The Good Divorce

A Psychoanalyst's Exploration of Separation, Divorce, and Childcare

Arthur Leonoff

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9780429920912
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Divorce is a complicated process and not a single event. It has major life implications and must be done right. In this regard, the good divorce is an ethical divorce. The Good Divorce does not follow the pattern of the ubiquitous self-help genre - over simplified and formulaic. Nevertheless, it is designed to be helpful by providing an in-depth exploration of the separation process, post-divorce adjustment, telling the children, caring for children from infants to teens, decision-making models, pathologies of divorce and, finally, hope and recovery through creating an important space for discovery. The author is a clinician and the book is written from the well of experience, scholarship and study that professional practice provides. Yet, it is not written academically and is intended for a general as well as professional audience. The reader will find the helpful inclusion of clinical examples and ample opportunities for reflection and deeper thinking into the many issues that arise in divorce for individuals and families.

Chapter One

The good divorce

Marriages are essentially voluntary relationships and the time honored phrase “till death do us part” no longer applies in at least forty percent of cases. The reasons for this are legion but certainly include the secularisation of society, liberal “no fault” divorce laws and an undermining of marriage as the only context in which to bear children. Enhanced independence of women and an ethos built on comfort and consumerism also emphasize change over stability. If “love” has become the sole reason to unite in matrimony, then the consequence has been a much inflated divorce rate.

Of course this does not mean that divorce is taken lightly. It is a source of anxiety and pain for many ex-couples, those with children but also those without. It is a curious paradox of our postmodern society that although we have made divorce more possible, we have not made it less painful. This is especially true when the break-up reflects the intent of only one of the parties while the other must absorb the impact often without notice or real warning. This amounts to a traumatic rupture and is often just as stressful as the unexpected and sudden death of a spouse.

Even when the divorce is not a particular surprise, the psychological rupture can be hard to bear. What does it mean to no longer love someone that you felt strongly enough about to marry? If anything, it represents the final demolition of the dream with that person at the center of a shared life. What is left then when so much hope is dashed? There is much to recover with no simple prescriptive path to follow.

Although a failed marriage is never easy to swallow, it helps when the couple has worked hard to make sure that separation is the right road to follow. Separation with respect and dignity is still painful but does not constitute an assault on the partner’s rights and vulnerable position in the couple. When the union ends dramatically, however, blindsiding the other partner due to lack of warning or process, emotional damage can be extensive. It is less that the union was doomed than the undeniable fact that the initiating spouse acted unscrupulously or at least refused to treat them honorably. In this regard, the leaving spouse ignored or failed to acknowledge and abide by the ethics of divorce.

Hence, this is our first topic for discussion.

It is much easier to be the spouse who ends a union than to be the one who had no idea that this “final solution” was percolating in the partner’s mind. It is probably wishful thinking to believe that divorces mainly occur in the context of mutually desired action. In many cases, this is simply not true. If couples could agree that they indeed had a bad marriage needing to end for the good of the two individuals, this would, I believe, put them in the minority and imply a capacity for common action not shared by many separating spouses.

More likely, one partner perceived the end of the marriage as a necessity without sharing with the other until it has been worked through and decided in the leaver’s mind. The groundwork may, therefore, have already been laid before the issue is formally raised. This could involve having started a new relationship but this is not essential to the process I am describing. The initiator might have already met with a lawyer, ascertained their rights and how to achieve legal ends before the left partner even knows this is coming. The emotional side of divorce might not be given its due particularly when the leaving spouse is resolute in their intention to leave.

Breaking up a marriage can definitely be the right step even when it is foremost in the mind of only one partner. In this regard, we should take no stand on whether divorce is the appropriate solution. It happens and sometimes this is for the best and at other times solves little.

Generally, the leaving spouse has made a decision that terminating the union is in their own and perhaps the couple’s best interests. Some assume that the spouse must, or at least should be, of the same mind. Often, however, this is far from the case. Even so called “bad” marriages might not lead everyone to conclude that a union should end. The soon to be left partner might never imagine taking such a step particularly if there are children involved. In this context, one partner takes the lead while the other is often playing catch up in the divorce process.

To be sure, such an imbalanced dynamic is a source for much of the unnecessary grief, hurt, fury, and retaliatory vengeance mental health professionals often see in these complicated divorce situations. This leads me then to offer a first principle of responsible or ethical divorce.

Every spouse deserves the opportunity to know they have a bad marriage before being left

So what does it mean to deserve to know about a bad marriage? The essence of this standard is that unhappy spouses need to communicate this state of the union to their partners in order to give them a real opportunity to address what is wrong. Simply announcing that one intends to leave and then taking the shortest path out does not amount to the due process expected.

As such, everyone deserves a heads-up about a bad marriage if only as an opportunity to either address what is wrong or be reconciled to the fact that the marriage should end. When spouses are forced to bear the impact of their partner’s action in failing to consult them, it tends to put a lie (in the left partner’s mind) to the belief that they were ever a couple in a committed relationship in the first place.

Therefore, it is one thing to have a relationship fail despite one’s best intentions and efforts but it is another to be discarded, as if one is the last to know and there was never a treasured union to be safeguarded.

This might sound self-evident but is frequently observed not to be the case. Marital therapies where one spouse has already decided to leave are essentially faux treatments and are basically a waste of time. Equally fraudulent are those situations where the leaving spouse already has a new relationship but has failed to inform the one person who most deserves to know: the spouse.

I have been surprised over the years by how many cases feature a unilateral initiative taken by one partner who undertakes a solo initiative not shared with the spouse until the final stage of implementation. “He/she had to know”, is the common refrain but, in fact, the left partner might have had no idea that the marriage was actually ending or at least was not ready to accept this conclusion. Of course, the leaving spouse proffers a decisive argument: “We haven’t had sex for a year”, or “We agree on nothing.” The argument amounts to a rationalization for taking a unilateral action in what is, for better or worse, a partnership that deserves to be treated as such whether it fails or succeeds.

One factor to keep in mind is that people differ in their tolerance of relationships and what would be considered grounds for ending a marriage. For instance, insufficient sex might sound the death knell for some while others would view this as unfortunate but never a sufficient cause to actually end a marriage. The same could be true for lack of intimacy, support, kindness, or any dimension of marital life.

Divorce is a remedy provided by society to deal with a failed marriage. In its rightful place, divorce makes sense and couples should not need to be chained together where both could face years of unhappiness, turmoil, and conflict. Violence whether episodic or ingrained and systemic are valid reasons for divorce. No one should face the threat of injury or severe emotional damage at the hands of another person even if one agreed to marry this person.

It would be foolhardy, therefore, to ever suggest that divorce does not have its rightful place. Marriages are based on a balance of needs and mutuality. Intimacy is the dividend of a good marriage. It grows with time and evolves in a shared space that the couple happily and trustingly perceives and designate as their marriage. Sexuality remains a powerful current that touches all aspects mentioned above: mutuality, needs and intimacy. Over the years sexuality suffuses through the couple’s togetherness even when it becomes less genitally focused. Nonetheless, it remains a wonderful part of life that greases the wheels.

What designates a bad from a good marriage is a vast subject and must be individually assessed or understood. In other words, it is hard to generalize. On the other hand, the kernel of truth that runs through the gamut of examples is that in bad marriages there is a failure to create or preserve the shared space called the marriage. It can only be mutually created and it is not reducible to either protagonist. Hence, the partner who feels entitled to exit the union without really consulting their spouse precisely exemplifies the absence of this shared space that is deemed worth preserving.

It is not surprising perhaps that couples seeking marital therapy, who have this fundamental shared space but who face relationship or family problems, have a good chance of succeeding in their efforts. In contrast, couples that expect the therapist to help them actually build a shared marriage with its dividend of intimacy and healthy mutuality will be disappointed. Of course, no marriage meets all needs but good marriages must meet emotionally fundamental needs and this positive synergy serves as the foundation for the shared space created together.

In today’s world with later unions and second marriages common, women in their late thirties facing a biological limit often pair with men with family ambitions without taking into account that real relationships only evolve slowly and solely as a result of shared experience. They marry and multiply only to flounder when life demands require them to have an authentic union on which to draw strength and solve problems. In many cases, there is a child before there is a valid relationship and certainly not one that has had the chance to develop the shared space required to face life together.

Everyone has egg on their face when a marriage ends. In other words, it is a personal as much as a relational failure in our minds. It is no surprise therefore that marital break-ups create enormous guilt. This brings me to my second principle for an ethical divorce.

Avoid blame

Those professionals who work in the area of divorce are well aware of the scourge of blame that best characterizes high conflict divorce. Indeed, high conflict represents at its core the failure to divorce. In this instance, blame serves as toxic glue that holds the couple together while they flail at each other inside and outside of the courts.

Excessive blame undermines interpersonal relationships and erodes a capacity for empathy and collaboration. On the other hand, externalization can feel more tolerable than guilt: better to blame the other than accept the painful truth of personal failure and the damage caused someone we willingly married.

But why is guilt so prominent in divorce? There are not many decisions in life that carry such a social, emotional, and otherwise wide-ranging impact. Indeed, in marriage there is an emotional contract that precedes a legal one. We undertake to care for our partner and fundamentally to take responsibility for their welfare. Of course this does not mean that the other is absolved of self-responsibility but it does imply that the duty of care is high when it comes to marriage. Thus, even if society has made it easier to divorce, there has not been a concomitant lowering of the expectation placed on marriages. Marriage is no trifling matter.

As such, marriages are not merely friendships, which can come and go. They take their cue from our earliest most primal relationships with caregivers, which underscores why they do not simply end with a whimper but rupture, figuratively at least, with blood on the floor. The rip and tear of divorce that seems to be the norm more than the exception speaks to the elementary nature of marital unions and why divorce is so painful and heart wrenching over such a long period of time. Is it any wonder then that guilt is the primary emotion associated with divorce?

Nevertheless, we should be clear when describing the specific quality and kinds of guilt manifested in divorce. First, there is the guilt of wrongdoing. This is the case, for instance, when the initiating spouse covers up the existence of an extramarital liaison, which has shifted the balance towards leaving. Guilt in this instance is quite real and reflects the understanding that our actions were harmful to someone we were supposed to love and care for.

Some guilt for sure is inevitable in divorce because we cannot leave a partner without bearing some responsibility. This is healthy guilt. It is part of atoning for what failed and our personal role in that failure. Mixed with guilt though is often sadness and mourning. Even willingly ending a union does not necessarily mean that the partner is not missed or that parts of the relationship were gratifying and painful to lose.

There are some who instigated divorce only to experience a subsequent depression when they cannot bear the rebound of aloneness and emptiness that unexpectedly surfaces. This occurs most often when there is a history of prior psychic trauma usually in the leaver’s childhood background. It is as if two parts of the person collide. The adult decides that it is best to end the marriage while the residue of a traumatized child is terrified to be alone and unprotected.

As an example, Ben had little positive to say about his wife. He was a gruff, almost disagreeable man who lacked respect or affection for his spouse. There was little time for exploration before Ben left his wife. Quickly, however, his mood and confidence collapsed. He felt abandoned even though he had pushed for the separation. Ben’s mother had suffered repeated hospitalizations for depression when he was a child and a sister committed suicide as a young adult. Ben’s father had been consistently unfaithful and openly devalued his “useless” wife. Hence, the lack of nurturing and the history of repeated and traumatic losses had scarred his psyche. He could neither be married nor leave his wife.

In terms of other complications, for some individuals guilt is particularly harsh. Admitting guilt would be (in their mind) accepting total blame for the failed union. They feel that guilt must be answered with severe punishment. Hence, in this context, the pressure of guilt is relieved through projection. Projected guilt is expressed as intense blame of the other and serves as a way to disavow guilt.

We can conclude that not everyone is equipped to handle guilt and this is especially true when it is of the punitive and severe kind. This is often the stuff of high conflict. For those in the thick of high conflict divorce, for example, blame is the weapon of choice. Conflict masks the incapacity for healthy atonement and taking real, ethical responsibility for what has occurred. There is no situation that I have seen that could be called high conflict where some form of professional assistance is not required.

Unfortunately, services aimed at managing conflict, such as provided by parent coordinators, might also serve as a forum for combat that only shifts the venue while not lessening the severity of aggression used to avoid guilt and self responsibility. I still view parent coordination as a useful and valuable addition to the tools available to assist divorced families. However, unless there is some parallel therapeutic process to deal with the mindset of extreme high conflict, ethical divorce will remain beyond the repertoire of such couples so long as even one of the partners is immersed in this toxic mindset.

Yet, for the majority of divorcing partners, being mindful of guilt helps avoid the pitfalls of blame no matter how appealing this route seems at the moment. There are specific advantages to being able to acknowledge self-responsibility for the impact of our actions:

• It allows both parties to be better aware of their impact on others including the spouse, the children, and extended families.
• It fosters the capacity to also remember better times and the features or qualities of the partner that attracted us in the first place.
• It underscores an important truth in divorce that the duty of care particularly where children are involved extends beyond the marriage itself.
• It facilitates mourning for what was lost by leaving space to acknowledge what was good and worth preserving. This is especially helpful to children who need a space to love the other parent.
• It serves as a counterbalance to the anger, injury, and disillusionment that can be so powerful in divorce.

The third principle of ethical divorce may appear to be straightforward but is very often observed in the breach.

Honesty and respect for due process is the best policy

It would be naive or at least unrealistic to state that married people should not engage in extramarital affairs or relationships. Statistics speak to their frequency and marriage counselors can certainly attest to the many occasions in which couples enter into therapy with a hidden elephant in the room that stymies any progress that could be made.

Marriages cannot tolerate the impact of relationship triangles for too long before they snap under the pressure. Whatever their longevity, marriages can only function as a shared space between two individuals whose mutuality takes precedence at key moments over the couple’s individual needs and destinies. Hence, when one party steps out of this frame, the union inevitably suffers. This might not happen immediately but it is sure to follow.

Of course, people entering into extramarital liaisons are often oblivious to consequences. Excitement fuelled by rationalization and denial of repercussions creates a kind of blindness to what others might see clearly. It is simply too juicy for the individual to forfeit such pleasure and the potential price to pay is ignored or disavowed for the gratification of the moment.

Before proceeding further, however, it might be helpful to distinguish between affairs and actual relationships. We should also remember the role of perversions such as heavy reliance on pornography, prostitutes and strip joints as a further form of triangulation that can cut off the lifeblood of a marriage. Although such obsessive preoccupations lack the personal dimension of the affair or relationship, they drain away desire and are extremely undermining of marital unions.

Affairs are extramarital liaisons that occur outside of any relational commitment. In this regard, the married person who engages in an affair is not looking to end their union necessarily but only to seek some private ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• CONTENTS
• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• ABOUT THE AUTHOR
• AUTHOR’S NOTE
• INTRODUCTION
• CHAPTER ONE The good divorce
• CHAPTER TWO Post-divorce adjustment
• CHAPTER THREE Telling the children
• CHAPTER FOUR Caring for children post-divorce
• CHAPTER FIVE Custody and access
• CHAPTER SIX Divorce, parenting, and families
• CHAPTER SEVEN High conflict and the pathologies of divorce
• CHAPTER EIGHT Space for discovery
• EPILOGUE
• NOTES
• REFERENCES