is going through their heads? Or, is it more likely they're thinking, if I can't have them then nobody can? I don't think that any man who is thinking the first thought will kill their kids. This man, and all other men who do this, are definitely thinking the second one. To them, it is all about ownership. They own these kids, therefore they can do what they like. Until you, and all other men (because it is only men these types will listen to) make it clear that you don't see that as an excuse, ever, for killing their children, such events will continue to happen.

[Dave Farmer]

The fault lies in the family law courts if they took as prgmatic a view of parents workig together after divorce as they do the ones that agitate and rule accordingly, tragic insidences such as this would be rare There is nowhwere for a Dad to go if mum witholds the kids not even back to these kangeroo courts!

[supermother]

A lot of men (and some women) choose not to see their children after divorce or only one every 3 months or whatever. There are many reasons for this. Ignoring cases where the woman forbids it or the children refuse to go reasons include:

1. Air brushing the children and ex wife from their head is the only way they feel they can cope psychologically with the loss. In other words out of sight, out of mind. This is cowardly as we all have responsibilities to our children before and after divorce and we should be mature enough to put children first and ourselves and our own pain second. If I took the same attitude our children would be in care.

2. It's hugely easier not to have children than have them. 365 nights a year he can decide what he does and where he goes. 365 nights a year if I want a night out I need to fix complex arrangements and pay. A lot of fathers will see the children if nothing better comes up but if the new girl friend is available or the football is on or work calls them then children always come second. My ex is very reliable (as I am) and if he will almost always have them for 2 hours on Sunday but if something comes up (work this afternoon, I was told by one of the children about 30 mins before I thought they were going with him today) he lets them know. Othe men will repeatedly not turn up when planned or only one weekend in 4 such that the mother who might have planned work around that or heaven forbid an afternoon off or out can never really on the fact the man will turn up. That's one reason handovers from school are good - father collects Friday night. If he can't make it he has to pay and arrange a childminder to collect, he hands back to school on Monday morning, parents don't even need to meet.

3. Very unusually our court order says who ever has the children pays (the opposite of most orders) but that whoever has them I pay the school and university fees). So I suppose that's a disincentive on his part but I doubt that plays a part really in our case. Many mothers deny contact because under child support agency rules for every night the father has the children the less money the mother gets.

4. In our case which is probably rare the older children wanted me to divorce him and he knows that. They wanted that because of how he treated not only me but also them. I only divorced when they had each come to me alone to ask me to and I was only staying with him for their sake anyway. That is very rare. I have fairly clever and by then teenage children who found his conduct at home unacceptable. So i imagine he feels rejected by them as well as by me although we have tried contact, invitations to graduation, family events but he doesn't reply, not to their texts.

I haven't asked him as he won't speak to me. I doubt it's because of another woman. They had to hide from one the other weekend that he didn't want to see and there was another one in his house the other weekend whom he told the twins he doesn't like so I don't really think he has someone but I certainly don't mind if he does. I think most people are better off with a partner although all women should note that women's mental health is worst when they are married and men's is best.

It feels (although getting much easier as children get older) that I paid £1m and got over £1m in debt to achieve a freedom from him which then results in its won lack of freedome because i moved to having the children 365 days a year with no help from him, nor none of his help in my business and to a position of very massive debts that obviously have a daily impact on our lives and he was given a freedom and wealth he didn't really want as he wanted to stay married. So I am nominally free but practically not really so. But I knew all that when we divorced and it is still better having done it.

None of this is anything like as bad as not being allowed to see one's children.

I suppose another reason men lose touch is many are not prepared to be dictated to over contact because that is not acceptable within the male psyche of many and there's nothing wrong with that being so ,men and women differ but a woman with children living with her can call most of the shots and many men would rather forget the first family, form a new one and not be having to kow tow to the ex wife they hate for the "privilege" which should be a right of seeing their own children.

[Sue]

SM - why does your ex never want his own children to stay with him? Is it because he's miffed you split, and his logic is 'OK, she didn't want ME, and she wanted her precious career and her children, so now she can jolly well have them! Because if I 'take them off her hands for her' she'll just go swanning off and get herself another man instead of ME!' - ie, a sort of dog-in-the-manger attitude of 'I am no way making life any easier for her by having the children.....'. Because I honestly cannot understand how anyone can love their children and not desperately want to have them to stay over. Or maybe, of course, he has another g/f etc, and she doesn't want them staying over because actually she'd prefer they (and you!) didn't exist? Has he ever said WHY he doesn't want his children staying over? And are they hurt by his rejection of them? I do get the underlying feeling this is more about getting back at YOU, than about his relationship with his children??

(Apologies in advance if I'm wading all over your toes - you seem like a pretty robust character, but robust doesn't mean 'insensitive to emotional pain', so plese ignore this post if it is upsetting. But I guess I do find it odd behaviour of your ex, not to want his own children to stay with him. But then, I guess, there are parents who never wanted to be parents in the first place, I suppose, and feel little involvemnt or responsibility for their offspring.)

[supermother]

I don't see why legally a move to where the spouse moves with the children need be legally unwise although you risk that she'll up and leave immediately, particularly if someone moves say 20 miles away and isn't stalking. Although trouble is most seem to be able to make up molestation out of nothing

On the comment about children having to deal with contradictory comments from each parent can't they just keep their own counsel? I'm sure mine don't think I'm right and their father is wrong. I'd be very disappointed if they weren't savvy enough to know things are not as simple as that and that he'll have a very different view from me.

As he never speaks to me I do sometimes ask the children about how he's getting on and they don't usually have much to say and I don't think he asks them much about me but he does ask them about their older siblings whom he never contacts. But yes, that is probably easier than if I were in a situation with voiced acrimony.

Lots of parents make some kind of shared parenting work after divorce. Every person I know will ask when do I not have the children because htey all know most children of divorced mothers are with their fathers some of the time and then I have to say well actually they're with me 365 nights a year because he doesn't choose to have them.

[Peter]

Sorry to have missed so much of the debate, having just caught up. Glad to see the rancour seems to have gone.

Jean, and others on shared parenting. For a few years after separation, was fortunate to have fairly regular contact, which was almost shared parenting if you took into account the time ex arranged for our child to be with other families, I think I fed our child a little more than my ex during this period. Our child spent 1 night a week here for most of this period, for most of 4-9 years old. The routine was relatively stable with daddy's house stuff, and mummy's house stuff that our child knew was best not mixed, rarely taking gifts back to mum's house. Our child seemed quite happy with 2 homes, living in 2 different regimes (colleagues reported a difficult child with mother, but well behaved and generally happy (after the stress reduction!) with me). The chance for contact where possible with the (geographically distant) extended family, sadly her extended family through me.

Contrary to my previous posts of statistics... based on the massive sample of ... ... 1, and my ... ... obviously ... .. unbiased observations .. .. shared parenting can work quite well (though there are studies to support this..), even if the parents are acrimonious. Certainly there was a great deal of laughter when child here, often with child initiating the good natured teasing, and have you tried cocoa powder in pancake mix... .. and food dies, like all new parents, I am sure that I was the only one who had done that....

One of the most important aspects of this shared period, was neutral exchange points where ex & I did not meet, such as collecting from school, or other families after child's visit. However, there was always litigation in the background, that allowed her to, as she so often said to our child, cut me out of our child's life by moving 400 miles (700/ 900 miles from her extended family..), with my legal team strongly recommending that I do not, as other fathers have been able to do, move to follow them. That was 6 years ago, with only a few letters coming this way since, obviously 'guided' if not dictated.

So I would strongly support shared parenting, based on experience here. Children can enjoy it if the arrangement is stable. Must emphasise though, that that time is for the child, not a chance to interrogate to find out what is happening with the ex, the "lots and lots and lots of questions" our child experienced there, and the very adult question coming out of the blue here.

[Sue]

It does seem so shameful that parents can stoop to such things, and seems to indicate to me that they are hardly worthy of the adjective 'adult'.

I can appreciate that it's very difficult for, say, an abandoned/dumped wife to bite her lip, especially if the children asked the honest but brutal question 'why didn't Dad want to live with us any more?' without resort to the "Well, chicks, there was this cunning little floozy in your dad's office, and your father's a vain, gullible male and ... etc".

But, in the end, surely as children grow up they ask those questions anyway - hopefully of the deserting parent 'Why did you walk out on us, Dad?' and make them face up to what they did (even if belatedly).

One of the saddest 'fall outs' from divorce seems to be the statistic that says that the children of divorced parents are more likely to get divorced themselves, as they have no example of a stable marriage. Not sure if that's true or not, however.

[Gipsy]

I think that you're falling into the trap SM of, because you've not come across this sort of situation before, you've no idea just how evil some people are prepared to be and just how much of an effect it can have.

Think of hostages that start to sympathise and even work with their captors. Or the sort of mind set that an abused wife can get in to (if I can just make sure that I don't cook the wrong foods I won't get hit), taking on the blame on to themselves.

Children internalise. They don't have any concept or way of externalising. If mummy is upset then it must be their fault. If daddy is upset then it must be their fault.

Also, children very naturally cannot handle contradictory behaviour in their parents. If a parent is blatantly lying to them (your mother is a wh**e or your father is doing XYZ outrageous act) then it creates a very stressful internal situation for the child. They either have to accept that a parent they love is capable of such behaviour, or that what that parent is saying is true and therefore they have to accept something awful about the other parent. No matter how the child resolves this situation, and they have very limited means with which to do so, it will mess with their heads.

That sort of manipulative parent has their job made easier by the other parent, who won't put such pressures and stresses on a child even when it works against them.

Be thankful that whatever else your ex might be, he isn't the sort of person to play such hideous mind games with your children.

[supermother]

There are so many issues on divorce where there is no clear easy answer and whatever course is taken will hut someone. In most cases it is not practicble for children to live with both parents half the time or children stay put and each parent moves back in every other week (the Bob Geldof solution which is quite attactive - whey should adults who can't maintain a marriage get one home and poor children who have done nothing wrong be expected to be shunted from pillar to post - let the adults camp on a friend's floor every week and the children stay home whilst the parents come and go....) Despite my comnent about 50/50 I wouldn't like to split my existence certainly not once I got over age 8 or 9. I couldn't even bear a weekend cottage. I need my stuff around me.

Kornelius, very sad, typical story. It is no comfort but you are doing better than some men achieve. Some men haven't been able to see their children for years. I think it was 10 years Mrs Meyer was not allowed to see her sons who had been taken to Germany by their father. Some mothers manage to stop the school allowing any contact from the fathers. Mothers falsely obtain molestation orders which mean the father can't even go within a certain radius of the children and them (and of course there are many many women who genuinely are hurt by abusive men but we're not talking about those here).

Children age. No one could stop my 8 or 9 year olds emailing their fatehr as they have internet access at school even if I wanted to. Although in our case as soon as one of them at 7 was bright enough to pick up his own emails their father stopped his once every 3 month email to me if he needed to change a time and did it through the child which is fine, I can live with that. He's under no obligation to have any civilised contact with me if he chooses. So as they get bigger they will be more independent of mothers who have sullied their minds with lies. But I still don't understand why all these children out there are so malleable. If I tell my children something they're are likely to do or think the opposite as not. I am sure they know from both of us the problems we have with the other ex spouse but I doubt either of us could reall influence them in a way that all these other "putty in the mother's hands" types of children seem to be influenced. If the mother takes away the child's PC why doesn't the child do something about that? Or perhaps these are just very little children rather than older ones like mine.

I suppose one comfort is most parents do work things out. I know one father who every morning drives 30 mins to his ex wife's house to then spent 30 mins driving his teenage daughter to school just to get that time in the car with her which is great if you can manage it. Having just had 2 and then 3 chidlren at univesity at the same time and me alone doing all the driving trips and lugging of luggage around and then seeing so many fathers doing that including divorced fathers just shows how unfair a situation some people are left in after divorce. I live 5 minutes away from my ex (who lives in his umortggage 5 bed detached bought with my money in which he has never asked the children to stay) so staying near an ex doesn't mean they necessarily help or be involved but at least the potential is there. Or does that make me like the man in the Greek myth - where the fruits or drink you want (the help of my ex) are just out of reach but you are reminded of the lack of the help every day due to his proximity.

[Gipsy]

If it helps anyway - I found some of the essays and information on this site of invaluable help at the beginning. It is a US site, and therefore can be a bit culturally alienting for Brits, but there's still plenty of nuggets of helpful advice to be had.

www.steptogether.org/resources.html

[j]

Gipsy, its true, I only have really met reasonable and decent people who have *both* swallowed their pride and their justifiable anger and pain, made compromises and sacrifices all round, and have muddled through OK. That's been hard enough for them as it is. I havent really known anyone who has been on the receiving end of totally cruel and unreasonable behaviour. You are right, it has been an eyeopener.

[Gipsy]

Sue, indeed, those grim types do appear to marry exceptionally nice people who get thoroughly shafted because they do what is best for the children, and try to do things according to the system. From my personal experience, it is men and women in equal portions in this 'grim' category.

J, I think the system does OK for situations where both sides are fair and amicable people. I think that the system works on the basis that, where 'enforcement' is needed it is because there is an extreme need - violent partner for example. Unfortunately, there is just no way to try and mediate a system whereby only a fair and just outcome is possible. Sociopathic types, especially those with the personality disorders that have been talked about here, are extremely willing to work the system to their advantage, and they are so deluded that they will be convinced that they are the person who is being victimised. They will take their behaviour and project that on to their partner.

Again in my experience that sort of person is as likely to be a man as a woman. I've belonged to two support groups, one predominantly US and the other UK. There are just as many heart breaking stories of injustice and parental alienation from places that have just the sort of system Kornelius wants, such as California where custody is automatically 50-50.

If you don't have experience of this, or know of anyone who has, and this thread has been an eye opener and a shock then I'm happy. It is good for those of us who have been there to remember now and again that this isn't the sort of thing that is the norm! Most people do actually find some reasonable way to manage things after seperation.

Just that some of us are unfortunate in this regard.

[Sue]

J: A ban on moving children away (subject to discretion in cases of proven abuse) sounds entirely fair to me.

- I'd go along with this. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me at first sight. Would you need to ban the 'absent parent' from moving either, I wonder, so they can't 'abandon their children' or would they just not bother to turn up to see them anyway, if they were so included, wherever they lived?

[j]

As a non-divorced person I am shocked, as you expected me to be I know, by the stories.

What I think I see is a system designed for the most dangerous and abusive breakups being applied to a whole range of situations including breakups between decent people who are both fit parents. Only goodwill from the other partner can prevent the mess and it is a truism to say that the reason we have law is that you cant rely on goodwill for everything.

A ban on moving children away (subject to discretion in cases of proven abuse) sounds entirely fair to me.

[Sue]

I can't help but agree/feel that, however rare or commonplace it may be, that there are, indeed, mothers who simply want to 'move on' by which they mean 'write their ex husband utterly out of their lives as though he never existed and has as much value to them as last year's pair of shoes'....and that includes their children as well, ie, that they want their ex out of their children's lives because the mother has personally 'moved on' from that former relationship.

Perhaps the 'counterpart' of this type of woman, of course, is the type of man (again, how rare or commonplace I don't know) who similarly wants to 'chuck the fat old wifey' move on with 'lovely young thing who adores me', and just simply doesn't want to know about their own children who always were more a nuisance than anything else.

What I find so sad is that these grim types never marry each other, but instead land themselves nice spouses whom they then treat badly (and their mutual children, of course).