[_fq4v]

No fault divorce needs to go away when there are children involved. That is basically the end of it. Marriage is ultimately about creating family. You can't undo your marriage once you have a child anymore than you can undo your parentage or undo your relationship with a cousin. If mom and dad want to screw around with other people, their rights to do so obviously should not be restricted, but there should be no out from the marriage itself, except for cases of abuse or endangerment.

What does it say to a child to unmake the very thing that made them? How awful. The wisdom of the past says that the old way was simply superior, and we see that when we look at things like the mental health crisis, the lack of grit, the prevalence of anxiety disordes. Generations past would look at our current system and say the obvious -- which was said at the time no-fault divorce became a thing as well, just forgotten by this day -- that the prevalence of family dissolution causes severe, apparently unrelated social ills. We need to put the brake on really.

[xenocratus]

Any studies that can support your claims that the mental health crisis, lack of grit etc. are due to divorce?

[giantg2]

I would be interested to see his sources too.

This article has references to many studies (I haven't looked into them all yet). https://gillespieshields.com/40-facts-two-parent-families/

[tathougies]

A study would require us to run an experiment that takes two groups of families that are equivalent along some metrics, and then forcibly separates one subgroup, while letting the other remain intact. Obviously this is extremely unethical.

So no, there are no studies directly on this, just as there are no studies on how divorce has no effect on children. The fact is that when the first decision was made to allow no-fault divorce, such a system had never existed in the Western world and it eschewed thousands of years of practice. This demanding of scientific study for every little social detail is a major problem. Previous generations would have resorted to philosophy, rather than demand empirical data. CS Lewis's book 'The Abolition of Man' goes into why demanding empirical data for every little social policy, rather than listening more to tradition, is both self-contradictory as well as dangerous. So I'll refer you to that as the best 'study'.

In the grand scheme of history, the burden of proof is still on the people promoting no-fault divorce to produce a valid study showing that society is better off with no-fault divorce.

My viewpoint does not require as much proof since it is -- still today -- the typical state of western society.

At this point, no-fault divorce has been a thing for about 50 years in the USA, which is barely a blip in the grand scheme of history. In many parts of Europe, it is still not a thing, or much younger.

Suppose today I decided to raise my daughter without looking at her in the eye anymore. I made this decision without any data to either validate or invalidate my claim that raising her in such a way would make her a better person (how could there be such a study today?). However, since it's more comfortable for me to not make eye contact, it seems that this is my right as her father.

Now obviously, most people would say that that sounds cruel and inhuman. But really, it must appear no different to us than the idea of no-fault divorce would have appeared to our forerunners.

Now imagine that if a large subset of society made the same choice I did with my daughter, but many kept the normal view such that it was still normal to look children in the eye. Still, a large enough group of people didn't. Now suppose that 50 years later, after mental health and attachment problems appear in greater numbers in the populace, someone who questions why some no longer look our children in the eye is asked for a 'study' to show that looking them in the eye would fix things? Certainly such a demand should be met with incredulity.

So that's my response to you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and society is still waiting for the extraordinary evidence that no-fault divorce does not increase mental health problems in children. Otherwise, the original claim deserves to be prevented -- at least temporarily -- from influencing our social policy.

EDIT: downvotes should explain why, otherwise I interpret it as someone who disagrees but cannot formulate a cohesive argument to critique mine, which is rather sad really.

[polotics]

I am a child of the first ever no-fault divorce in a western European country I won't name. It was a while ago, mid 80's. I estimate it stole 10 years of my life, led me to have to learn quite early a lot more psychology than I ever should have had to. My brother is a social write-off, unable to work. On the upside I am better at gauging mental health issues than several practicing medical doctors, nurses that I know. ... To everyone out there: - Getting someone to drink alcohol is a way to sort out narcissist psychopaths (avoid/destroy) from sociopaths (hug/fix). - Anyone with some brains will have some schizoid traits at tine, watch carefully, get help early. - Illnesses (Lyme, thyroid, many others) that affect behaviour will be gladly ignored by profiteering psychologists and pill- peddling quacks. - Having a child is a wonderful thing, and don't worry too much, whatever happens nature (DNA, luck) beats nurture (divorce, sick societies) as long as nutrition and germs allow for it.