The Divorce Experience
| DOI | 10.1177/026455057802500108 |
| Date | 01 March 1978 |
| Author | Daphne Scarr |
| Published date | 01 March 1978 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
26
The
Divorce
Experience
DAPHNE
SCARR
WHILST
revisiting
the
United
States
I
took
another
look
at
Hennepin
County
Department
of
Court
Services
where
I
had
worked
as
an
exchange
probation
officer
in
the
early
sixties.
I
was
especially
interested
in
the
work
of
the
Domestic
Relations
Division
where
the
social
worker/proba-
tion
officer
is
known
as
a
counsellor
and
where
an
attempt
is
being
made
to
work
more
intensively
with
divorcees,
both
couples
and
individually.
Historically
divorce
court
welfare
work
has
developed
in
Minnesota
in
a
similar
way
to
that
in
England:
it
was
another
duty
acquired
by
probation
officers
as
social
workers
to
the
court,
the
demands
of
which
have
magnified
with
the
accelerated
divorce
rate.
Due
to
their
greater
emphasis
on
specialisation
it
was
possible
in
the
fifties
to
separate
the
domestic
work
done
by
probation
officers
entirely
from
that
in
the
criminal
courts,
as
has
been
the
case
in
London
and
Merseyside.
There
has
been
an
interesting
change
in
philosophy
and
nomenclature.
In
1963
I
did
custody
investigations.
In
1969
they
had
become
custody
studies.
By
1977
I
find
the
counsellors
are
doing
evaluations.
The
role
has
changed
from
private
investigator
to
mediator.
The
attitude
is
no
longer
that
parents
contesting
custody
are
not
capable
of
making
decisions
themselves
but
that
usually
they
are
responsible
people
capable
of
reach-
ing
agreement.
The
key
to
the
solution
lies
in
taking
the
problem
out
of
the
adversary
system
and
bringing
both
parents
together
with
their
new
partners
and
the
children
where
appropriate.
The
emphasis
is
on
the
best
interests
of
the
children.
The
focus
is
on
parenting
qualities
not
the
causes
of
marital
breakdown
and
discord.
Clearly
there
will
always
be
some
disputes
which
can
only
be
resolved
by
a
court
and
its
legal
representatives
but
there
does
seem
evidence
to
suggest
that
much
of
the
hostility
and
bitterness
could
be
avoided
if
we
were
introduced at
the
beginning
of
the
divorce
process
as
mediators
rather
than
as
laborious
report
writers
when
much
more
damage
has
been
done.
I
found
that
we
share
many
myths
which
are
being
exploded
as
experi-
ence
advances.
That
there
must
be
a
&dquo;guilty
party&dquo;
is
legally
disproved
with
the
advent
of
no-fault
divorce
or
the
irretrievable
breakdown
of
marriage;
that
the
adversorial
method
is
the
only
way
to
reach
decisions;
that
the
parties
must
be
kept
at
arms
length,
separately
encapsulated
in
their
anger
and
loss,
and
direct
communication
discouraged;
that
the
children
too
must
be
kept
out
and
discussion
carried
on
behind
closed
doors;
that
brothers
and
sisters
should
never
be
split;
that
mothers
are
the
appropriate
custodian
of
young
children
especially
daughters;
that
frequent
access
is
&dquo;upsetting&dquo;
to
children.
Once
these
beliefs
are
seen
to
have
no
foundation
more
realistic
con-
cepts
can
be
established.
First
there
is
now
the
assumption
that
in
the
vast
majority
of
cases
both
parents
are
capable
custodians.
Secondly
that
with
skilled
counselling
they
may
together
reach
a
mutual
decision
about
their
children.
Thirdly,
that
parents,
rather
than
the
court
or
social
agency
become
responsible
and
accountable
for
the
effectiveness
and
viability
of
the
decision
mutually
agreed.
Fourthly
(and
perhaps
most
important
of
all)
this
approach
is
child
centred
and
shifts
the
emphasis
away
from
the
rights
and
needs
of
the
parents
and
concentrates
with
their
active
involvement
on
the
best
interests
of
the
children.
To continue reading
Request your trial