Studies show divorce harms children Tuesday, June 12, 2001. Until recently, the conventional wisdom given to parents considering a separation was the same from lawyers and therapists: if the parents avoid conflict, the children will be all right. Many separating parents have had their guilt and fear assuaged by a therapist assuring them that children are resilient, and that what harms kids is not the fact of the separation but the anger and conflict that usually goes with it. “As long as you and your spouse do not engage in conflict in front of the children, they will get through this fine,” has been the conventional wisdom. Not any longer. A recent book by the eminent scholar on the subject of divorce, judith Wallerstein, and others, has made such advice not only passé, but dangerous. After a 25 year study on children of divorce, “The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce” concludes that children are permanently harmed by the fact of their parents' divorce, even if the parents did it without conflict. “The prevailing nostrum in this country-don't fight-does not, as so many lawyers, judges and mental health professionals hope it will, protect children from experiencing the same sorts of difficulties in adulthood as we've seen in those raised in less cooperative families.” There is, in fact, nothing new in this belief. In his 1997 study of male depression “I Don't Want to Talk About It”. Terrance Real found that early childhood trauma, even if small, can plant the seeds for depression in adulthood. “Children will get by, often enough, but at what cost?”, he asks. “A substantial and growing body of research teaches us that early childhood trauma and loss will have, as one researcher stated it, life-long psychological consequences.” He notes that even apparently mild childhood trauma can produce such lasting change. Research shows that children in intact families generally do better in many measurable ways, as do their parents. It also shows that, on average, it takes a child two years to recover from the immediate consequences of his or her parent's separation. This child, in other words will do worse in life for two full years. Shouldn't counsellors and therapists advising parents contemplating a separation be required to provide this information to their clients? Shouldn't the Wallerstein book be required reading for anyone thinking about leaving their spouse? Some clearly think so. The website www.smartmarriages.com is dedicated to such thinkers. In “How Therapy Can be Hazardous to Your Marital Health”, Dr. William Doherty of the University of Minnesota takes direct aim at the therapists who claim to be “neutral,” telling their clients to “listen to their feelings”. So-called neutral therapists, he says, especially if they are not counselling the couple, are not at all neutral because they focus on individual needs, and the cost-benefit analysis of staying married, instead of the principles of moral commitment and impact of divorce on others. “When somebody is seriously considering getting out of a marriage, they use the language of self-interest...If the therapist's language is the same, now you have an alliance between the relunctant, distancing spouse and the therapist, a collusion that undermines the marital relationship in ways that the therapist does not recognize,” he writes. Doherty advocates letting the individual or couple know that the therapist supports the possibility that the marriage can be salvaged, unless there's abuse or danger. Indeed, these writers believe that a great many divorces could be prevented if the effort was made to repair the relationship. Statistics would seem to back that up. Some 40% of divorced people regret the decision within five years. One of the most highly regarded experts on the subject of marriage, Dr. John Gottmari, writes in his book “Why Marriages Succeed or fail” that even marriages in the very final stages of coming apart can be resurrected if the spouses are given the right tools to prevent the marriage from being “overwhelmed by negativity.” Should individual and marital therapists be telling this to their clients? As a lawyer, it is my duty to advise a client of all relevant law affecting him or she, so that the client can make an informed decision. Why should it be any different for a therapist, upon whom a very vulnerable person is relying for help in making a decision that will permanently affect, and quite possibly harm, several people, including innocent children?