Are FIRE aspirants more likely to get a divorce than an average person?

[nereo]

Or this is a thread where some people spout some new age crap that parents can just do what they want and kids will be fine regardless.

Has anyone in this thread actually made such a statement?
I can't find a statement even remotely close to what you are suggesting... but perhaps I missed it?

[Kris]

Or this is a thread where some people spout some new age crap that parents can just do what they want and kids will be fine regardless.

Has anyone in this thread actually made such a statement?
I can't find a statement even remotely close to what you are suggesting... but perhaps I missed it?

Classic strawman.

[Villanelle]

All these issues are so, so loaded that it's nearly impossible to have a rational, impersonal discussion about them.  Someone has divorced parents that did it badly, another has stay-married parents that were miserable and caused damaged. Someone is or had an amazing stepparent and another was abused by a step parent.  Whatever.  These issues are so, so personal that it's nearly impossible for someone to read that "on average, X is less good" and feel the need to defend their existence and goodness, even though their life falls in that less-ideal category. 

Just because someone says X is less-ideal and outcomes less good *on average*, doesn't mean that you aren't a great step parents, or a great parent with a new partner who is a stepparent to your kid.  And just because you had a shit step parent doesn't mean that there aren't some incredible ones who deeply enrich the lives of their stepkids.  And just because on average Steps are more likely to abuse (maybe) than non-steps doesn't mean you aren't an amazing parent or that you did a bad thing for your kids by remarrying and bringing a step into their lives.

The statistics do matter, and they offer perspective.  But that doesn't mean anyone is wrong for doing something on the side of the stats with slightly worse numbers.  Individual circumstances matter, and we cant quantify and separate out everything. 

[Metalcat]

All these issues are so, so loaded that it's nearly impossible to have a rational, impersonal discussion about them.  Someone has divorced parents that did it badly, another has stay-married parents that were miserable and caused damaged. Someone is or had an amazing stepparent and another was abused by a step parent.  Whatever.  These issues are so, so personal that it's nearly impossible for someone to read that "on average, X is less good" and feel the need to defend their existence and goodness, even though their life falls in that less-ideal category. 

Just because someone says X is less-ideal and outcomes less good *on average*, doesn't mean that you aren't a great step parents, or a great parent with a new partner who is a stepparent to your kid.  And just because you had a shit step parent doesn't mean that there aren't some incredible ones who deeply enrich the lives of their stepkids.  And just because on average Steps are more likely to abuse (maybe) than non-steps doesn't mean you aren't an amazing parent or that you did a bad thing for your kids by remarrying and bringing a step into their lives.

The statistics do matter, and they offer perspective.  But that doesn't mean anyone is wrong for doing something on the side of the stats with slightly worse numbers.  Individual circumstances matter, and we cant quantify and separate out everything.

There are really two arguments being made in this thread:

Negative generalizations about very valid personal life decisions like divorce and remarriage that millions and millions of good parents make and people getting pissed off about those generalizations.

[Cassie]

In summary, this is a thread where a few people repeat weird, outdated stereotypes about marriage, parenting, divorce, and kids, and everyone else pretends that these are valid viewpoints worth debating.

No good marriage ends in divorce.
No good parent ditches their kid, regardless of their relationship with the other parent.
Lots of people are bad parents, no matter the genetic relationship with the kids.
Lots of people are good parents, no matter the genetic relationship with the kids.
Kids don't need an adult of any specific sex or gender in their lives to be well parented.

Or this is a thread where some people spout some new age crap that parents can just do what they want and kids will be fine regardless.  It’s complicated and there’s no magic answer.  It’s a parent’s responsibility to put their kids first and do what’s best for the kids. That’s going to look different for each family depending on individual circumstances. The pendulum has swung too far from never divorcing no matter the circumstances to just do what makes you happy. Either extreme is detrimental.

Did I miss where someone said that??

No you didn’t. I was just replying to Snacky countering one ridiculous accusation with the exact opposite.   The older I get the more I know that life is gray and not black and white.

[La Bibliotecaria Feroz]

...

Just because someone says X is less-ideal and outcomes less good *on average*, doesn't mean that you aren't a great step parents, or a great parent with a new partner who is a stepparent to your kid. ...

The statistics do matter, and they offer perspective.  But that doesn't mean anyone is wrong for doing something on the side of the stats with slightly worse numbers.  Individual circumstances matter, and we cant quantify and separate out everything.

MISUSE OF STATISTICS IS BAD.

I do get offended when people toss around the statistic that kids of divorced parents have worse outcomes because it's a correlation, not a causation. To quote in the context of suggesting that people should stay married "for the children," as was actively happening in this thread, is harmful.

We have no proof that people who consider divorce but stay married for their children have happier children than people who divorced. We only know that kids whose parents have a good enough relationship to stay married may have some advantages over kids whose parents didn't. Again, suggesting otherwise is hurtful to people who have felt that divorce is the best thing for their children as well as themselves, AND could possibly be harmful by convincing people to stay in bad marriages.

[Anecdata: My parents had a difficult marriage during the child raising years but are still together. My sister and I have been divorced 3 times between us and have a total of 5 fathers for our combined six children.]

[Metalcat]

In summary, this is a thread where a few people repeat weird, outdated stereotypes about marriage, parenting, divorce, and kids, and everyone else pretends that these are valid viewpoints worth debating.

No good marriage ends in divorce.
No good parent ditches their kid, regardless of their relationship with the other parent.
Lots of people are bad parents, no matter the genetic relationship with the kids.
Lots of people are good parents, no matter the genetic relationship with the kids.
Kids don't need an adult of any specific sex or gender in their lives to be well parented.

Or this is a thread where some people spout some new age crap that parents can just do what they want and kids will be fine regardless.  It’s complicated and there’s no magic answer.  It’s a parent’s responsibility to put their kids first and do what’s best for the kids. That’s going to look different for each family depending on individual circumstances. The pendulum has swung too far from never divorcing no matter the circumstances to just do what makes you happy. Either extreme is detrimental.

Did I miss where someone said that??

No you didn’t. I was just replying to Snacky countering one ridiculous accusation with the exact opposite.   The older I get the more I know that life is gray and not black and white.

But you said that this is a thread where people said that...but they didn't...

I'm so confused.

People in this thread absolutely made black and white generalizations about divorce and step parents.

No one made generalizations about all parents being good.

Again, I'm super confused.

[curious_george]

In summary, this is a thread where a few people repeat weird, outdated stereotypes about marriage, parenting, divorce, and kids, and everyone else pretends that these are valid viewpoints worth debating.

No good marriage ends in divorce.
No good parent ditches their kid, regardless of their relationship with the other parent.
Lots of people are bad parents, no matter the genetic relationship with the kids.
Lots of people are good parents, no matter the genetic relationship with the kids.
Kids don't need an adult of any specific sex or gender in their lives to be well parented.

Or this is a thread where some people spout some new age crap that parents can just do what they want and kids will be fine regardless.  It’s complicated and there’s no magic answer.  It’s a parent’s responsibility to put their kids first and do what’s best for the kids. That’s going to look different for each family depending on individual circumstances. The pendulum has swung too far from never divorcing no matter the circumstances to just do what makes you happy. Either extreme is detrimental.

Did I miss where someone said that??

No you didn’t. I was just replying to Snacky countering one ridiculous accusation with the exact opposite.   The older I get the more I know that life is gray and not black and white.

But you said that this is a thread where people said that...but they didn't...

I'm so confused.

People in this thread absolutely made black and white generalizations about divorce and step parents.

No one made generalizations about all parents being good.

Again, I'm super confused.

All parents are good. :D

I don't have much to add to the discussion at this point so I think I will start adding to the confusion instead. :P

ETA: Honestly I doubt we will come to any sort of agreement on generalizing parenting or divorce or step parents or anything. Every situation is unique, as Cassie says.

[Cassie]

...

Just because someone says X is less-ideal and outcomes less good *on average*, doesn't mean that you aren't a great step parents, or a great parent with a new partner who is a stepparent to your kid. ...

The statistics do matter, and they offer perspective.  But that doesn't mean anyone is wrong for doing something on the side of the stats with slightly worse numbers.  Individual circumstances matter, and we cant quantify and separate out everything.

MISUSE OF STATISTICS IS BAD.

I do get offended when people toss around the statistic that kids of divorced parents have worse outcomes because it's a correlation, not a causation. To quote in the context of suggesting that people should stay married "for the children," as was actively happening in this thread, is harmful.

We have no proof that people who consider divorce but stay married for their children have happier children than people who divorced. We only know that kids whose parents have a good enough relationship to stay married may have some advantages over kids whose parents didn't. Again, suggesting otherwise is hurtful to people who have felt that divorce is the best thing for their children as well as themselves, AND could possibly be harmful by convincing people to stay in bad marriages.

[Anecdata: My parents had a difficult marriage during the child raising years but are still together. My sister and I have been divorced 3 times between us and have a total of 5 fathers for our combined six children.]

I think the point is to consider all possibilities when making such a big decision as divorce when you have children.  Obtaining counseling is the first best step to see if the marriage can be improved so everyone is happy.  For some people obviously staying together is harmful for the kids but I think people are too quick to satisfy their own needs versus the serious commitment of putting their kids needs first. Not all marriages are worth saving.

I divorced my first husband and I had a 2 year old. He was an uninvolved crappy dad and we fought a lot. Him being unfaithful was the final straw.  It only lasted 3.5 years. I divorced my next two husbands after 23 years each. I wouldn’t have divorced number three if he wasn’t unfaithful. 

Someone that has made the best decisions for themselves and their children shouldn’t feel bad about them. If they do maybe they should examine why.  I don’t feel bad that I have been divorced 3 times by the age of 66. If that had been the case at the age of 36 then maybe I would’ve tried to figure out why I was making bad decisions.

The only time I’ve given marriage advice in real life is when someone is being physically abused. That’s a no brainer and their life is at stake and possibly those of their children.  Many times one of the parents have no choice in the matter because their spouse is leaving them so they don’t get a choice in deciding what’s best for their children. Being a cheerleader for people’s decisions no matter what they are isn’t healthy on a forum or irl.

[GilesMM]

In summary, this is a thread where a few people repeat weird, outdated stereotypes about marriage, parenting, divorce, and kids, and everyone else pretends that these are valid viewpoints worth debating.

No good marriage ends in divorce.
No good parent ditches their kid, regardless of their relationship with the other parent.
Lots of people are bad parents, no matter the genetic relationship with the kids.
Lots of people are good parents, no matter the genetic relationship with the kids.
Kids don't need an adult of any specific sex or gender in their lives to be well parented.

Or this is a thread where some people spout some new age crap that parents can just do what they want and kids will be fine regardless.  It’s complicated and there’s no magic answer.  It’s a parent’s responsibility to put their kids first and do what’s best for the kids. That’s going to look different for each family depending on individual circumstances. The pendulum has swung too far from never divorcing no matter the circumstances to just do what makes you happy. Either extreme is detrimental.

I agree. And I think that, all things being equal, kids benefit from a mom and dad or at least parents who can provide the things those roles typically do.

[curious_george]

In summary, this is a thread where a few people repeat weird, outdated stereotypes about marriage, parenting, divorce, and kids, and everyone else pretends that these are valid viewpoints worth debating.

No good marriage ends in divorce.
No good parent ditches their kid, regardless of their relationship with the other parent.
Lots of people are bad parents, no matter the genetic relationship with the kids.
Lots of people are good parents, no matter the genetic relationship with the kids.
Kids don't need an adult of any specific sex or gender in their lives to be well parented.

Or this is a thread where some people spout some new age crap that parents can just do what they want and kids will be fine regardless.  It’s complicated and there’s no magic answer.  It’s a parent’s responsibility to put their kids first and do what’s best for the kids. That’s going to look different for each family depending on individual circumstances. The pendulum has swung too far from never divorcing no matter the circumstances to just do what makes you happy. Either extreme is detrimental.

Did I miss where someone said that??

No you didn’t. I was just replying to Snacky countering one ridiculous accusation with the exact opposite.   The older I get the more I know that life is gray and not black and white.

But you said that this is a thread where people said that...but they didn't...

I'm so confused.

People in this thread absolutely made black and white generalizations about divorce and step parents.

No one made generalizations about all parents being good.

Again, I'm super confused.

I think Cassie might have been deriving some of her views from statements like this earlier in the thread:

Also, let's remember that divorce is a very, very good thing. It's not some sort of tragedy. A lot of marriages run their course and *should* end so that both people can move on to the next phase of their lives.

Not all relationships should last forever.

Speaking as a second wife, I'm a BIG fan of divorce when it's the right choice, and FIRE is all about making the right choices for living your best life.

I assume you meant that the concept of divorce is a very very good thing, and you weren't generalizing that *all* divorces are very very good, or that all people should get divorced though, or that divorces are generally positive on a societal level, or that marriages should naturally always be short term in nature and people should simply move on when they're done and not consider children, etc.

That is *my* interpretation of your statements though.

I can understand how someone may interpret your post in a more literal manner, and conclude that you are just simply extremely pro divorce, because you literally said

"divorce is a very, very good thing".

Someone may take this individual statement, accept it as your general stance on divorce (because it is a very generalized statement) and interpret it as you being extremely pro divorce in all circumstances.

[Metalcat]

"divorce is a very, very good thing".

Someone may take this individual statement, accept it as your general stance on divorce (because it is a very generalized statement) and interpret it as you being extremely pro divorce in all circumstances.

It is a general statement.

Divorce, as a legal right, is a good thing. It is a VERY good thing that people are permitted to leave horrible marriages.

If we look at cultures where women aren't allowed to leave their marriages, it's not a good thing.

The comments about divorce and children *after* that and I made my position about divorce and children very clear. That poorly executed divorces are terrible for children.

I've been very clear and have never said anything in context that any reasonable person could interpret as me saying that parents can do whatever they want and not harm children.

Sorry, but I have more respect for Cassie's intelligence than that.

[curious_george]

"divorce is a very, very good thing".

Someone may take this individual statement, accept it as your general stance on divorce (because it is a very generalized statement) and interpret it as you being extremely pro divorce in all circumstances.

It is a general statement.

Divorce, as a legal right, is a good thing. It is a VERY good thing that people are permitted to leave horrible marriages.

If we look at cultures where women aren't allowed to leave their marriages, it's not a good thing.

The comments about divorce and children *after* that and I made my position about divorce and children very clear. That poorly executed divorces are terrible for children.

I've been very clear and have never said anything in context that any reasonable person could interpret as me saying that parents can do whatever they want and not harm children.

Sorry, but I have more respect for Cassie's intelligence than that.

Sorry, but I am interpreting this as you accusing me of disrespecting Cassie's intelligence.

Maybe you can clarify what you mean here, and what your intention behind this statement is?

ETA: I'm just trying to be more honest with you about how I view and interpret some of your statements.

[Metalcat]

Sorry, but I am interpreting this as you accusing me of disrespecting Cassie's intelligence.

Maybe you can clarify what you mean here, and what your intention behind this statement is?

No, I'm not accusing you of insulting Cassie. But I think in your effort to play devil's advocate you went and took a comment out of context, and I'm saying that if the comment is looked at in context that I don't believe anyone as smart as Cassie would go back and misinterpret a comment made before anything about children was even said to be a "new age" comment about parenting.

It just doesn't make sense.

[curious_george]

Sorry, but I am interpreting this as you accusing me of disrespecting Cassie's intelligence.

Maybe you can clarify what you mean here, and what your intention behind this statement is?

No, I'm not accusing you of insulting Cassie. But I think in your effort to play devil's advocate you went and took a comment out of context, and I'm saying that if the comment is looked at in context that I don't believe anyone as smart as Cassie would go back and misinterpret a comment made before anything about children was even said to be a "new age" comment about parenting.

It just doesn't make sense.

Fair enough.

It just seems like this thread does have some extreme, general views about divorce and step parents at times, and maybe Cassie is right that it should not be thought of as so extremely pro divorce or against divorce, and that it really is unique in every situation.

I did also sort of interpret your posts as you being fine with divorce, and almost like you expected relationships to run their course and then end sometime.

ETA: I'm mostly just prodding you at this point to expand on your views of divorce, because I often learn or change my perspective on things from your posts.

[Louise]

Often, when people stay together "for the children," it is for their own benefit. Both parents have custody rights and I wouldn't want to see my kids half or a third of the time. The season of raising kids flies by too fast as it is.

[Omy]

A friend decided to stay in an unworkable marriage for years because she didn't want her kids to be raised half the time by her ex and whoever he was with at the time. She finally separated when the kids were 12 and 14 and old enough to let her know if there was anything they weren't comfortable with when staying with ex.

It turned out that ex was still a completely uninvolved parent (which is why friend wanted out in the first place) and she and the kids were almost instantly relieved by moving out of a very strained home situation.  In retrospect she could have moved out years earlier since he gave her sole physical custody without hesitation.

Divorce is a VERY good thing. There are states actually trying to ban no fault divorce. This would force the abused partner to PROVE that their abuser has harmed them before they could get out of the marriage. This would send us back in time to when women were considered property. No thanks.

[Metalcat]

Sorry, but I am interpreting this as you accusing me of disrespecting Cassie's intelligence.

Maybe you can clarify what you mean here, and what your intention behind this statement is?

No, I'm not accusing you of insulting Cassie. But I think in your effort to play devil's advocate you went and took a comment out of context, and I'm saying that if the comment is looked at in context that I don't believe anyone as smart as Cassie would go back and misinterpret a comment made before anything about children was even said to be a "new age" comment about parenting.

It just doesn't make sense.

Fair enough.

It just seems like this thread does have some extreme, general views about divorce and step parents at times, and maybe Cassie is right that it should not be thought of as so extremely pro divorce or against divorce, and that it really is unique in every situation.

I did also sort of interpret your posts as you being fine with divorce, and almost like you expected relationships to run their course and then end sometime.

ETA: I'm mostly just prodding you at this point to expand on your views of divorce, because I often learn or change my perspective on things from your posts.

All marriages run their course, some will run indefinitely, perpetually getting stronger over time, others will stay generally stable never getting better or worse, some will get steadily worse but will last until one partner dies, some will get worse and not last until either partner dies. Many will cycle between getting worse and getting better and how long they last will depend on the life circumstances during the dips.

It is very, very normal for relationships to not last forever unless the couple are living in conditions where there are horrific consequences for breaking up. In those cultures, marriages lasting forever isn't a blessing, it's a life sentence.

Friendships run their course, business partnerships run their course, hell, some parent/child relationships run their course and are better off ending.

Relationships running their course is a normal, healthy part of life. Clinging to relationships that don't/can't work isn't healthy and shouldn't be praised.

It's great when a friendship lasts from daycare to death, not because the friendship lasted that long, but because the friendship stayed good that long. If you stopped getting along with that person in highschool, then forcing the uncomfortable friendship for decades, that would be horrible.

A lot of marriages just aren't built to last forever.

A younger couple I know are engaged and everyone is raving what a lovely couple they make, but I keep shaking my head and thinking: "yes, I think it's wonderful they're getting married because they will make excellent divorced co-parents."

[curious_george]

Thanks for the write up @Metalcat. I enjoy reading about your perspective on things.

I will add this to chapter 3 section 2 of your book. :P

[Villanelle]

Sorry, but I am interpreting this as you accusing me of disrespecting Cassie's intelligence.

Maybe you can clarify what you mean here, and what your intention behind this statement is?

No, I'm not accusing you of insulting Cassie. But I think in your effort to play devil's advocate you went and took a comment out of context, and I'm saying that if the comment is looked at in context that I don't believe anyone as smart as Cassie would go back and misinterpret a comment made before anything about children was even said to be a "new age" comment about parenting.

It just doesn't make sense.

Fair enough.

It just seems like this thread does have some extreme, general views about divorce and step parents at times, and maybe Cassie is right that it should not be thought of as so extremely pro divorce or against divorce, and that it really is unique in every situation.

I did also sort of interpret your posts as you being fine with divorce, and almost like you expected relationships to run their course and then end sometime.

ETA: I'm mostly just prodding you at this point to expand on your views of divorce, because I often learn or change my perspective on things from your posts.

All marriages run their course, some will run indefinitely, perpetually getting stronger over time, others will stay generally stable never getting better or worse, some will get steadily worse but will last until one partner dies, some will get worse and not last until either partner dies. Many will cycle between getting worse and getting better and how long they last will depend on the life circumstances during the dips.

It is very, very normal for relationships to not last forever unless the couple are living in conditions where there are horrific consequences for breaking up. In those cultures, marriages lasting forever isn't a blessing, it's a life sentence.

Friendships run their course, business partnerships run their course, hell, some parent/child relationships run their course and are better off ending.

Relationships running their course is a normal, healthy part of life. Clinging to relationships that don't/can't work isn't healthy and shouldn't be praised.

It's great when a friendship lasts from daycare to death, not because the friendship lasted that long, but because the friendship stayed good that long. If you stopped getting along with that person in highschool, then forcing the uncomfortable friendship for decades, that would be horrible.

A lot of marriages just aren't built to last forever.

A younger couple I know are engaged and everyone is raving what a lovely couple they make, but I keep shaking my head and thinking: "yes, I think it's wonderful they're getting married because they will make excellent divorced co-parents."

This is a semi-tangent, but your thoughts on friendship (in other, earlier posts) really helped me clarify ad make peace with a difficult friend-relationship in my life, and brought me a sense of acceptance and peace, and I'm so grateful for it.  I won't go into it more here since it's not at all about divorce, but it helped me let go of something I was holding on to mostly for sentimental reasons.  This person is still in my life, but I let go and stopped trying to make it be what it had been, and accepted that it's now just someone I send a birthday wish to, or get an occasional update from, but she's not my BFF, and that's not only fine, it is healthy and natural.  I hadn't expected that, after 20 years of solid friendship, but I guess people don't expect divorce after 20 years of a healthy, loving relationship.  But sometimes it still ends up that way. 

And, to bring this back someone what on-topic, that's the lens through which I read your "divorce is good" perspective--that relationships evolved and often even devolve, and that it is a very good thing we have a mechanism for ending them when they do.  Allowing people to move on when a relationship no longer serves them, their partner, or their children is indeed good and healthy for everyone involved.

Sure, the ideal is a happy, loving, in tact family.  But keeping the "in tact" part of that when they "happy, loving" part is gone ins't a favor to anyone (a few exceptions aside).  If the choices are "unhappy, resentful, angry, contemptuous, in tact family" or "content, hopeful, relieved, divorced family", it seems clear to me which is better for everyone involved.

[Cassie]

Metalcat and tree leaf, I was sarcastically responding to Snacky’s comments that some people were stating old fashioned incorrect beliefs about divorce so purposefully just turned it around for her only. I wasn’t talking about anything you guys have said.  Obviously I think divorce is a good thing as I have used it 3 times:)).   

I was shocked to read in this thread that some states are trying to repeal no fault divorce. That’s one of the best things that has happened for both sexes but especially women. It saddens me that we have taken abortion away as a federal right and left it to the states. It seems like the republicans want to take us back in time to when women were property essentially. I am old enough to remember that it was very difficult to get divorced and abortions were illegal. Both are not good for women.

[Cassie]

Often, when people stay together "for the children," it is for their own benefit. Both parents have custody rights and I wouldn't want to see my kids half or a third of the time. The season of raising kids flies by too fast as it is.

That’s true and I hadn’t really considered that aspect. Financially it’s often better also unless high earners because you aren’t supporting two households.

[Metalcat]

This is a semi-tangent, but your thoughts on friendship (in other, earlier posts) really helped me clarify ad make peace with a difficult friend-relationship in my life, and brought me a sense of acceptance and peace, and I'm so grateful for it.  I won't go into it more here since it's not at all about divorce, but it helped me let go of something I was holding on to mostly for sentimental reasons.  This person is still in my life, but I let go and stopped trying to make it be what it had been, and accepted that it's now just someone I send a birthday wish to, or get an occasional update from, but she's not my BFF, and that's not only fine, it is healthy and natural.  I hadn't expected that, after 20 years of solid friendship, but I guess people don't expect divorce after 20 years of a healthy, loving relationship.  But sometimes it still ends up that way. 

And, to bring this back someone what on-topic, that's the lens through which I read your "divorce is good" perspective--that relationships evolved and often even devolve, and that it is a very good thing we have a mechanism for ending them when they do.  Allowing people to move on when a relationship no longer serves them, their partner, or their children is indeed good and healthy for everyone involved.

Sure, the ideal is a happy, loving, in tact family.  But keeping the "in tact" part of that when they "happy, loving" part is gone ins't a favor to anyone (a few exceptions aside).  If the choices are "unhappy, resentful, angry, contemptuous, in tact family" or "content, hopeful, relieved, divorced family", it seems clear to me which is better for everyone involved.

Yesss, I remember that conversation. It's funny, I never remember what I've written, but I remember what other people have written to me.

You have to know you can let something go in order to choose to keep it.

Endings are a wonderful thing when they're called for, it's just the healthy process of pruning so that the best relationships have space and resources to thrive.

Unhealthy relationships that aren't worth fixing are an astronomical time and energy suck and they draw resources away from the relationships that matter most, or worse, cockblock good relationships from ever forming.

[Metalcat]

Often, when people stay together "for the children," it is for their own benefit. Both parents have custody rights and I wouldn't want to see my kids half or a third of the time. The season of raising kids flies by too fast as it is.

That’s true and I hadn’t really considered that aspect. Financially it’s often better also unless high earners because you aren’t supporting two households.

One of my new friends out here stayed with her horrible, abusive husband because she never wanted her kid alone with him.

That's fucking horrible.

[curious_george]

Metalcat and tree leaf, I was sarcastically responding to Snacky’s comments that some people were stating old fashioned incorrect beliefs about divorce so purposefully just turned it around for her only. I wasn’t talking about anything you guys have said.  Obviously I think divorce is a good thing as I have used it 3 times:)).   

I was shocked to read in this thread that some states are trying to repeal no fault divorce. That’s one of the best things that has happened for both sexes but especially women. It saddens me that we have taken abortion away as a federal right and left it to the states. It seems like the republicans want to take us back in time to when women were property essentially. I am old enough to remember that it was very difficult to get divorced and abortions were illegal. Both are not good for women.

Thank you for the clarification. :)

I am also shocked that some states are trying to repeal no fault divorce laws, and this is the first time I have heard of it since I don't follow politics much.

That is just...completely insane...

For both parties actually.

I don't even know why anyone would want to be married to someone who didn't actively want to be married to them.

That whole idea of repealing no fault divorce is just...weird for everyone, except for perhaps people who want to trap their spouse in an unhealthy and abusive marriage.

[Laura33]

Often, when people stay together "for the children," it is for their own benefit. Both parents have custody rights and I wouldn't want to see my kids half or a third of the time. The season of raising kids flies by too fast as it is.

That’s true and I hadn’t really considered that aspect. Financially it’s often better also unless high earners because you aren’t supporting two households.

One of my new friends out here stayed with her horrible, abusive husband because she never wanted her kid alone with him.

That's fucking horrible.

I think I have posted here before that the only time I did somewhat seriously consider divorce was when the kids were little and DH did a shit job of controlling his anger.  It was a huge surprise, because as I posted above, one of the things that initially attracted me to him was his consideration and gentleness with people who were more vulnerable than him.  But he just lost it with the kids.  Turns out his dad was authoritarian and his mom was a yeller, so combine that with a highly-sensitive, highly-ADHD daughter that he just. did. not. get., and it turns out his parenting style was basically to turn into a giant angry bear every time a kid did not do what he wanted, when he wanted it.  It was never physical abuse, but it was not remotely healthy for the kids. 

That was also when I realized I couldn't leave, because our state defaults to joint custody, and I did not want them with him 50% of the time without me there to run interference.*  So I just made a point to always take the lead with the kids and intervene before he felt he had to (basically, I was always watching both the kids and him for signs of an impending meltdown).  I also lost it a few times with him in private, drew some very firm lines in the sand, and got him into counseling (by pretending it was counseling for DD); plus I got DD appropriate medical treatment, did a bunch of research on parenting and psychology and such, and basically told him how we were going to handle discipline and what exactly I needed him to do.**  And the kids got older, and ultimately things calmed down. 

But my relationship with DH was really not great for several years, because I resented having to take on all of that extra burden, instead of having an actual partner -- that this fucking brilliant Ph.D scientist just could not get his head out of his ass long enough to see something as basic as cause and effect between his behavior and DD's reaction (known in our family as the "death spiral") and was effectively throwing his own tantrums in response to hers (to which at one point I said, "she's 4.  You're 40.  What's your excuse?").  And I resented the extra pressure not to lose my own shit with the kids or be less than perfect, because they needed someone who was "safe" to be normal, imperfect kids with.  So there was a metric shit-ton of swallowed anger for what felt like forever.  Being a single parent would have been easier during that stretch -- at least I'd have had only 2 pigheaded people to manage.

OTOH, if he didn't have the anger issues but had cheated on me, I'd have booted him out in a heartbeat.  It's crappy behavior and a bad example, but it's not dangerous to my kids, so I'd have trusted him with joint custody. 


*I also live in a major metropolitan area with areas of high poverty, and where CPS is massively overwhelmed with serious physical abuse cases.  So I didn't think going to court asking for full custody because "he yells at the kids" was going to get me very far. 

**You don't fuck with my kids.  Even if they're yours too.

[Metalcat]

Metalcat and tree leaf, I was sarcastically responding to Snacky’s comments that some people were stating old fashioned incorrect beliefs about divorce so purposefully just turned it around for her only. I wasn’t talking about anything you guys have said.  Obviously I think divorce is a good thing as I have used it 3 times:)).   

I was shocked to read in this thread that some states are trying to repeal no fault divorce. That’s one of the best things that has happened for both sexes but especially women. It saddens me that we have taken abortion away as a federal right and left it to the states. It seems like the republicans want to take us back in time to when women were property essentially. I am old enough to remember that it was very difficult to get divorced and abortions were illegal. Both are not good for women.

Ahh, thank you, that's why it made zero sense to me. I appreciate clarification.

[Villanelle]

Metalcat and tree leaf, I was sarcastically responding to Snacky’s comments that some people were stating old fashioned incorrect beliefs about divorce so purposefully just turned it around for her only. I wasn’t talking about anything you guys have said.  Obviously I think divorce is a good thing as I have used it 3 times:)).   

I was shocked to read in this thread that some states are trying to repeal no fault divorce. That’s one of the best things that has happened for both sexes but especially women. It saddens me that we have taken abortion away as a federal right and left it to the states. It seems like the republicans want to take us back in time to when women were property essentially. I am old enough to remember that it was very difficult to get divorced and abortions were illegal. Both are not good for women.

Thank you for the clarification. :)

I am also shocked that some states are trying to repeal no fault divorce laws, and this is the first time I have heard of it since I don't follow politics much.

That is just...completely insane...

For both parties actually.

I don't even know why anyone would want to be married to someone who didn't actively want to be married to them.

That whole idea of repealing no fault divorce is just...weird for everyone, except for perhaps people who want to trap their spouse in an unhealthy and abusive marriage.

As as I understand it, "at-fault" divorce (as the opposite of no-fault divorce), isn't usually about staying married even if the other person wants out.  Occasionally it it might be--but that is a contested divorce, not necessarily an at-fault situation. It's more about proving who is at fault because of the financial implications of that.  It's not like once the prove the yes, someone did something so the marriage can end, they then default back to an equal or equitable distribution of assets and child custody.  So, if you prove your spouse cheated, for example, you get more and they get less.  The "harmed" party can be given extra financial consideration.  Fault-based divorce in some cases can speed up the process. For example, when a state has a mandatory waiting period, that may be waived in a fault-based divorce.  (Yes, some states have both no-fault and at-fault divorces.) 

In addition to the financial implications, I think it's also about dragging your spouse through the wringer as a punitive action.  You get it on the record that bitch wife cheated or your asshole husband hired hookers and has a gambling problem, or whatever the case may be. 

Thirty three states currently offer at least the option of fault-based divorce.  But every state currently has a no-fault option (or that's the only option), though a certain segment of American politics (3 guess which one!) has talked about trying to change that, to move toward fault-only. That makes it more challenging, more expensive, and often more damaging--especially when there are kids involved. 

[ChpBstrd]

Metalcat and tree leaf, I was sarcastically responding to Snacky’s comments that some people were stating old fashioned incorrect beliefs about divorce so purposefully just turned it around for her only. I wasn’t talking about anything you guys have said.  Obviously I think divorce is a good thing as I have used it 3 times:)).   

I was shocked to read in this thread that some states are trying to repeal no fault divorce. That’s one of the best things that has happened for both sexes but especially women. It saddens me that we have taken abortion away as a federal right and left it to the states. It seems like the republicans want to take us back in time to when women were property essentially. I am old enough to remember that it was very difficult to get divorced and abortions were illegal. Both are not good for women.

Thank you for the clarification. :)

I am also shocked that some states are trying to repeal no fault divorce laws, and this is the first time I have heard of it since I don't follow politics much.

That is just...completely insane...

For both parties actually.

I don't even know why anyone would want to be married to someone who didn't actively want to be married to them.

That whole idea of repealing no fault divorce is just...weird for everyone, except for perhaps people who want to trap their spouse in an unhealthy and abusive marriage.

As as I understand it, "at-fault" divorce (as the opposite of no-fault divorce), isn't usually about staying married even if the other person wants out.  Occasionally it it might be--but that is a contested divorce, not necessarily an at-fault situation. It's more about proving who is at fault because of the financial implications of that.  It's not like once the prove the yes, someone did something so the marriage can end, they then default back to an equal or equitable distribution of assets and child custody.  So, if you prove your spouse cheated, for example, you get more and they get less.  The "harmed" party can be given extra financial consideration.  Fault-based divorce in some cases can speed up the process. For example, when a state has a mandatory waiting period, that may be waived in a fault-based divorce.  (Yes, some states have both no-fault and at-fault divorces.) 

In addition to the financial implications, I think it's also about dragging your spouse through the wringer as a punitive action.  You get it on the record that bitch wife cheated or your asshole husband hired hookers and has a gambling problem, or whatever the case may be. 

Thirty three states currently offer at least the option of fault-based divorce.  But every state currently has a no-fault option (or that's the only option), though a certain segment of American politics (3 guess which one!) has talked about trying to change that, to move toward fault-only. That makes it more challenging, more expensive, and often more damaging--especially when there are kids involved.

Based on @Villanelle 's explanation above, somebody take a wild guess at which industry would lobby against no-fault divorce.

[curious_george]

Metalcat and tree leaf, I was sarcastically responding to Snacky’s comments that some people were stating old fashioned incorrect beliefs about divorce so purposefully just turned it around for her only. I wasn’t talking about anything you guys have said.  Obviously I think divorce is a good thing as I have used it 3 times:)).   

I was shocked to read in this thread that some states are trying to repeal no fault divorce. That’s one of the best things that has happened for both sexes but especially women. It saddens me that we have taken abortion away as a federal right and left it to the states. It seems like the republicans want to take us back in time to when women were property essentially. I am old enough to remember that it was very difficult to get divorced and abortions were illegal. Both are not good for women.

Thank you for the clarification. :)

I am also shocked that some states are trying to repeal no fault divorce laws, and this is the first time I have heard of it since I don't follow politics much.

That is just...completely insane...

For both parties actually.

I don't even know why anyone would want to be married to someone who didn't actively want to be married to them.

That whole idea of repealing no fault divorce is just...weird for everyone, except for perhaps people who want to trap their spouse in an unhealthy and abusive marriage.

As as I understand it, "at-fault" divorce (as the opposite of no-fault divorce), isn't usually about staying married even if the other person wants out.  Occasionally it it might be--but that is a contested divorce, not necessarily an at-fault situation. It's more about proving who is at fault because of the financial implications of that.  It's not like once the prove the yes, someone did something so the marriage can end, they then default back to an equal or equitable distribution of assets and child custody.  So, if you prove your spouse cheated, for example, you get more and they get less.  The "harmed" party can be given extra financial consideration.  Fault-based divorce in some cases can speed up the process. For example, when a state has a mandatory waiting period, that may be waived in a fault-based divorce.  (Yes, some states have both no-fault and at-fault divorces.) 

In addition to the financial implications, I think it's also about dragging your spouse through the wringer as a punitive action.  You get it on the record that bitch wife cheated or your asshole husband hired hookers and has a gambling problem, or whatever the case may be. 

Thirty three states currently offer at least the option of fault-based divorce.  But every state currently has a no-fault option (or that's the only option), though a certain segment of American politics (3 guess which one!) has talked about trying to change that, to move toward fault-only. That makes it more challenging, more expensive, and often more damaging--especially when there are kids involved.

Based on @Villanelle 's explanation above, somebody take a wild guess at which industry would lobby against no-fault divorce.

The legal industry?

[RetiredAt63]

Way way back when divorce was only for fault (Ontario), my Mom told me of a couple she knew where they wanted an amicable divorce but the law would not let them, because there were no grounds for an at fault divorce.  The husband set it up so he looked like he was having an affair (he was not), so his wife could sue him for divorce.

People want to go back to that!?!?!?!?

[La Bibliotecaria Feroz]

Way way back when divorce was only for fault (Ontario), my Mom told me of a couple she knew where they wanted an amicable divorce but the law would not let them, because there were no grounds for an at fault divorce.  The husband set it up so he looked like he was having an affair (he was not), so his wife could sue him for divorce.

People want to go back to that!?!?!?!?

I remember reading that some tabloid in NY- which was slow to adopt no-fault- ran an expose called something like "I was the unnamed blonde in a hundred New York divorces!" Same idea. The dude takes this nice lady to dinner and gives her a little something for her time, someone takes pictures, and bam, you have divorce for adultery!

[RetiredAt63]

Way way back when divorce was only for fault (Ontario), my Mom told me of a couple she knew where they wanted an amicable divorce but the law would not let them, because there were no grounds for an at fault divorce.  The husband set it up so he looked like he was having an affair (he was not), so his wife could sue him for divorce.

People want to go back to that!?!?!?!?

I remember reading that some tabloid in NY- which was slow to adopt no-fault- ran an expose called something like "I was the unnamed blonde in a hundred New York divorces!" Same idea. The dude takes this nice lady to dinner and gives her a little something for her time, someone takes pictures, and bam, you have divorce for adultery!

Exactly.   How demeaning for everyone involved.

[roomtempmayo]

I'm willing to bet the opposite - that FIRE aspirants have slightly better marriage success rates than the average, which correlates with things like

higher income
marrying
having children in marriage

Although times may have changed and we are not quite comparing apples with apples, in classic Millionaire Next Door the author does makes it very clear that financial success and long term marriage/relationship do correlate.

The divorce rate among college educated adults is only around 25%. Considering most have at least a Bachelor's, I'd say the odds are lower among FIRE aspirants. I also think marriage still correlates with wealth. Most couples work at some point, even if time is taken off for kids.

Basically every bit of data about marriage supports the correlation between education, income, and marriage.

The problem is that it's a classic "all good things go together" problem.  It's very tough to suss out what's causing what.

And so this thread goes on with appeal to anecdotes, because most of our thoughts about marriage aren't driven by data, they're driven by personal experience and ideology.

For example, I don't think there's any data in the world that anyone could marshal that would create a consensus that no-fault divorce was a bad idea, and we should return to requiring fault.  It's not an empirical question to people, it's an ideological commitment. 

[neo von retorch]

How many non-FIRE circles do you run in? How many blogs and forums do you read on a non-FIRE topic, where they discuss their personal lives, the status of their marriage, etc.?

And so this thread goes on with appeal to anecdotes, because most of our thoughts about marriage aren't driven by data, they're driven by personal experience and ideology.

Right. People that spend all day reading FIRE blogs / forums and seeing stories about divorce are going to instinctively think "wow, lots of divorces in these parts." But they don't have any kind of statistical comparison to make.

Maybe go visit a "buy all the boats" blog / forum and see if anyone there mentions divorce...

[roomtempmayo]

Hmm... now I'm thinking about how you could really get at the question of whether divorce is positive, neutral, or negative for kids in households where the parental relationship has gone south.

It seems like you could track any number of outcomes - standardized test scores, physical and mental health metrics, and/or run-ins with the law jump to mind - before, during, and after their parents divorce.  If divorce is indeed positive for the kids, then those measures, or others, should generally improve, or at least the trajectory generally should improve, after the divorce.

Can anyone point me to any research that tries to determine the effects of the divorce itself on the kids' outcomes?  This seems like a fairly straightforward study that people must have run.

[Tasse]

I strongly disagree that that is straightforward to pick apart. Some coparenting arrangements improve following divorce, some deteriorate dramatically.

That's not to say that the study hasn't been done, just that I doubt the conclusions are clear.

[Metalcat]

Hmm... now I'm thinking about how you could really get at the question of whether divorce is positive, neutral, or negative for kids in households where the parental relationship has gone south.

It seems like you could track any number of outcomes - standardized test scores, physical and mental health metrics, and/or run-ins with the law jump to mind - before, during, and after their parents divorce.  If divorce is indeed positive for the kids, then those measures, or others, should generally improve, or at least the trajectory generally should improve, after the divorce.

Can anyone point me to any research that tries to determine the effects of the divorce itself on the kids' outcomes?  This seems like a fairly straightforward study that people must have run.

It would be an extremely difficult study to run.

How would you know which kids to pre-test? How would you pre-test measures that only show up as long term outcomes?

You would have to track an entire cohort for decades and even then, wouldn't the measures be unclear because what would you be comparing to what exactly?

And how would you quantify which divorces were more healthy or toxic than others?

I can't wrap my mind around how this would be an easy experiment.

[GuitarStv]

Hmm... now I'm thinking about how you could really get at the question of whether divorce is positive, neutral, or negative for kids in households where the parental relationship has gone south.

It seems like you could track any number of outcomes - standardized test scores, physical and mental health metrics, and/or run-ins with the law jump to mind - before, during, and after their parents divorce.  If divorce is indeed positive for the kids, then those measures, or others, should generally improve, or at least the trajectory generally should improve, after the divorce.

Can anyone point me to any research that tries to determine the effects of the divorce itself on the kids' outcomes?  This seems like a fairly straightforward study that people must have run.

Not very straightforward I think . . . there's a lot of conflicting data:
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/divorce/wd98_2-dt98_2/p3.html

[roomtempmayo]

How would you know which kids to pre-test?

Randomly.  And there's no actual pre-test.  I'm thinking of mining existing datasets.

How would you pre-test measures that only show up as long term outcomes?

It's a natural experiment.  The results were collected independently of the study.  Getting access would be a challenge.

You would have to track an entire cohort for decades and even then, wouldn't the measures be unclear because what would you be comparing to what exactly?

IAs long as the sample is big enough and representative enough, just sample the population at intervals pre-divorce and post-divorce.


And how would you quantify which divorces were more healthy or toxic than others?

With a big enough sample, you wouldn't need to.  Sample size washes that out as noise.

[La Bibliotecaria Feroz]

Hmm... now I'm thinking about how you could really get at the question of whether divorce is positive, neutral, or negative for kids in households where the parental relationship has gone south.

It seems like you could track any number of outcomes - standardized test scores, physical and mental health metrics, and/or run-ins with the law jump to mind - before, during, and after their parents divorce.  If divorce is indeed positive for the kids, then those measures, or others, should generally improve, or at least the trajectory generally should improve, after the divorce.

Can anyone point me to any research that tries to determine the effects of the divorce itself on the kids' outcomes?  This seems like a fairly straightforward study that people must have run.

Not very straightforward I think . . . there's a lot of conflicting data:
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/divorce/wd98_2-dt98_2/p3.html

I don't think you could draw much useful information because there's no control group. Like, if they DIDN'T improve, that could be because having divorced parents does suck sometimes, but we don't know if their outcomes would have been WORSE! You would also be comparing younger kids with older kids, so not apples to apples at all.

[roomtempmayo]

Not very straightforward I think . . . there's a lot of conflicting data:
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/divorce/wd98_2-dt98_2/p3.html

This is basically a literature review of the ways that divorce harms kids.  This seems at the very least to set a very high bar for the argument that high levels of divorce across society are good for kids.

[roomtempmayo]

I don't think you could draw much useful information because there's no control group. Like, if they DIDN'T improve, that could be because having divorced parents does suck sometimes, but we don't know if their outcomes would have been WORSE! You would also be comparing younger kids with older kids, so not apples to apples at all.

If indeed divorce is generally a net positive for kids in households with toxic relationships, it should show up as a clear improvement in standard measures after divorce.  Maybe it varies by age, gender, whatever.  But somewhere there must be evidence of positive outcomes.

Given the link that @GuitarStv posted, the onus seems to be on demonstrating the society-level positivity of divorce, since an array of negative outcomes seems pretty well documented.

[Metalcat]

How would you know which kids to pre-test?

Randomly.  And there's no actual pre-test.  I'm thinking of mining existing datasets.

How would you pre-test measures that only show up as long term outcomes?

It's a natural experiment.  The results were collected independently of the study.  Getting access would be a challenge.

You would have to track an entire cohort for decades and even then, wouldn't the measures be unclear because what would you be comparing to what exactly?

IAs long as the sample is big enough and representative enough, just sample the population at intervals pre-divorce and post-divorce.


And how would you quantify which divorces were more healthy or toxic than others?

With a big enough sample, you wouldn't need to.  Sample size washes that out as noise.

But no one said divorce is good for kids, we said that a healthy divorce with parents who collaborate productively is frequently better for kids than those same parents staying in an unhappy marriage.

Why you assume anyone here said that divorce is generally good for kids??

Divorce is the result of marriages breaking down. Typically marital breakdown is damaging to kids. The question is whether it's better for parents to stay together despite a broken marriage or separate?

Sadly, a marriage breaking down often doesn't result in a healthy, collaborative divorce, the same way staying together for the kids often doesn't result in a healthy and collaborative home for kids either.

This is actually a very complex thing to research.

ETA: also how would you possibly identify which households were toxic before the divorce? And how would you track that data for individuals???

This would absolutely need to be a prospective, longitudinal study, and the measures would be incredibly complex.

[roomtempmayo]

Why you assume anyone here said that divorce is generally good for kids??

Because apparently divorce in general is bad for kids, but for everyone here it's personally been good.  We are all outliers, I guess.

[lhamo]

Some coparenting arrangements improve following divorce, some deteriorate dramatically.

We still haven't told our kids that we are separating.  I would have preferred to do so much earlier, but SO felt differently and I decided to go along to get along.  I thought the kids would ask if that was a reason when we told them we were selling the big expensive house and moving into a rental a few weeks ago.  But they didn't.  It may be that we have been getting along so much better since we hashed out the terms of the separation a couple of years ago that they think things are fine.  For me, that was one of the big turning points in my feelings about things/ability to let go of the emotions about it all -- once I had it in writing that we would be splitting things equally, it was much easier to interact amicably.  We sat on the draft for over two years, and if you asked the kids they probably would say those were two of the happier years in our family life.  I am optimistic that things will be even better when we are actually separated/divorced -- I'm happy to continue to have regular meals and even vacations together as a family, just want separate rooms!

[Raenia]

Why you assume anyone here said that divorce is generally good for kids??

Because apparently divorce in general is bad for kids, but for everyone here it's personally been good.  We are all outliers, I guess.

I think you're misunderstanding the anecdotes people have been sharing. No one thinks that divorce is good for kids. They just think it's better than those same parents staying in a failed marriage.

Obviously if a marriage is healthy and loving, then there's no reason to divorce, and that is way better for kids than having parents who hate each other, whether married or not.

The problem is that statistics don't compare bad marriages that continue vs divorce, they compare all marriages that continue vs all marriages that divorce. So all those happy, healthy marriages are being compared to the divorces, and then used to conclude that divorce is bad. It's an unfair comparison that gives an unfair conclusion.

[La Bibliotecaria Feroz]

I don't think you could draw much useful information because there's no control group. Like, if they DIDN'T improve, that could be because having divorced parents does suck sometimes, but we don't know if their outcomes would have been WORSE! You would also be comparing younger kids with older kids, so not apples to apples at all.

If indeed divorce is generally a net positive for kids in households with toxic relationships, it should show up as a clear improvement in standard measures after divorce.  Maybe it varies by age, gender, whatever.  But somewhere there must be evidence of positive outcomes.

Given the link that @GuitarStv posted, the onus seems to be on demonstrating the society-level positivity of divorce, since an array of negative outcomes seems pretty well documented.

I disagree! The question isn't do they actively improve, it's are they better or worse off than they would have been? And to know that, you would have to have a control group of people whose parents had divorce-level conflict but didn't divorce for whatever reason, and I don't know how you create that control group.

My children were super young when I divorced (preschool age). The effects of our marriage's toxicity would, I think, have become more noticeable with age as they became more attuned to things like the emotional temperature in the house. They are now middle school aged. What would be the effect on them of living with a couple who didn't respect each other? Who rarely did things as a family? A father who avoided the house (and therefore them) in order to avoid their mother? People who came to visit me during the last year of my divorce report feeling super uncomfortable around the pair of us.

We don't know and can't know. I'm sure they have some stress/anxiety around moving houses, sharing holidays, being away from their baby sister for prolonged periods- for instance, my 11yo gets super upset when it's not my year to have Thanksgiving dinner with them, for reasons I don't fully understand and I don't think he doesn't either. There is simply no way to compare that to what their lives would have been.

I suspect that one adventage of earlier divorce for kids is a better chance that their lifestyle will stabilize by adolescence. I was certainly pretty broke for a few years post-divorce and so was my ex, but I'm measurably better off now than I ever was when their dad and I were married (as I found a husband who is capable of holding down a job!)

[roomtempmayo]

This is actually a very complex thing to research.

The complexity of the research depends in significant part on what questions you ask, and what questions you're willing to set aside.

If all you want to know is whether for a random sample of kids in a dataset including math scores and parents' marital status over time divorce had a discernible positive, neutral, or negative effect on math scores, it's fairly straightforward.  Literally just crosstabs.

If you want to drill down to the hows and whys and 10,000 intervening variables, I agree that's going to get incredibly complex and launch a thousand research ships.

Underneath and driving the choice of what type of question people want asked and answered I'd suggest is actually ideological commitment.  If you think divorce is a moral failing that's solved by getting spouses to straighten up, the simple questions and simple answers are appealing.  However, if you think divorce is part of a complex array of social forces and relationships, going full sociologist is going to be more appealing.  At bottom it's ideology.

[roomtempmayo]

I disagree! The question isn't do they actively improve, it's are they better or worse off than they would have been? And to know that, you would have to have a control group of people whose parents had divorce-level conflict but didn't divorce for whatever reason, and I don't know how you create that control group.

You don't need a control group.  You're measuring against the trend. 

To put it differently, the trendline is effectively the control.