Austin Bencini
Why attack Children’s Commissioner?
In a meeting with the Movement Marriage Without Divorce, the Commissioner for Children referred to a report by Joan Kelly and Robert Emery which dealt with the “resilience” of children of divorced families.
Due to the controversy in the media, I decided to see for myself what the report said. In fact, their report contains an impressive list of studies, all of which report severe psychological harm to children arising from “divorce”, “remarriage” and “redivorce”. Just to mention a small number of them:
Children from divorced families face the risk of loner-term erosion or loss of important relationships with close friends.
Most scholars report that divorce substantially reduces the standard of living for custodial parents and children.
Divorce further accelerates the downward standard of living.
Divorce creates the potential for children to experience a continuing series of changes and disruptions in family and emotional relationships when one or both parents introduce new social and sexual partnerships; cohabit, remarry and/or redivorce.
A large body of empirical research confirms that divorce increases the risk for adjustment problems in children and adolescents.
These are but a very small selection of harmful effects the authors make reference to from “a large body” of studies.
So what is the fuss raised on what the Commissioner for Children said? Apparently, it is more on what she did not say then on what she said because nobody has disputed the negative effects of divorce described in the “large body of empirical research” referred to in the report .
They seemed to have picked on the idea mentioned at the end of the report that most divorce children “do well” when compared to other children when grown-up. The reason is because these unfortunate are “resilient” and can therefore weather the storm and, eventually, compare to ordinary children. Well, if there ever was a case of selective reporting then this becomes the mother of all selective reporting.
Only a few lines further up, the same authors state that “children and young people from divorced families seen in counselling or psychotherapy are a select group who surely differ from the general population of children of divorce”. Brilliant!
The report authors admit that “Painful memories and experiences may be a lasting residue of the divorce (and remarriage) process for many youngsters and young adults”. So the pain caused by divorce and eventual remarriage is there and not just for the select few but now for the many. The authors therefore were working (the report is not a very recent one) “to develop objective, reliable and valid measures of the important struggles associated with divorce that might be apparent first in schools or clinical practice”.
In other words, the report states very, very clearly that without divorce a number of children would not require clinical psychotherapy and “many” if not “most” would not be carrying with them “painful memories and experiences”, even a lasting mark on their approach to life.
The Commissioner for Children therefore did not at all misquote from the report and, just for the record, the report was very careful to distinguish separations from “divorce”, “remarriage” and “redivorce”. The last terms being used all through the report.
Those billboards showing us images of faces of beaten women, which are a cause of concern, seem to neglect or whitewash selectively the fact that there will be children requiring psychotherapy after the divorce of their parents.
We must all refuse to fall to their logic. We must be concerned about the bruises of those women even though they will soon heal and, just because those women may be resilient and strong physically, will not the memory of the beating remain with them all their life?
If this is so for battered grown-ups, how much more should it be so for “divorced” children? Or is it that, since they might prove “resilient”, in other words, strong, and learn to live with the psychological scars of divorce to appear on a par to other children then it becomes acceptable? Incredible!
The report authors do their academic duty to find clinical cures, therapies or strategies for children from divorces to mitigate the negative effects of divorce. However, might they not suggest that, in Malta’s case, prevention might in fact be better than clinical cure?
Popular Stories
In Discussion
17 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Shaun Azzopardi
May 18th 2011, 23:54
The problem with all what you said is that when such reports use the word 'divorce' it isn't referring to the physical act of civil divorce. It is referring to the ending of the marital relationship. Something which happens in separation, annulment and divorce.
Children are not at all affected by their parents obtaining a civil divorce, but they are affected by their parents hostility towards each other, by their parents no longer living together, by the new lifestyle they have to get used to, etc.
I can't help but point out that it is pretty naïve of you to think 'prevention' by not introducing civil divorce will help children at all.
Gerry Cowie
May 18th 2011, 20:15
I am certain that if the divorce debate were not in full flow right now that the Children's Commissioner, whose job it is to look after the needs of children, would not be facing such criticism.
You only have to look at the barrage of comments from the secularists, humanists and athiests below to see that their agenda is not quite the same. They are more interested in knocking the Catholic church than in bringing in divorce.
They also choose to turn a blind eye to the Catholicity of the majority of Maltese people living in these islands. This is done at their peril. For the way they have been carrying on with sarcasm, anti catholic comment, anti God comment and their general confrontational approach, they have ensured that the anti lobby will win, the pro lobby having become the best weapon the anti lobby ever had.
Anthony Mifsud
May 18th 2011, 18:02
What the study says (and it is a collection of a lot of studies) ... is that remarriage complicates situations and creates more insecurity etc (please don't post comments without reading it) ... Obviously abusive relationships are unhealthy for children ... nobody is arguing about that but yet no study has revealed that divorce (and not simply separation) is advantageous, when compared to investing more in couple formation, care for children etc etc ... Once again I ask anybody having studies showing the positive effects of remarriage with respect to investing in measures for the family etc to share it Thanks
Ms Lynn Zahra
May 18th 2011, 17:45
All studies conducted on families outside Malta are useless, since as you know, the Maltese have a different stance towards family - the majority of children are cossetted in Malta by parents and grandparents, more so those whose parents are separated.
Ms Lynn Zahra
May 18th 2011, 17:43
Dr.Bencini, what you cannot grasp is that in her inner heart, every women who has been abused by her spouse , prays and hopes God will send her some other guy to "save" her. That's why divorce will become available in Malta too, because everyone has a right to a fresh start in life.
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 18th 2011, 16:43
Dr Bencini, What is your take on children of domestic violence? Those kids who await their father to come home drunk and start beating up on their mother just because he can. What do you very learned people, say to these kids? There is a study on everything in life because that is how a lot of people make a living. Children are always hurt no matter what and to be honest most children learn to adjust. So with or without divorce children are victims of their parents. Divorce is not going to make much difference in the behavior of these abused children. On the other hand a divorce by their parents would be very beneficial for these abused children. It is better to have divorced parents than living with domestic violence in the house. Ask some of these unfortunate children and you will find out for yourself. Has there been a study on these type of children? Of course not, no money in it. The Commissioner for Children only stated what was beneficial for her speech and took words out of context.
Mr Joe Zammit
May 18th 2011, 15:56
Par.2385 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
“Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, TO CHILDREN traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a PLAGUE on society.”
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Mr Anthony Mizzi
May 18th 2011, 13:33
Attack? Have we become a state where criticism is not tolerated?
Did not know the Commissioner of Children needed a lawyer to defend her "misinterpretations" with all this lawyer jargon !
None other than Dr. Joan B. Kelly, the co-author of the study cited by Commissioner for Children Helen D’Amato, rejected the anti-divorce interpretation given to the study stating that research was misunderstood and the comparisons have been made between groups of children whose parents remain married, and those children whose parents have divorced. Voters are being misled by the implication that divorce causes negative consequences different than those caused by annulment or separation
“There is no reason to expect that the psycho-social outcomes for children whose parents divorce, get an annulment, or legally separate would be any different. Divorce and legal separation are the same, from the perspective of the children.”
Ms. Damato's concern, as her position entails, are Children's Rights and would be in line with her position and work if she commented n the infringment of children's rights with disclosure of their data as requested by Media studies lecturer Fr Joe Borg who suggested tapping of parishes for children from broken marriages who can speak out against divorce.
Fr Borg had suggesting that parish chaplains forward them a list of separated couples and children from broken marriages to speak “intelligently” against a law
Emanuel Muscat
May 18th 2011, 12:14
A well-reasoned case against divorce:there should be debates on TVM, not just answering questions from journalists.
Billboards are just propaganda vehicles of the opposing camps with scarmongering images and techniques being used, to get people to make kneejerk reactions when the voting time comes.
Mr William Flynn
May 18th 2011, 12:09
Prevent divorce? Oops, too late. There is the Catholic church's divorce and the overseas divorce and the de facto divorce. Does Mr Bencini really believe that these children don't suffer from these three types of divorces because there is no secular divorce law? Surely he wouldn't be that silly.
If Mr Bencini finds a way to prevent divorce, the leaders of the rest of the world would be beating a track to his door.
There is no doubt children suffer as a result of their parents' marital problems. Like limb amputations, there is always a sense of loss. But people usually survive amputations because the alternative is much worse.
Life goes on as it must. I know quite a few acrimonious divorces with eventual happy endings after the passage of time and people move on.
If divorce is chosen by the Maltese on 28 May, they will find that spouses will use it only as a last resort. Just like an amputation.
Mr Chris Briffa
May 18th 2011, 12:09
Dr Bencini has an agenda to portray any disagreements from the YES camp as being vitriolic and agressive . No amount of arguments from the NO movement can justify the bottom line. Divorce is a civil right and it will be a real shame for this country if the No vote prevails.
Mr B. Cachia
May 18th 2011, 11:57
I don't think anyone has attacked the Commissioner, but her misuse of a published study, possibly unintentional, had to be pointed out. If one is occupying an important public role one cannot make public statements lightly.
What is regrettable is that Dr Bencini here is repeating one of Ms D'Amato's mistakes, which is to treat the concept of 'divorce' in the study as referring to remarriage rather than to marriage breakdown, in spite of the fact that the author of the study has herself clarified this point. As Dr Bencini knows perfectly well, we already have marriage breakdowns in Malta, accompanied by separation and the option of cohabiting. For every five new marriages every year there is at least one new separation, according to the latest Demographic Review published by the NSO. As the author of the study herself said, it does not matter to children whether their parents have separated and are cohabiting or whether they have separated and have remarried.
Anthony Mifsud
May 18th 2011, 11:02
Finally someone who presents a study objectively. Thanks to the author! This would be a good article to comment about maturely.
Ramon Casha
May 18th 2011, 11:00
According to the author of that report, the commissioner did in fact misinterpret and misrepresent (her own words) the study. I would imagine that she, as the author, is more familiar with the report and its meaning than me, you or the commissioner.
Mr Chris Gatt
May 18th 2011, 10:50
Austin Bencini is either naive, thinks we are naive or is equivocating. The more I read his perambulations , the more I am beginning to think the latter. It is dishonest of Bencini to say that it is the Commissioner's critics who protested about her interpretation of the report . It is one of the authors of the report who protested.
If the Commissioner wanted to use that report, and incidentally specifically speak of children and divorce in terms of mental illness, she should have been careful how to select her words so as not give us the impression that she was picking and choosing. There is one word for being selective about which quote to take from a scientific study (especially when the implications drawn are the antithesis of the conclusions of the report, something that Bencini it seems is also getting good at). Its called propaganda.
That has serious implications, especially when you are Commissioner for Children. It means that you are not taking your job seriously. Has the commissioner commissioned studies to see the effect of separation on children in Malta. Has she put together counselling services for children from separated families? Has she commissioned a report on the effect of economic or financial stresses on a family in Malta. Has she done any homework to ensure that children have enough play time and creativity. Has she looked at how the media serves the child population in Malta.
Has the Children's Commission done anything at all to help Maltese children? ( to put things more bluntly - a couple of years ago, children were informed through a very strong media campaign of a telephone number they could call to seek help in case of abuse, as far as I know that service was discontinued - after a year!!! If it has not been then it damn well isn't being advertised!!)
When the commissioner has no time for this sort of thing but has enough time to pick and choose from a report to help her party, she no longer works a s a commissioner but as a party hack. In days of yore that was the norm. Politicians could state things without anyone checking the facts. But in the days of citizen journalism, this kind of thing is soon found out, so the quicker she packs her bags the better. And Bencini with her.
Mr William Flynn
May 18th 2011, 10:33
Prevent divorce? Oops, too late. There is the Catholic church's divorce and the overseas divorce and the de facto divorce. Does Mr Bencini really believe that these children don't suffer from these three types of divorces because there is no secular divorce law? Surely he wouldn't be that silly.
If Mr Bencini finds a way to prevent divorce, the leaders of the rest of the world would be beating a track to his door.
There is no doubt children suffer as a result of their parents' marital problems. Like limb amputations, there is always a sense of loss. But people usually survive amputations because the alternative is much worse.
Life goes on as it must. I know quite a few acrimonious divorces with eventual happy endings after the passage of time and people move on.
If divorce is chosen by the Maltese they will find that spouses will use it only as a last resort. Just like an amputation.
Emanuel Muscat
May 18th 2011, 15:46
Amputations are mostly done on doctor's orders and are not volontary!
Spouses will not use divorce as a last resort : the children of the baby boomers generation do not know what suffering is all about : they want instant solutions as in ' I have a headache and expect to pop a pill and cure it'.
This is also the reason why we have so much drug abuse.
Why do you think that there are so many maladjusted children in anglo-saxon countries?Surely from maladjusted parents who deprive their children of real affection and a sense of sacrifice:long live Henry the eighth?