divorce term paper

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Divorce Magazine

Since 1996 Divorce Magazine has been the Internet's leading website on divorce and separation. We provide advice about divorce law, divorce lawyers, family law, custody, support and other divorce related issues along with a directory of divorce professionals.

Coming to Terms: Divorce Terminology in Court

Here's an explanation of the most common divorce terminology you're likely to encounter during your divorce – from "absolute divorce" to "writ of summons"..

By Divorce Magazine Updated: June 06, 2019 Categories: Divorce and Annulment , Preparing for Divorce

If you’ve chosen to litigate your divorce, you’re going to be hearing lots of unfamiliar terms as well as common words that have a very specific meaning in family law. Here’s an explanation of the most common divorce terminology you’re likely to encounter during your divorce.

• Absolute Divorce: The absolute ending of a marriage, leaving both parties free to remarry.
• Adversarial Divorce: When a couple cannot come to an agreement about the terms of their divorce.
• Ab Initio: Latin phrase meaning “from the beginning.”
• Action: Lawsuit or proceeding in a court of law.
• Affidavit: Written statement of facts made under oath and signed before a notary public or other officer who has authority to administer oaths.
• Agreement: Verbal or written resolution of previously disputed issues.
• Alimony  Also known as “Spousal Support” or “Maintenance”. The standard is to give support to the spouse who needs it in order to keep the family on an equal setting – however, there is an underlying duty for each spouse to work towards being independent of each other.
• Annulment: The legal end of an “Invalid Marriage”. In the eyes of the law, the parties were never married to each other, but all children of their relationship remain legitimate.
• Answer: Written response to a complaint, petition, or motion.
• Appeal: The process by which a higher court reviews the decision of a lower court to determine whether there was reversible error. If so, the appellate court amends the judgment or returns the case to the lower court for a new trial.
• Change of Venue: A change of judges or geographical location.
• Collusion: An agreement between two or more persons where one of the parties brings false charges against the other. Collusion is illegal.
• Common-Law Marriage or Relationship: Based on cohabitation where no formal marriage ceremony has taken place, this is a judicially recognized marriage in some U.S. states. All Canadian provinces recognize common-law relationships, but the rights and privileges are not the same as for those couple who entered into a legal marriage.
• Complainant: The one who files the suit, same as plaintiff.
• Complaint: This is a legal document filed by the plaintiff to start the divorce process. It states that the marriage has ended and lists the grounds and claims for the divorce. In some states it is also known as a petition.
• Condonation: The act of forgiving one’s spouse who has committed an act of wrongdoing that would constitute grounds for divorce. Condonation generally is proven by cohabitating with the spouse after learning that the wrongdoing was committed.
• Contempt of Court: The willful failure to comply with a court order, judgment, or decree by a party to the action. Contempt of Court may be punishable by fine or imprisonment.
• Contested Divorce: Any case where the judge must decide one or more issues that are not agreed to by the parties. All cases are considered contested until all issues have been agreed to.
• Corroborative Witness: A person who testifies for one of the parties and backs up their story.
• Court Order: A written instruction from the court carrying the weight of the law. Orders must be in writing. Anyone who knowingly violates a court order can be held in contempt of court.
• Cross Examination: The questioning of a witness presented by the opposing party on trial or at a deposition. The purpose is to test the truth of that testimony.
• Decree: The final ruling of the judge on an action for divorce, legal separation, or annulment. Decree has the same meaning as judgment.
• Decree Nisi / Rule Nisi: An order by the court stating that a conditional divorce will become absolute by a certain date unless a party contests the order.
• Default: A party’s failure to answer a complaint, motion or petition.
• Defendant: The partner in a marriage against whom a divorce complaint is filed. Defendant has the same meaning as respondent.
• Deposition: The testimony of a witness taken out of court under oath and reduced to writing. The deposition may be used to discredit a witness if he changes his testimony.
• Direct Examination: The initial questioning of a witness by the attorney who called him or her to the stand.
• Discovery: In the U.S., Discovery is a procedure followed by attorneys to determine the nature, scope, and credibility of the opposing party’s claim. Discovery can include depositions, written interrogatories, and notices to produce documentation relating to issues relevant to the case.
• Dismissal: Occurs when a party voluntarily drops the case (in some states) or when a judge finds that a case totally lacks merit.
• Dissolution of Marriage: The legal process of ending a marriage. In most U.S. states, this is the legal term for divorce.
• Divorce: The legal proceeding by which a marriage is legally terminated. It may be contested (where one party denies the allegation or wants to keep the marriage in place) or uncontested.
• Equitable: Means fair; does not necessarily mean equal.
• Evidence: Proof presented at a hearing, including testimony, documents or objects.
• Exhibits: Tangible things presented at trial as evidence.
• Ex Parte: An application for relief conducted for the benefit of one party only. These judicial proceedings are generally reserved for urgent matters in which requiring notice would subject one party (or his/her property) to irreparable harm. Examples include a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against an abusive spouse to stay away from the abused party, or a TRO stopping a spouse from removing or destroying family property.
• Expert Witness: In court proceedings, the expert witness is the professional whose testimony helps a judge reach a decision.
• File/Filing: To place a document in the official custody of some public official.
• Financial Affidavit/Statement: Key document used to collect financial data; in some states and provinces, it may be known as a “Financial Statement” and may use a standard form. This document becomes part of the record of documents that are filed with the court.
• Foundation: The evidence that must be presented before asking certain questions or offering documentary evidence in trial. If a piece of evidence lacks foundation (proof, facts to back it up) it will not be admitted or considered as evidence in the court case.
• Grounds for Divorce: Reasons for seeking a divorce, such as incompatibility, mental cruelty, physical abuse, or adultery. While some states allow fault grounds for divorce , all states have some form of no-fault divorce. Marriage breakdown is the sole ground for legally ending a marriage under the terms of Canada’s Divorce Act .
• Guardian-ad-Litem: A person appointed by a judge to prosecute or defend a case for a person legally unable to do so, such as a minor child.
• Hearing: Any proceeding before a judicial officer.
• Hearsay: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Generally speaking, hearsay cannot be used at trial, but there are exceptions that permit it to be admitted in court.
• Incompatibility: The inability of persons to get along; a ground for divorce.
• Interrogatories: A series of written questions served upon the opposing party in order to discover certain facts regarding the disputed issues in a matrimonial proceeding.
• Judgment: The order of the court on a disputed issue; same as decree.
• Jurisdiction: The power of the court to rule upon issues relating to the parties, their children or their property.
• Legal Separation: Court ruling on the division of property, spousal support, and responsibility to children when a couple wishes to separate but not divorce. A legal separation is most often desired for religious or medical reasons. A decree of legal separation does not dissolve the marriage and does not allow the parties to remarry. Some states do not recognize legal separation.
• Lis Pendens: A piece of property cannot be transferred during a pending lawsuit that may change the disposition of it, once a notice has been filed in the public record.
• Litigation: The process by which a civil case settles parties’ rights.
• Maintenance:  See “Alimony”.
• Modification: A change in the judgment, based on a change in circumstances.
• Motion: An application or request to the court for an order. A Motion may be written or verbal.
• No-Fault Divorce: A marriage dissolution system whereby divorce is granted without the necessity of proving one of the parties guilty of marital misconduct.
• Nuptial: Pertaining to marriage.
• Order: A ruling by the court.
• Pendente Lite Orders: A temporary order of the Court that provides support until the divorce is finalized. Pendente Lite or Temporary orders are automatic in some areas.
• Perjury: The act of lying while under oath.
• Petition: A written application for particular relief from the court. In some jurisdictions complaint for divorce is entitled “petition for dissolution.”
• Petitioner: The person who filed the Petition or Complaint. Also referred to as the Plaintiff.
• Plaintiff: The spouse who initiates the legal divorce process by filing a complaint or petition stating that the marriage is over and listing the grounds and claims against the other spouse. Plaintiff is the same as Petitioner.
• Precedent: Decisions found in other pre-existing cases that factor into the case at hand.
• Prenuptial Agreement/Marriage Contract: Prior to their marriage, partners can contractually agree how assets and liabilities will be divided in the event of a divorce with a prenuptial agreement (commonly known as a “prenup”). In Canada, this is known as a “Marriage Contract”.
• Privilege: The right of a spouse to make admissions to an attorney, clergyman, psychiatrist or others as designated by state law that are not later admissible as evidence.
• Pro Se Divorce:  Sometimes called “ In Propria Persona ” or “ Pro Per ” (from the Latin meaning “in one’s own person”), or “self-represented” litigation, in this approach to divorce, either one or both parties choose not to hire a lawyer to represent them. The Latin term Pro Se translates as “on one’s own behalf”, meaning that the litigant is acting as his/her own attorney in a lawsuit – including self-representation in court.
• Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO): In the U.S., this is a court ruling earmarking a portion of a person’s retirement or pension fund payments to be paid to his/her ex-spouse as part of a division of marital assets.
• Quid Pro Quo: The giving of one valuable thing for another.
• Rebuttal: The introduction of evidence at a trial that is in response to new material raised by the defendant at an earlier stage of the trial.
• Reconciliation: When parties decide to get back together. They may sign a reconciliation agreement, which is enforceable by the court.
• Respondent (Defendant): The party defending against a divorce petition (complaint).
• Restraining Order: A court order prohibiting a party from certain activities. Restraining orders are often issued to protect against domestic violence or to protect marital assets. In some jurisdictions, violating a “domestic restraining order” is a criminal offense.
• Retainer: Money paid by the client to the lawyer or expert witness to obtain a commitment to handle the client’s case. A retainer can be a deposit against which the lawyer or expert witness charges fees as they are earned.
• Rules of Evidence: The rules that govern the method of presentation and admissibility of oral and documentary evidence at court hearings or depositions.
• Separation or Settlement Agreement: A written contract dividing property, spelling out rights and obligations, as well as settling issues such as spousal and child support and custody.
• Service: Providing a copy of the papers being filed to the opposing party.
• Spousal Support:  See “Alimony”.
• Standard of Living: A factor when determining spousal support, allowing the recipient an adequate amount to maintain their current lifestyle.
• Stipulation: An agreement between the parties or their counsel, usually related to matters of procedure.
• Subpoena: A court order requiring a person’s appearance in court or at a deposition as a witness or to present documents or other evidence for a case.
• Summons: A Summons is a written notification to the defendant or respondent that an action has been filed against him or her. It notifies a spouse of his/her rights and obligations in responding to the Complaint for Divorce.
• Testimony: Statements under oath by a witness in a court hearing or deposition.
• Transcripts: The written record of the divorce proceedings, testimony or depositions.
• Trial: The time when a judge hears the contested permanent or temporary issues, with supporting evidence and witnesses, in a couple’s divorce decisions. The judge may take a few hours or a few weeks to review the information presented and issue a court opinion.
• Uncontested Divorce: When the defendant is not going to try to stop the divorce and there are no issues for the court to decide about the children, money or property.
• Venue: The County in which the case is heard.
• Voir Dire: Where the opposing counsel has the opportunity to disqualify an expert witness.
• Writ of Summons: A form issued by the court directing a party to respond to a complaint, motion or petition.

Related Content

• Knowledge Is Power: 3 Helpful Divorce Preparation Tips
• Divorce Preparation 101: Steps to Take Before Telling Your Spouse
• Podcast: Texas Family Lawyers on Divorce Preparation and More

Reader Interactions

Add a comment cancel reply, helpful divorce article categories:.

• Alimony and Spousal Support
• Child Custody
• Child Support
• Children and Divorce
• Divorce and Annulment
• Divorce News and Statistics
• Financial Issues
• Legal Issues
• Relationships and Dating
• DivorceFAQs
• Divorce Podcasts
• Divorce Blogs

Visit Our Websites:

• Divorce Marketing Group
• Divorced Moms
• The Divorce School

Follow Us on Social Media

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

When Love Hurts – Mental and Physical Health Among Recently Divorced Danes

Associated data.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

The last decades of research have consistently found strong associations between divorce and adverse health outcomes among adults. However, limitations of a majority of this research include (a) lack of “real-time” research, i.e., research employing data collected very shortly after juridical divorce where little or no separation periods have been effectuated, (b) research employing thoroughly validated and population-normed measures against which study results can be compared, and (c) research including a comprehensive array of previously researched sociodemographic- and divorce-related variables. The current cross-sectional study, including 1,856 recently divorced Danes, was designed to bridge these important gaps in the literature. Mental and physical health were measured using the Short Form 36 (SF-36)-2. Analyses included correlational analyses, t- test comparisons, and hierarchical multiple regression analyses. The study found that the health-related quality of life of Danish divorcees was significantly worse than the comparative background population immediately following divorce. Across gender, higher levels of divorce conflict were found to predict worse mental health, and worse physical health for women, even when controlling for other socio-demographic variables and divorce characteristics. Among men, lower age and higher income predicted better physical health, while more children, more previous divorces, participant divorce initiation, new partner status, and lower levels of divorce conflict predicted better mental health. Among women, higher income, fewer previous divorces, new partner status, and lower levels of divorce conflict predicted better physical health while higher income, participant divorce initiation, new partner status, and lower levels of divorce conflict predicted better mental health. The findings underscore the relevance of providing assistance to divorcees who experience higher levels of divorce conflict immediately following divorce, in seeking to reduce potential long-term negative health effects of divorce.

Introduction

The last 20 years of research have consistently found strong associations between divorce and adverse health outcomes among adults. Generally, divorcees report poorer physical and mental health and more symptoms of stress, anxiety, depression, and social isolation than the general population ( Amato, 2000 , 2010 ; Kessing et al., 2003 ; Hewitt and Turrell, 2011 ; Hewitt et al., 2012 ; Hald et al., 2020b ). Furthermore, divorce is associated with more frequent hospitalization ( Nielsen et al., 2014 ), substance use ( Waite et al., 2009 ), higher suicide rates ( Kposowa, 2000 ), lower levels of psychological well-being ( Bracke et al., 2010 ; Colman et al., 2012 ), and greater overall mortality risk ( Kposowa, 2000 ; Sbarra and Nietert, 2009 ). However, four limitations relate to a significant part of this research.

First, often studies include only one or two health-related outcomes per study (e.g., stress and/or depression) (e.g., Lindström, 2009 ; Hewitt et al., 2012 ; Knöpfli et al., 2016 ). While this is important in mapping out specific effects of divorce, it limits the ability to gain insight into more comprehensive physical and mental health profiles among divorce populations. These could be important for more accurate and comprehensive assessments and profiling of the effects of divorce on health. Second, most countries in the world require separation periods before juridical divorce is granted. This means that divorce studies able to employ “real-time” research are scarce and there has been a call for such studies (e.g., Thuen, 2001 ; Cipric et al., 2020 ). The concept of “real-time” research usually refers to the collection of data among divorcees with little or no separation periods before formal juridical divorce ( Hald et al., 2020a ). When studying health effects of divorce, this may be especially important since many health outcomes related to divorce may be sensitive to a “time heals effect,” whereby negative effects of divorce naturally decline over time ( Amato, 2010 ; Sander et al., 2020 ). Therefore, current research on adverse health effects of divorce may, in fact, underestimate negative health effects of divorce as data have often been collected after a divorce that was preceded by significant periods of separation and thus is likely to be subject to the “time heals effect” ( Sander et al., 2020 ). Third, studies employing thoroughly validated and population-normed measures are few. Validated measures are needed for accurate assessment of the health outcomes studied. However, these assessments may benefit from contextualization by having background population norms against which the results can be directly compared. This allows for more direct insights into the degree to which divorcees may differ from background population norms and thus the relative impact of the divorce on health. Fourth, studies are needed that include a more comprehensive array of previously researched sociodemographic- and divorce-related predictor or explanatory variables of mental and physical health. This would allow for a more thorough assessment of the individual and combined effect of these variables on mental and physical health. The current study was designed to bridge these four important gaps in health research related to divorce.

Divorce theory and divorce research suggest that there are sociodemographic variables and divorce-related characteristics that may moderate the effects of divorce on mental and physical health. Theoretically, Amato’s Divorce-Stress-Readjustment perspective (DSR; Amato, 2000 ) suggests that adverse effects of divorce depend on a number of risk and protective factors experienced during and following the divorce process. Examples of risk factors include lower standards of living, loss of benefits associated with marriage, and conflict with the former partner, whereas examples of protective factors include having a new romantic partner, adequate income, and holding positive views about the divorce. According to the DSR, it is the interplay between risk and protective factors that may be important in determining the effects of divorce on mental and physical health ( Amato, 2010 ).

From an empirical perspective, studies suggest that lower socioeconomic status, being unemployed, lower levels of education, and lower family income ( Barrett, 2000 ; Simon, 2002 ; Symoens et al., 2013b ) are associated with lower mental and physical health following divorce. In addition, younger age has been found to be associated with lower mental health following divorce ( Bulloch et al., 2017 ). In relation to divorce characteristics, mutual divorce agreement initiation ( Weiss, 1976 ; Gray and Silver, 1990 ; Wang and Amato, 2000 ; Sweeney and Horwitz, 2001 ; Sakraida, 2008 ; Cohen and Finzi-Dottan, 2012 ; Symoens et al., 2013a ), having a new partner ( Mastekaasa, 1994 ; Amato, 2000 ; Øygard, 2004 ; Blekesaune, 2008 ; Kulik and Heine-Cohen, 2011 ; Symoens et al., 2013b ; Symoens et al., 2014 ) and lower levels of divorce-related conflict ( Symoens et al., 2014 ; Petren et al., 2017 ) have been found to be associated with better mental and physical health. Both empirically and from an applied point of view, divorce conflict has been found to adversely affect or accelerate declines in mental health among divorcees. While the cross-sectional nature of the current study does not allow for investigation of the impact of divorce conflict on mental health over time, it does allow for an independent assessment of the explanatory value of divorce conflict on mental health, accounting for basic sociodemographic variables and other divorce-related characteristics. Compared with previous research, this allows for a more thorough and “independent” investigation of divorce conflict on mental health immediately following divorce.

The current study took place in Denmark, providing a unique perspective on divorce and divorce-related processes. First, in Denmark, there is high societal acceptance of divorce ( Uggla and Andersson, 2018 ), and in general, divorce is not associated with societal stigma, as it is in many other parts of the world. Second, Denmark is a country with high levels of equality, both in terms of gender equality ( European Institute for Gender Equality, 2018 ) and income equality ( OECD, 2018 ). As such, Denmark offers a unique context in which to study whether sociodemographic and divorce-related factors predict post-divorce mental and physical health.

Based on the above, the current study sought to investigate mental and physical health among recently divorced Danes using a well-known, comprehensive, and population-normed mental and physical health measure. Further, the study sought to examine the explanatory value of a comprehensive array of previously identified sociodemographic variables and divorce-related characteristics on overall mental and physical health. Finally, the study sought to compare overall mental and physical health to relevant population norms. Accordingly, the following two research questions and one study hypothesis guided the study investigation:

• RQ1: What is the mental and physical health among recently divorced individuals and how does it compare to population norms?
• RQ2: What is the explanatory value of sociodemographic variables (i.e., age, number of children, income, education) and divorce-related characteristics (i.e., marriage duration, number of previous divorces, divorce initiator status, new partner status, and divorce conflict) on overall mental and physical health among recently divorced individuals?
• H1: Divorce conflict will significantly add to the explanatory value of mental health after accounting for basic sociodemographic variables (i.e., age, number of children, income, education) and divorce-related characteristics (i.e., marriage duration, number of previous divorces, divorce initiator status, and new partner status).

Materials and Methods

Participants.

The study sample comprised 1,856 participants of which 66% were women. The average age of women was 44.65 years ( SD = 8.34), while for men, it was 46.66 years ( SD = 9.31). The majority of participants had at least a medium educational level and earned at least the national average salary (see Table 1 ). The majority of the sample (88.3%) were parents, with an average of 1.88 ( SD = 0.99) children per participant. The average marriage duration for men was 12.22 years ( SD = 8.11) and for women 13.0 ( SD = 7.98), and for approximately 88% of the sample, this was their first divorce. A majority of women (52%) reported to have initiated the divorce, with 29% of men reporting to be divorce initiators. The majority of both male and female participants did not have new partners following their divorce (65% men, 64% women). The mean legal divorce duration before survey completion was 4.47 days ( SD = 6.97) for men and 5.23 ( SD = 7.66) days for women. Of note, there were some gender differences in sociodemographic and divorce-related characteristics. Specifically, compared to men, women were younger, had been married slightly longer, were more highly educated, earned less than men, had initiated the divorce more often, and had a different partner status than men [age ( t (1854) = 4.74, p < 0.001); duration of marriage ( t (1854) = −1.972, p = 0.049); education (χ 2 = 32.61, p < 0.001); income (χ 2 = 107.41, p < 0.001); initiator status (χ 2 = 90.50, p < 0.001); new partner (χ 2 = 14.82, p = 0.002)].

Participant demographics ( N = 1,856).

Data on all people who divorced in Denmark during the study period were obtained from Statistics Denmark and compared to the study sample. The study sample was found to be representative in terms of age, income, and marriage duration ( p > 0.05). There were statistically significant differences between participants and the comparison population in terms of gender (more women participated: χ 2 = 208.45, p < 0.001), educational attainment (study participants were more highly educated: χ 2 = 1135.23, p < 0.001), and the number of previous divorces [participants had on average fewer previous divorces than the average Danish divorcee: t (1855) = −8.47, p < 0.001].

During the study period (January 2016 to January 2018), those seeking divorce in Denmark initiated formal legal divorce and separation procedures by submitting an application to the Danish State Administration (DSA). Legal divorce was granted immediately when there was a mutual agreement to the marital dissolution. However, if there was disagreement regarding the divorce itself or its terms, a 6-month separation period was instituted, after which divorce was granted even in the absence of mutual agreement. The DSA reports that approximately 30% of couples underwent the 6-month separation period. The average processing time required by the DSA to issue divorce decrees was 2–3 weeks.

Invitations to the present study were sent by the DSA along with the divorce decree. The invitation letter described the 12-month Randomized Controlled Trial intervention study entitled “Cooperation after Divorce” that sought to investigate the effects of a digital intervention platform called “Cooperation after Divorce (CAD)” on divorcees’ mental and physical health. As the DSA sent out invitations, we were unable to send re-invitations to those who did not respond to the initial invitation sent out by the DSA. Those who completed the baseline survey received invitations from the intervention platform to complete surveys at 3, 6, and 12 months; for each of these time points, two reminder e-mails were sent out, one after 3 days and one after 14 days, if no response had been provided.

Cooperation after Divorce covers three main areas: (1) the divorce, (2) children, and (3) cooperation following divorce, employing 17 learning modules delivered through an online platform. This paper reports only the baseline results of the study, therefore, please also see Hald et al. (2020a) for a more thorough description of the CAD platform. The letter also described the procedure for participation, which consisted of clicking on a web-link in the invitation letter, provide informed consent, and respond to the baseline questionnaire anonymously. The research received approval from the Danish Data Protection Agency and was exempt from further ethical evaluations following the rules and regulations as set forth by the Scientific Ethical Committees of Denmark.

The exact response rate is not possible to report because the DSA could not provide the precise number of study invitations sent during the study period. There were 32,487 legal divorces in Denmark during the RCT enrollment period; however, it is unknown whether all individuals who divorced received an invitation along with their divorce decree. In total, 1,882 people began the study and due to impossible or invalid responses, 26 were excluded (i.e., those who did not report gender, reported to be married less than 1 day, or to have married the same year as they were born). Thus, 1,856 participants were included in the final analytical study sample.

Sociodemographic Variables

(a) Age at divorce was measured in years and months. (b) Sexual identity was determined by answering: “Are you a man or a woman?” with the response options: 1 = “Man” 2 = “Woman.” (c) Education level was assessed by answering: “What is the highest education you have completed?” with the following response options: 1 = “low level of education” (e.g., primary school, high school, business high school, vocational education), 2 = “medium level of education” (e.g., medium-length tertiary education, bachelor’s degree), and 3 = “high level of education” (e.g., master’s degree or higher). (d) Income was measured with the question “What is your monthly income before tax?” in Danish Crowns (1 USD = 6.35 DKK). The response options were: 1 = “Below 10,000DKK,” 2 = “10–20,000DKK,” 3 = “20–30,000DKK,” 4 = “30–40,000DKK,” 5 = “40–50,000DKK,” 6 = “50–60,000DKK,” 7 = “60–70,000DKK,” 8 = “70–80,000DKK,” 9 = “More than 80,000DKK.” These categories were reduced for descriptive purposes for Table 1 so that 1–3 = “Below average,” 2–4 = “Average,” 5+= “Above average”; however, in all analyses the original scale was used. (e) The number of children was obtained by asking how many children participants had from 0 to 8.

Divorce-Related Variables

(a) Marriage duration was calculated in years and months from marriage date to divorce date; (b) legal divorce duration was calculated in days from the legal divorce date to survey response date; (c) number of divorces was obtained by asking, “How many time have you divorced?” with response options including 1 = “One time,” 2 = “Two times,” 3 = “Three times,” and 4 = “More than three times”; (e) divorce initiator status was ascertained with the question “Who initiated your divorce” and 1 = “Me,” 2 = “Mostly me,” 3 = “We mutually agreed,” 4 = “Mostly my former spouse,” 5 = “My former spouse,” 6 “Not sure.” Initiator status responses were reduced so that 1–2 = “Me,” 3 = “We mutually agreed,” 4–5 = “My former spouse,” and 6 = “System missing” [only seven participants (0.4%) responded “not sure”]; (f) New partner status was obtained with the question “Do you or your ex have a new partner?” with the following response options: 1 = “Yes, we both have a new partner,” 2 = “No, none of us have a new partner,” 3 = “I have a new partner, but not my ex,” 4 = “My ex has a new partner, but not me”; (g) Divorce conflict was assessed employing the six-item self-report Divorce Conflict Scale (DCS). The DCS measures six dimensions of divorce-related conflict: communication, co-parenting, global assessment of former spouse, negative and pervasive negative exchanges and hostile, insecure emotional environment, and self-perceived conflict ( Hald et al., 2020d ). The internal consistency of the DCS scale was high (α = 0.88).

Physical and Mental Health

The second version of the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Assessment was used for the core outcomes of this study. The SF-36 is a 36-item self-report measure that is a widely used instrument to assess health-related quality of life over the previous 4 weeks among general populations and diverse patient groups ( Maruish, 2011 ). The instrument includes the following eight domains which are measured using 35 items: physical functioning, role physical (role participation with physical health problems), bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional (role participation with emotional health problems), and mental health. The final item is not included in the domains subscales and addresses self-evaluation health transition. The responses are given with a Likert scale or a yes/no format. Domain scores are reported in 0–100 transformed scores and t -scores that are calculated from the raw scores and higher scores indicate better health status (see Maruish, 2011 for more information). The physical health and mental health summary variables are calculated using all eight health domains based on their relative factor analytical weights. Many language versions of the SF-36 exist and the instrument has been determined to be a valid and reliable instrument for a wide range of populations ( Bjorner et al., 1998 ; Maruish, 2011 ). In this study, all of the eight health scales demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.85–0.93).

Data Analyses

Missing data were less than 5% for all variables in the present paper, which is below the proportion of missingness that may bias results ( Schafer, 1999 ; Bennett, 2001 ; Dong and Peng, 2013 ). Thus, the data were omitted “listwise” in analyses. For the legal divorce duration variable, outliers were changed to missing values using the moderately conservative ± 2.5 times the median absolute deviation (MAD) threshold, as recommended by Leys et al. (2013) . To assess gender differences, sociodemographic and divorce-related characteristics were compared using two-sample t -tests and chi-square tests.

Prior to any other data analyses, a rake weight was constructed and applied to the data. The rake weight was based on gender, education, and previous number of divorces and adjusted for sample representativeness (see section “Participants”). When constructing rake weights, a set of variables for which the distribution is known are chosen, and the statistical program creates weights for each case until the sample distribution aligns with the population for those variables. The resultant weight was applied to the data. Thus, all following data analyses (correlations, comparisons to norms, cut-off score comparison, and hierarchical regressions) reflect results with the weight applied.

One-sample t -tests were employed to compare our sample with the available Danish normative data from the Danish SF-36 user’s manual, which comprise a random population sample of 4,080 Danish adults (52% women) from the SF-36 Health Assessment Danish Manual study (for more information regarding this normative population sample, see also Bjorner et al., 1998 ). For comparisons, the SF-36 0–100 transformed scale scores were used.

Pearson correlation analyses were used for assessing bivariate correlations between variables. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to assess the independent contribution to the explanation of the variance SF-36 physical and mental health summary t -scores. In a first step, age, number of children, income, and education were entered as predictors; in a second step, marriage duration, number of previous divorces, divorce initiator status, and new partner status were entered as predictors. DCS scores were entered as a predictor in the third step. This approach allows for an assessment of the unique contributions of sets of variables (i.e., demographics and divorce-related variables), and specifically, allows for an assessment of the unique contribution of divorce conflict, beyond the contribution of demographics and divorce-related factors.

When compared with Danish normative data, male participants reported lower role physical scores [ t (878) = −9.38, p < 0.001, d = 0.32], worse general health [ t (878) = −5.66, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.19], lower vitality [ t (875) = −31.88, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.08], decreased social functioning [ t (878) = −23.51, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.79], lower role emotional scores [ t (878) = −25.63, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.87], and worse mental health [ t (875) = −40.79, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.38], but better physical functioning [ t (879) = 6.66, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.23] and lower levels of bodily pain [ t (878) = 2.34, p = 0.020, Cohen’s d = 0.08], than the Danish normative male population.

Statistically significant differences were found on the SF-36 domains for women. Compared with the Danish normative female population, female participants reported lower role physical scores [ t (880) = −3.00, p = 0.003, d = 0.10], worse general health [ t (883) = −7.25, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.24], lower vitality [ t (878) = −33.00, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.11], lower social functioning scores [ t (880) = −23.19, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.78], decreased role emotional capacity [ t (880) = −25.86, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.87], and worse mental health [ t (878) = −38.31, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.29], but better physical functioning [ t (883) = 9.94, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.33] and lower levels of bodily pain [ t (880) = 2.92, p = 0.004, Cohen’s d = 0.10] (see Figures 1 , ​ ,2 2 ).

SF-36 physical health domain means compared to normative data.

SF-36 mental health domain means compared to normative data.

Comparison cut-off scores were created such that those with t -scores below 44 were categorized as poor functioning, those with t -scores between 44 and 56 (i.e., average) were categorized as normal functioning, and those with t -scores above 56 (i.e., above) were categorized as superior functioning. The comparisons revealed that for the intervention group, 8.3% fell below the cut-score on physical health (normal = 23.8% and superior = 68%) and 73.6% fell below the cut-score on mental health (normal = 19.9% and superior = 6.6%). Similarly, for the control group, 8.0% fell below the cut-score on physical health (normal = 22.5% and superior = 69.5%) and 72.6% fell below the cut-score on mental health (normal = 23.8% and superior = 3.6%).

Among men, bivariate correlation analyses demonstrated that lower age, higher income, higher education, shorter duration marriages, fewer previous divorces, and lower mental health scores were significantly associated with better physical health ( p < 0.05). Among women, lower age, higher income, higher educational level, fewer previous divorces, new partner status, lower divorce conflict, and lower mental health scores were significantly associated with better physical health ( p < 0.05). Among men, higher age, longer marriage duration, more previous divorces, initiator and new partner status, and lower divorce conflict scores were significantly associated with better mental health, while for women higher income, fewer previous divorces, initiator status, and lower divorce conflict scores were significantly associated with better mental health ( p < 0.05; see also Table 2 ).

Correlations among sociodemographic variables, divorce conflict scale scores, physical and mental health summary scores ( N = 1856, men n = 617, women n = 1239).

Force enter hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to assess whether socio-demographic and divorce characteristics predicted mental and physical health and whether divorce conflict added to the explanatory value of mental health after controlling for sociodemographic variables and divorce characteristics. The first step of the analyses included the sociodemographic variables of age, number of children, income, and education, and the second step included the divorce-related variables of marriage duration, number of previous divorces, divorce initiator status, and new partner status, while the third and final step included divorce conflict. The variables (Step 3) explained 14.6% of the variance of the physical health summary scores for men [ F (12,875) = 12.33, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.146] and 8.8% for women [ F (12,878) = 6.96, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.088]. Among men, lower age and higher income significantly added to the prediction of better physical health ( p < 0.05). Among women, higher income, fewer previous divorces, new partner status, and lower divorce conflict added to the prediction of better physical health ( p < 0.05) (see also Table 3 ).

Multiple regression analyses predicting SF-36 physical health summary t -scores.

For mental health, sociodemographic and divorce-related variables, as well as divorce conflict (Step 3) accounted for 19.3% of the explained variance among men [ F (12,875) = 17.15, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.193] and 9.9% among women [ F (12,878) = 7.89, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.099]. Factors that significantly added to the prediction of better mental health for men were more children, more previous divorces, participant divorce initiation, new partner status, and lower divorce conflict, while for women, higher income, participant divorce initiation, new partner status, and lower divorce conflict significantly added to the prediction of better mental health.

Regarding the study hypothesis, among both men and women, divorce conflict was found to significantly add to the explanation of mental health after controlling for basic sociodemographic variables and divorce characteristics (see also Table 4 ).

Multiple regression analyses predicting SF-36 mental health summary t -scores.

Pertaining to research question one, across gender, the study found that the mental health of Danish divorcees was significantly different from and worse than the Danish background population immediately following divorce. Further, across all mental health indicators, the magnitudes of these differences were large [i.e., Cohen’s ( d ) = 0.78–1.38]. The results for physical health were more equivocal. While both male and female divorcees reported better physical functioning in everyday life than the Danish background population, both genders also reported worse general health than the background population immediately following divorce.

The results for mental health corroborate existing research in the field and, notably, the effect sizes here were large, which may mainly reflect the timing of the collection of baseline data. With the unique opportunity to collect data very close to the juridical divorce (on average less than five days from juridical divorce) and the fact that the majority of the sample divorced without any prior separation period, data may have been less subject to a “time heals effect” ( Hald et al., 2020a ). Following Amato (2000) DSR, this means that time has not yet had a chance to mitigate the adverse effects of the divorce. Further, although caution needs to be taken regarding the generalizability of the sample, due to the non-probability sampling process, the results offer some of the first insights into how adverse the impacts of divorce on mental health may be immediately following divorce, using a range of common mental health indicators ( Sander et al., 2020 ).

The equivocal findings concerning physical health among divorcees immediately following divorce, we speculate, mainly have to do with (a) the study sample, (b) the content of questions of the outcome measure, and (c) the timing of measurements. Accordingly, the study sample comprised relatively younger individuals as compared to the background population sample used for comparisons. The majority of the items from the physical health scale include responses to tasks most non-elderly individuals would easily be able to accomplish, but which may prove increasingly difficult with age (e.g., walking one block, dressing and bathing, or lifting or carrying groceries), and this may account for the better physical health among our study sample as compared to the background population. Further, as first suggested by Sander et al. (2020) , when it comes to physical health, a “time hurts” effect may also be at play, whereby physical health is more adversely affected over the course of time following divorce than immediately after the divorce. A causal mechanism may be that reduced mental health increasingly adversely affects physical health over time ( Sander et al., 2020 ). We encourage future studies to further investigate this.

From an applied point of view, across diverse samples and patient groups, better health-related quality of life as measured by the SF-36 has been found to be associated with lower risk of morbidity, mortality, cancer as well as the recurrence of cancer, anxiety, and depressive symptoms (e.g., Lacson et al., 2010 ; Saquib et al., 2011 ; Folker et al., 2019 ). Further, multiple studies have found that worse health-related quality of life as measured by the SF-36 instrument is predictive of higher occurrence of work absence due to sickness, hospitalizations, and higher health care costs among both general populations and across multiple subpopulations (e.g., Lacson et al., 2010 ; Laaksonen et al., 2011 ; Pymont and Butterworth, 2015 ). In conjunction with the study results, especially for mental health, this means that there is sound human and financial reasoning in developing interventions that may help divorcees cope with adverse (mental) health effects of their divorce and, that among many divorcees, the need for help may be especially pronounced immediate following their divorce.

Pertaining to research question 2 and the study hypothesis, it was found that for men, lower age and higher income added to the prediction of better physical health. Among women, higher income, fewer previous divorces, new partner status, and lower levels of divorce conflict added to the prediction of better physical health. For mental health, among men, it was found that more children, more previous divorces, participant divorce initiation, new partner status, and lower levels of divorce conflict added to the prediction of better mental health, while for women, higher income, participant divorce initiation, new partner status, and lower levels of divorce conflict were found to add to better mental health. Moreover, our study hypothesis that divorce conflict would add to the overall prediction of mental health, even when other sociodemographic variables and divorce characteristics were controlled for, was supported. Of note, lower divorce conflict also predicted better physical health for women.

The current study indicates that, already at the time of or close to juridical divorce, higher degrees of divorce conflict are associated with worse mental health, even after accounting for other sociodemographic variables and divorce-related factors. This may not be surprising, given that higher degrees of divorce conflict are likely to negatively interfere with or complicate important decisions and life choices around the time of juridical divorce, like division of property, co-parenting, and child custody. This study finding accentuates the need to focus on divorce conflict levels already at divorce onset ( Hald et al., 2020d ).

Amato’s DSR theory stipulates that the adverse effects of divorce depend on the interplay between risk and protective factors ( Amato, 2010 ). These factors include many of those found in this study to significantly predict both mental and physical health, including income (DSR = economic security, standards of living), new partner status (DSR = having a new partner), and levels of divorce conflict (DSR = conflict with the former partner). Accordingly, the results of this study may be seen as support for Amato’s DSR theory, in that DSR theory views divorce “not as a discrete event, but as a process that unfolds over months and even years” ( Amato, 2010 , p. 10). Moreover, it follows that mental and physical health may already be adversely affected prior to the juridical divorce as a consequence of a prolonged stressful and/or unsatisfactory relationship ( Hald et al., 2020c ). Therefore, the measurements of mental and physical health employed in this study, done immediately after juridical divorce with little or no prior separation period, may “capture” the mental and physical health consequences of this “…process that unfolds over months and even years” ( Amato, 2010 , p. 10).

Notably, even in an egalitarian society such as the Danish one, with a large public sector, a well-developed welfare system, and fewer differences between rich and poor as compared to most other Western countries, higher income still significantly predicted mental well-being among women and physical well-being among both men and women. In accordance with DSR theory, this suggests that income may be a key protective factor against negative divorce-related health impacts ( Leopold, 2018 ), even in highly egalitarian societies. Even more so, income may be more important than level of education, a variable previously found to be related to post-divorce psychological and physical health outcomes ( Cohen and Finzi-Dottan, 2012 ; Perrig-Chiello et al., 2015 ), but which was not found to significantly predict mental or physical well-being in this study.

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to include a large sample of very recently divorced individuals, employ standardized and validated mental and physical health measures consisting of multiple health-related indicators with available background population data for direct comparisons, and a multitude of sociodemographical and divorce-related variables previously shown to be associated with health-related outcomes. However, when evaluating the results, the following study limitations should be taken into consideration. The study used a non-probability sample of divorcees and employed self-report measures, which may limit the generalizability of findings. Specifically, the study sample may have consisted of individuals with more conflicts and more mental and physical problems than those who did not participate in the study, as these individuals may have believed that the intervention platform would be particularly helpful to them. Conversely, it may also be that people with more conflicts and more mental and physical problems may have decided not to participate because it may have felt threatening to their sense of self ( Howell and Shepperd, 2012 ; DiBello et al., 2015 ), and thus, are underrepresented in the current study. Additionally, we were unable to determine if both partners in a prior marriage participated in the study, which may affect the assumption of independence of data in the analyses. Further, due to the cross-sectional nature of our data, the results preclude causal inferences. Lastly, while the Danish context is interesting for several reasons, including the minimal societal stigma surrounding divorce and the presence of greater gender and income equality, there is also great acceptance of non-marital cohabitation, such that many couples choose to not get legally married. As the study targeted formerly legally married individuals, individuals who cohabitate were not recruited, and thus, it is unclear whether the study results may generalize to this group of individuals. However, we expect that the relationship dissolution process is similar for married and cohabitating individuals, to the extent that there can be children involved and shared assets (e.g., house). Therefore, we do not have reason to expect that non-married individuals differ from married individuals; however, future research should seek to examine this point.

In conclusion, the study found that the health-related quality of life of Danish divorcees immediately following divorce was significantly different from and worse than the comparative Danish background population. Further, higher levels of divorce conflict predicted worse mental health even after controlling for other sociodemographic variables and divorce characteristics often targeted in research on the interplay between divorce and health. The findings underscore the relevance of providing divorce interventions for divorcees as early as possible following their divorce to improve health-related quality of life.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency and the Regional Scientific Ethical Committee of Copenhagen, Denmark. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

This original research report is part of the doctoral thesis for SS. SS and GH were responsible for the design of the intervention and the study protocol and also responsible for the manuscript writing. JS was responsible for data analysis. CØ and AC were responsible for feedback and editing. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

For due diligence, we would like to declare that the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, where the authors work, owns the digital intervention platform “Cooperation after Divorce (CAD)” while two of the co-authors (GH and SS) hold the commercial license and intellectual property rights to the platform through the Company “CAD” (Samarbejde Efter Skilsmisse ApS). The reviewer LL declared a shared affiliation, with no collaboration, with the author to the handling editor at the time of the review.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the Egmont Foundation for support with the development of the digital platform “Cooperation After Divorce,” the Danish State Administration for help during the data collection process, and the Carlsberg Foundation for their funding of the research project “When Marriage Fails.”

Funding. This work was financially supported by “The Carlsberg Foundation Distinguished Associate Professor Fellowship” (the last author) under Grant No. CF16-0094.

• Amato P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. J. Marriage Family 62 1269–1287. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amato P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: continuing trends and new developments. J. Marriage Family 72 650–666. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barrett A. E. (2000). Marital trajectories and mental health. J. Health Soc. Behav. 41 451–464. 10.2307/2676297 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bennett D. A. (2001). How can i deal with missing data in my study? Aus. N. Z. J. Public Health 25 464–469. 10.1111/j.1467-842X.2001.tb00294.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bjorner J. B., Thunedborg K., Kristensen T. S., Modvig J., Bech P. (1998). The danish SF-36 health survey. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 51 991–999. 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00091-92 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blekesaune M. (2008). Partnership transitions and mental distress: investigating temporal order. J. Marriage Family 70 879–890. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00533.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bracke P. F., Colman E., Symoens S. A. A., Van Praag L. (2010). Divorce, divorce rates, and professional care seeking for mental health problems in europe: a cross-sectional population-based study. BMC Public Health 10 : 224 . 10.1186/1471-2458-10-224 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bulloch A. G. M., Williams J. V. A., Lavorato D. H., Patten S. B. (2017). The depression and marital status relationship is modified by both age and gender. J. Affect. Disord. 223 65–68. 10.1016/j.jad.2017.06.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cipric A., Strizzi J. M., Øverup C. S., Lange T., Štulhofer A., Sander S., et al. (2020). Cooperation after divorce: an RCT study of the effects of a digital intervention platform on self-perceived stress. Psychosoc. Intervent. 29 113–123. 10.5093/pi2020a7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen O., Finzi-Dottan R. (2012). Reasons for divorce and mental health following the breakup. J. Divorce Remarriage 53 581–601. 10.1080/10502556.2012.719413 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colman El, Symoens S., Bracke P. (2012). Professional health care use and subjective unmet need for social or emotional problems: a cross-sectional survey of the married and divorced population of flanders. BMC Health Serv. Res. 12 : 420 . 10.1186/1472-6963-12-420 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DiBello A. M., Neighbors C., Ammar J. (2015). Self-Affirmation theory and cigarette smoking warning images. Add. Behav. 41 87–96. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.09.026 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dong Y., Peng C.-Y. J. (2013). Principled missing data methods for researchers. SpringerPlus 2 : 222 . 10.1186/2193-1801-2-222 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• European Institute for Gender Equality (2018). Gender Equality Index. Vilnius: European Institute for Gender Equality. [ Google Scholar ]
• Folker A. P., Hegelund E. R., Mortensen E. L., Wimmelmann C. L., Flensborg-Madsen T. (2019). The association between life satisfaction, vitality, self-rated health, and risk of cancer. Q. Life Res. 28 947–954. 10.1007/s11136-018-2083-2081 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray J. D., Silver R. C. (1990). Opposite sides of the same coin: former spouses’ divergent perspectives in coping with their divorce. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 59 1180–1191. 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1180 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hald G. M., Ciprić A., Øverup C. S., Štulhofer A., Lange T., Sander S., et al. (2020a). Randomized controlled trial study of the effects of an online divorce platform on anxiety, depression, and somatization. J. Family Psychol. 34 740–751. 10.1037/fam0000635 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hald G. M., Ciprić A., Sander S., Strizzi J. M. (2020b). Anxiety, depression and associated factors among recently divorced individuals. J. Mental Health 10.1080/09638237.2020.1755022 [Epub ahead of print]. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hald G. M., Ciprić A., Strizzi J. M., Sander S. (2020c). “Divorce Burnout” among recently divorced individuals. Stress Health 36 457–468. 10.1002/smi.2940 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hald G. M., Strizzi J. M., Ciprić A., Sander S. (2020d). The divorce conflict scale. J. Divorce Remarriage 61 83–104. 10.1080/10502556.2019.1627150 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hewitt B., Turrell G. (2011). Short-term functional health and well-being after marital separation: does initiator status make a difference? Am. J. Epidemiol. 173 1308–1318. 10.1093/aje/kwr007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hewitt B., Turrell G., Giskes K. (2012). Marital loss, mental health and the role of perceived social support: findings from six waves of an australian population based panel study. J. Epidemiol. Comm. Health 66 308–314. 10.1136/jech.2009.104893 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Howell J. L., Shepperd J. A. (2012). Reducing information avoidance through affirmation. Psychol. Sci. 23 141–145. 10.1177/0956797611424164 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kessing L. V., Agerbo E., Mortensen P. B. (2003). Does the impact of major stressful life events on the risk of developing depression change throughout life? Psychol. Med. 33 1177–1184. 10.1017/S0033291703007852 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knöpfli B., Cullati S., Courvoisier D. S., Burton-Jeangros C., Perrig-Chiello P. (2016). Marital breakup in later adulthood and self-rated health: a cross-sectional survey in switzerland. Int. J. Public Health 61 357–366. 10.1007/s00038-015-0776-776 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kposowa A. J. (2000). Marital status and suicide in the national longitudinal mortality study. J. Epidemiol. Comm. Health 54 254–261. 10.1136/jech.54.4.254 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kulik L., Heine-Cohen E. (2011). Coping resources, perceived stress and adjustment to divorce among israeli women: assessing effects. J. Soc. Psychol. 151 5–30. 10.1080/00224540903366453 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laaksonen M., Kääriä S.-A., Leino-Arjas P., Lahelma E. (2011). Different domains of health functioning as predictors of sickness absence – a prospective cohort study. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 37 213–218. 10.5271/sjweh.3131 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lacson E., Xu J., Lin S.-F., Dean S. G., Lazarus J. M., Hakim R. M. (2010). A comparison of SF-36 and SF-12 composite scores and subsequent hospitalization and mortality risks in long-term dialysis patients. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 5 252–260. 10.2215/CJN.07231009 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leopold T. (2018). Gender differences in the consequences of divorce: a study of multiple outcomes. Demography 55 769–797. 10.1007/s13524-018-0667-6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leys C., Ley C., Klein O., Bernard P., Licata L. (2013). Detecting outliers: do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49 764–766. 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindström M. (2009). Marital status, social capital, material conditions and self-rated health: a population-based study. Health Policy 93 172–179. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.05.010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maruish M. E. (2011). User’s Manual for the SF-36v2 Health Survey , 3rd Edn Lincoln: QualityMetric Incorporated. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mastekaasa A. (1994). Psychological well-being and marital dissolution: selection effects? J. Family Issues 15 208–228. 10.1177/0192513X94015002004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen N. M., Davidsen R. B., Hviid A., Wohlfahrt J. (2014). Divorce and risk of hospital-diagnosed infectious diseases. Scand. J. Public Health 42 705–711. 10.1177/1403494814544398 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2018). Income Inequality (indicator). Paris: OECD. [ Google Scholar ]
• Øygard L. (2004). Divorce support groups: what factors are of importance regarding friendship development in the groups? Soc. Work Groups 26 59–77. 10.1300/J009v26n04_05 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perrig-Chiello P., Hutchison S., Morselli D. (2015). Patterns of psychological adaptation to divorce after a long-term marriage. J. Soc. Personal Relationships 32 386–405. 10.1177/0265407514533769 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petren R. E., Ferraro A. J., Davis T. R., Pasley K. (2017). Factors linked with coparenting support and conflict after divorce. J. Divorce Remarriage 58 145–160. 10.1080/10502556.2017.1300013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pymont C., Butterworth P. (2015). Longitudinal cohort study describing persistent frequent attenders in australian primary healthcare. BMJ Open 5 : e008975 . 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008975 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sakraida T. J. (2008). Stress and coping of midlife women in divorce transition. Western J. Nurs. Res. 30 869–887. 10.1177/0193945907311324 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sander S., Hald G. M., Cipric A., Øverup C. S., Strizzi J. M., Gad Kjeld S., et al. (2020). A randomised controlled trial study of the effects of a digital divorce platform on mental and physical health. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 12 863–886. 10.1111/aphw.12213 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saquib N., Pierce J. P., Saquib J., Flatt S. W., Natarajan L., Bardwell W. A., et al. (2011). Poor physical health predicts time to additional breast cancer events and mortality in breast cancer survivors. Psycho-Oncology 20 252–259. 10.1002/pon.1742 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbarra D. A., Nietert P. J. (2009). Divorce and death: forty years of the charleston heart study. Psychol. Sci. 20 107–113. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02252.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schafer J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: a primer. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 8 3–15. 10.1177/096228029900800102 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon R. W. (2002). Revisiting the relationships among gender, marital status, and mental health. Am. J. Soc. 107 1065–1096. 10.1086/339225 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sweeney M. M., Horwitz A. V. (2001). Infidelity, initiation, and the emotional climate of divorce: are there implications for mental health? J. Health Soc. Behav. 42 295–309. 10.2307/3090216 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Symoens S., Bastaits K., Mortelmans D., Bracke P. (2013a). Breaking up, breaking hearts? characteristics of the divorce process and well-being after divorce. J. Divorce Remarriage 54 177–196. 10.1080/10502556.2013.773792 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Symoens S., Van de Velde S., Colman E., Bracke P. (2013b). Divorce and the multidimensionality of men and women’s mental health: the role of social-relational and socio-economic conditions. Appl. Res. Q. Life 9 197–214. 10.1007/s11482-013-9239-9235 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Symoens S., Colman E., Bracke P. (2014). Divorce, conflict, and mental health: how the quality of intimate relationships is linked to post-divorce well-being. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 44 220–233. 10.1111/jasp.12215 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thuen F. (2001). Psychiatric symptoms and perceived need for psychiatric care after divorce. J. Divorce Remarriage 34 61–76. 10.1300/J087v34n01_04 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uggla C., Andersson G. (2018). Higher divorce risk when mates are plentiful? evidence from Denmark. Biol. Lett. 14 : 20180475 . 10.1098/rsbl.2018.0475 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waite L. J., Luo Y., Lewin A. C. (2009). Marital happiness and marital stability: consequences for psychological well-being. Soc. Sci. Res. 38 201–212. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.07.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang H., Amato P. R. (2000). Predictors of divorce adjustment: stressors, resources, and definitions. J. Marriage Family 62 655–668. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00655.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weiss R. S. (1976). The emotional impact of marital separation. J. Soc. Issues 32 135–145. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1976.tb02484.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

The Divorce Process: A Step By Step Guide

Updated: Jul 25, 2024, 7:40am

Table of Contents

What is involved in the divorce process, divorce process step by step, serving the petition for divorce, response or default divorce, temporary hearings, discovery and preparation, settlement or trial, do you need an attorney to help you through the steps of divorce, frequently asked question (faqs).

Marriage is more than just a romantic partnership. It is a legal relationship that gives you certain rights and obligations. If you want to end your marriage, you need to go through the divorce process in order for the state to formally dissolve your union.

The steps of divorce can be complicated, and it can take time to become single again. This guide to the divorce process step by step will help you to understand what to expect so you can be prepared for all the hoops you’ll need to jump through if you no longer wish to be married to your spouse.

Divorce occurs when the court legally ends your marriage. You are not considered divorced in the eyes of the law until a judge signs a divorce decree .

In addition to ending your marriage, most divorces decide how your marital property is divided, whether alimony or spousal support is owed and how custody of your children is shared.

The specific steps of the divorce vary by state, so it is important to learn the rules for where you live. In most states, however, you will need to complete similar steps of divorce before your marriage can be dissolved.

There are also different types of divorce , including fault and no-fault divorces and contested and uncontested divorces . You and your spouse will need to consider what is right for you, as well as for any children who are involved.

Featured Partners

Divorce.com

$499 (and up)

Document prep, Mediation, Case management, Lawyer services

100% guaranteed court-accepted forms

On Divorce.com's Website

OnlineDivorce

$159 (and up)

Ready-to-file forms, Name changes, Co-parenting support

On OnlineDivorce's Website

Here are the divorce steps you may have to go through before the court declares your marriage is over.

Divorce cannot happen overnight. In fact, many states have a divorce waiting period. This means a certain amount of time must pass between the time you separate and/or the time you file for divorce and the time your marriage is officially over.

The waiting period before divorce could range from as little as a few weeks to as long as a year, although there are some locations that don’t impose a waiting period at all.

During the waiting period, you may be informally or formally separated from your spouse.

• If you are informally separated, you live apart. In some states you can do this in the same house.
• If you are legally separated, you have a written agreement or order about money, custody and support. This can be helpful if your spouse is not being cooperative (for example, by not allowing you access to your home or children or by denying you financial help you need).

It is very important you understand whether your state requires a period of separation before your marriage ends and how your state defines separation. Otherwise, you could end up delaying your divorce. An experienced divorce attorney can explain this aspect of the divorce process where you live.

Determining the Grounds for Divorce

When you are ready to move forward with the divorce process, you’ll have to decide whether to file a petition asking for a fault divorce or a no-fault divorce.

All states allow no-fault divorce. This means neither party is alleging any specific wrongdoing as justification for the divorce. Instead, the divorce is just based on the fact you and your spouse have irreconcilable differences. A no-fault divorce is granted even if your spouse does not want the divorce.

Some states also allow for fault divorces. This means there are specific grounds for divorce such as abuse, abandonment or adultery.

Fault divorces can be more complicated and expensive, but you may request a fault divorce for several reasons. You may want it on record that you believe the other party was to blame for your breakup. Or you may think you can influence the court’s decisions about issues such as asset division or custody by proving your spouse wronged you.

Filing for Divorce

Filing is one of the most crucial steps of divorce. In this part of the process, you actually file paperwork with the court to begin the process of formally dissolving your marriage.

If your state imposes a waiting period, make sure you have been separated for the required length of time before filing for divorce so you don’t have to begin the process over again.

You also need to make sure you file your petition for divorce in the appropriate court. This is usually the family or divorce court in the county in which you or your spouse live, as there are residency requirements in most locations. These rules require you to have lived in the area for a certain period of time before divorcing there.

You need to provide some crucial information in your petition for divorce including:

• Names and contact information for you and your spouse
• The grounds for divorce
• Whether you have children and, if so, their personal identifying information including their ages and locations
• What you desire with regard to the division of property and child custody , as well as whether you are asking for alimony or child support.

You need to pay a divorce filing fee when you submit your petition for divorce (or you can complete a request to waive the fee if paying it would be a financial hardship). Fees vary based on location.

When you file for divorce, your spouse must be formally notified. You can request that the sheriff serve your spouse with divorce papers or hire a process server.

If you do not know the location of your spouse, you still need to attempt to ensure they receive notice of the divorce filing. You can do this by publishing notices in local newspapers if the court gives you permission.

Before you can move forward with the divorce process, you must be able to provide proof to the court that your spouse was served (or that you attempted to serve the papers).

In most cases, when you serve your partner with divorce papers, they have a set period of time to respond.

If your partner does not do so, you can petition the court and request a default divorce (also sometimes called an uncontested divorce). The court typically will move forward, awarding you all that you requested and dissolving your marriage. If you and your spouse have children together, however, the court ensures it is acting in the children’s best interests before making decisions regarding them.

Typically, however, your spouse will respond after you have filed a petition for divorce. This means your spouse will submit an “answer” to your initial petition for divorce. Your spouse might agree with you in the answer or may disagree with your assertions. Your spouse can also file a counter-complaint and introduce new allegations or information for the court to consider.

If your spouse responds, they typically must serve you with a copy of that response and provide proof of this service to the court in order for proceedings to continue.

In some cases, a temporary hearing will be held after a petition for divorce is filed but before the official court proceedings begin to dissolve the marriage. This is especially likely in states where there is a long waiting period between the time a couple separates and the time divorce can take place.

In the temporary hearing, the court can address issues that are unable to wait until the full trial to dissolve your marriage. This could include:

• Creating a temporary custody arrangement
• Awarding temporary financial support for spouses or children
• Putting a domestic violence restraining order in place
• Placing restrictions on the use or sale of joint assets
• Ordering an appropriate division of expenses during the divorce proceedings

Both you and your spouse should expect to be present at the temporary hearing—and you should generally make sure you are represented by an experienced divorce lawyer who can advise you on the process and help to protect your rights.

Once the case has begun, your attorney will gather evidence. They may subpoena documentation, hold depositions or send questions to the opposing counsel.

Need Help To File A Divorce?

Get premium online divorce solution that is simple, affordable and private. Complete your documents easily, and at your convenience. Divorce made simple with 3StepDivorce.

The final step before your marriage is dissolved involves either negotiating a divorce settlement the court can sign off on or going to trial to decide how support, custody and division of assets will work.

It is generally best if you can move forward with an uncontested divorce in which you and your spouse come to an agreement on the issues involved in ending your marriage. You may wish to work with a mediator if you can’t come to an agreement on your own. Negotiating an out-of-court settlement can save you money and help you come up with a settlement that works best for your family.

If you cannot come to a consensus on all the issues raised in your divorce, you will need to proceed to trial. During the trial, each party can argue their case, including presenting witnesses and evidence. The court will consider the details, as well as state laws governing the division of custody and property, when deciding contested issues during divorce.

Although you can learn about the divorce process step by step, it can still be challenging to complete all of the legal requirements. You also must make sure you protect your rights throughout the process of ending your marriage.

An experienced divorce attorney is there for you during all of the steps of divorce. Your lawyer helps you understand divorce requirements, files the right paperwork in a timely manner, negotiates a fair settlement and maximizes the chances you end up with a divorce judgment you’re happy with.

You should contact a divorce lawyer if you are thinking of ending your marriage so you can better understand your rights and protect your interests throughout the process.

As Hard As Divorce Might Be, An Online Divorce Service Can Make It Easy

Get Started

How long does a divorce take?

The timeline for the divorce process varies based on many factors including whether your state imposes a waiting period for divorce as well as whether you and your spouse can agree on a divorce settlement or must go to trial to allow a judge to decide on custody, support and division of property. An experienced divorce lawyer helps you throughout divorce proceedings to move things along as quickly as possible while protecting your interests.

Do you have to be separated before you get divorced?

State laws differ regarding whether you must be legally separated before you can dissolve your marriage. In some cases, you must live independently of your spouse for months before you can officially divorce. In other locations, there is no prior separation requirement. If you live in a state that does require you to live separately, be sure to understand exactly what the definition of “separated” is so you do not unnecessarily delay your divorce.

How is property divided in divorce?

You and your spouse can determine how you will split up marital property or the court can divide your assets for you if you can’t come to an agreement on your own. Courts follow the laws of your state when determining how to divide property. In community property states , marital property is divided 50/50. In other states, the court provides an equitable (or fair) distribution of property, which does not necessarily mean an equal distribution.

• NYC Divorce Lawyers
• Houston Divorce Lawyers
• Austin Divorce Lawyers
• Chicago Divorce Lawyers
• San Jose Divorce Lawyers
• Fort Worth Divorce Lawyers
• Best Online Divorce Services
• How to File for Divorce
• Divorce Papers & Forms
• How Much Does A Divorce Cost?
• What Is A Divorce Settlement Agreement?
• Community Property States
• What Is A Contested Divorce?
• What Is An Uncontested Divorce?
• Legal Separation Vs. Divorce
• How Does Alimony Work?
• What Is A Prenup?
• How Long Does A Divorce Take?
• Annulment Vs. Divorce
• What Is A Dissolution of Marriage?
• Divorce With Kids
• Divorce Mediation Guide
• What Is A Separation Agreement?
• What Is A Divorce Decree?
• What Is A No Fault Divorce?
• California Divorce
• Colorado Divorce
• Florida Divorce
• Texas Divorce
• Virginia Divorce
• Arizona Divorce
• Oklahoma Divorce
• Kentucky Divorce
• Georgia Divorce
• Missouri Divorce
• Arkansas Divorce
• Alabama Divorce
• Oregon Divorce
• Wisconsin Divorce
• Utah Divorce

Best Divorce Lawyers Long Beach, CA of 2024

Best Divorce Lawyers Minneapolis, MN Of 2024

How To Protect Your 401(k) During A Divorce

Annulment In California: A Guide To Annulling Your Marriage

Best Divorce Lawyers Oakland, CA Of 2024

Best Divorce Lawyers Wichita, KS Of 2024

Christy Bieber has a JD from UCLA School of Law and began her career as a college instructor and textbook author. She has been writing full time for over a decade with a focus on making financial and legal topics understandable and fun. Her work has appeared on Forbes, CNN Underscored Money, Investopedia, Credit Karma, The Balance, USA Today, and Yahoo Finance, among others.

Divorce Research Paper

This sample divorce research paper features: 9000 words (approx. 30 pages), an outline, and a bibliography with 82 sources. Browse other research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

Introduction

Public pronouncements and vital social statistics, the social myth surrounding divorce, the marriage and divorce data, conclusion: marriage and divorce in the 21st century.

• Bibliography

More Divorce Research Paper Examples:

• Adultery, Infidelity, and Divorce Research Paper
• At-Fault Divorce Research Paper
• Childless Divorce Research Paper
• Divorce Among African Americans Research Paper
• Divorce Among Asian Americans Research Paper
• Divorce and Annulment Research Paper
• Divorce and Child Support Research Paper
• Divorce and Parent-Child Attachment Research Paper
• Divorce Effects on Adult Children Research Paper
• Divorce, Attachment, and Loss Research Paper

The perpetuity of marriage is enforced by law as a protection for children, for whose education and support society as such makes no other provision than the frequently aborted attempt to compel an efficient guardianship of the parent by penal enactments. (Andrews 1975:12) Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services Get 10% OFF with 24START discount code var form_action="https://www.iresearchnet.com/order/"; var partner_id = 3870; var sub_id = "CAL"; (function() { var sc = document.createElement('script'); sc.type = 'text/javascript'; sc.async = true; sc.src = 'https://www.edu-profit.com/orderformph-new3.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(sc, s); })(); The Romans bemoaned their high divorce rates, which they contrasted with an earlier era of family stability. The European settlers in America began lamenting the decline of the family and the disobedience of women and children almost as soon as they stepped off the boats. (Coontz 2005:1) No trend in American life since World War II has received more attention or caused more concern than the rising rate of divorce. (Cherlin 1992:20) (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

As an often-cited U.S. government report indicates, “Current concerns about the condition of the American family, as well as discussion about ‘family values’ indicate a need for timely information about factors contributing to major shifts in family structure” (Norton and Miller 1992:iii). With the emphasis on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, the government is looking closely at well-known sociological facts pertaining to changes in the family, sex and gender roles, and issues relating to human sexuality. As noted by Cherlin (1992), “Although the family undoubtedly has a future, its present form differs from its past form in important aspects, at least in part because of recent changes in patterns of cohabiting, marrying, divorcing, and remarrying” (p. 2).

Although marriage may be a damaged institution (Cherlin 1992) and a marriage crisis is a global concern (Coontz 2005:2–3), social attitudes do not necessarily reflect a consistent assessment of these occurrences. Early alarmists, such as William F. Ogburn (1927) and Ogburn and Nimkoff (1955), who considered the family as a damaged institution and thus as a subject of sociological inquiry, raised important problems concerning marriage and divorce. In addressing family issues, these sociologists recognized that the economic, protective, recreational, and religious functions of the family had shifted since the 1920s. Consequently, functions like as protection, education, economics, religious instruction, and recreation have been outsourced to other institutions (Newman 1950; Zellner 2001:38–39). Indeed, the economic unit functions of the family were replaced by the factory, the restaurant, and the store, while the protective responsibilities were assumed by the courts, the school, and the health department (Ogburn 1927:7).

William Fielding Ogburn wrote in 1927 that marriage is a significant social institution due to its correlation with happiness. Ogburn may have been the first analyst to discover the significant disparity in the mortality rates of married and unmarried men. He acknowledged that divorce is of particular significance to society because, as he notes (p. 7), divorce typically occurs with the expectation that a new family will be created through remarriage.

In 1632, the Grand Assembly of Virginia mandated that all ministers in the commonwealth record all burials, christenings, and marriages. Since then, the United States has maintained a long tradition of recording key occurrences. In 1639, the Massachusetts Bay Colony established a law mandating that all births, funerals, and marriages be recorded by government officials. Other colonies, including Plymouth Colony in 1646 and the Connecticut Court of Elections in 1644 and 1650, quickly ordered town clerks or registrars to record similar birth, marriage, and death information. In Massachusetts, however, a regular registration system and form were not established until 1842, when the Secretary of the Commonwealth assumed responsibility for collecting such data (Jacobson 1959:7–8).

Vital data such as births, deaths, marriages, and divorces were well-recognized declarations of public significance before the mid-1850s, when the collection of vital information became an important part of the official state census gathering. Possibly for this reason alone, the philosophy around marriage and divorce, especially in the United States, has been hampered by social, religious, and political interpretations for a very long time. Further legislation was interrupted by the Civil War, but in 1889, an issue of the Political Science Quarterly lent credence to the fact that issues relating to marriage and divorce were receiving significant exposure. Dike (1889) noted the following:

Twenty years ago President Woolsey’s Divorce and Divorce Legislation contained in a dozen scanty pages about all the existing statistics regarding both this country and Europe. Since then, the collections of their statistics by four or five more states (in a meager way, excepting the excellent work in Massachusetts begun by Mr. Wright, the Commissioner of Labor in 1879 and contained since under provision of statute); [and] the few additions by the National Divorce Reform League. (P. 592) Lobbying for more efficient registration legislation led to important advances at the federal level by the early twentieth century with the creation in 1902 of the Bureau of the Census and, in 1903, a Congressional resolution calling for a cooperative effort between the states and the newly established Bureau to establish a uniform system of birth and death registration for the entire country. At the time, only 15 states and the District of Columbia had established a central filing system; by 1919, all states had legislation that required such registration even if strict enforcement did not occur (Jacobson 1959). Despite these advances in statistical gathering procedures, as late as the mid-twentieth century only three-fourths of the states had a provision for recording marriages and about one-half for divorces (Newman 1950).

In 1877, the first government database on marriage and divorce was formed, and Walter F. Willcox conducted the inaugural examination of the data (1891, 1893, 1897). Since then, there has been a significant deal of public discourse as numerous analysts utilize the vital statistics data to challenge parts of what was to become a complex social matrix including the structure and function of the institution of the family.

In the 1950s, it was hypothesized that divorce was more prevalent among lower socioeconomic levels and that the highly publicized divorces of prominent middle- to upper-class individuals generated an inaccurate impression of the incidence of divorce in the United States (Monahan 1955). In the late 1980s, it was asserted that two-thirds of first marriages would result in divorce (Martin and Bumpass 1989). Following this claim, White (1990), arguing that divorce is a macro-level problem, wrote that “A shift in the lifetime divorce probability from 10% to well over 50% cannot be explained at the micro level” (p. 904).

Such a view of and debate over marriage and divorce issues continues in the contemporary experience, prompted in part by the findings reported and commentary attributed to analysts such as Martin and Bumpass (1989), Riley 1991, and Cherlin (1992). Andrew J. Cherlin wrote (1992:7) that “During the 1980s the divorce rate declined slightly but remained high enough that about half of marriages, at current rates, would end in divorce.” Cherlin (1992) also observed that divorce “rates in the 1980s, although stable, still imply that about half of all the marriages begun in the mid-1970s will end in divorce or separation” (p. 30). Such information is also cited in the most learned of reference publications, as noted by Norton and Miller (1992) and Kurz (2001:3811), for example, who, drawing upon Cherlin (1992), among others, state, “The USA has one of the highest divorce rates—50 percent of all marriages now end in divorce.” Because of the respectable position these analysts hold, other analysts make good use of the information to further perpetuate the myth of a 50 percent divorce rate. For example, Ruggles (1997), in citing Cherlin’s work, stated, “Only about 5% of marriages contracted in 1867 were expected to end in divorce, but over one-half of marriages contracted in 1967 are expected to end in divorce” (p. 455). And of course, publications that champion women’s issues cannot neglect the divorce problem, as noted in Deborah Perry’s discussion on the economy: “with more than half of marriages ending in divorce, many stay-at-home women may not be entitled to the Social Security benefits of their former spouses” (Malveaux and Perry 2003:109).

Due to its seeming veracity, the common perception of a 50 percent divorce rate dominated the later decades of the twentieth century, and the myth continues to persist in the early years of the twenty-first. Despite its legendary quality, the presumed high divorce rate placed the institution of marriage and the event of divorce at the center of a core of societal concerns that confront our sensibilities. Indeed, since the publishing of the first public report of marriage and divorce statistics around one hundred years ago, tales of a more golden past surrounding marriage and the institution of the family have been prevalent (Calhoun 1917, 1919; Coontz 1992, 2000, 2005). However, rigorous analysis of the data demonstrates that the myth of a 50 percent divorce rate is not substantiated by social facts.

A discussion of the incidence and rate of marriage and divorce, as well as the debunking of the myth that the United States has a 50 percent divorce rate, is supported by official government documents. In the following sections, these data are applied to the historical and present marriage and divorce experience in the United States. These official statistics reveal that the prevalent myth of a reduction in the conventional family structure and the continuous exponential expansion of the U.S. divorce rate constitute an unsubstantiated social construct.

Some concerns related to the study of marriage and divorce are discussed in the sections that follow. Newman (1950) noted, however, that these topics cannot be studied in isolation because the study of marriage and divorce is related to vast changes in a complex social order that necessitate an investigation into the cultural, social, political, and economic aspects of the family, as well as changes in the structure and function of the family. If this evaluation was accurate more than fifty years ago, the message may be even more pertinent in the early twenty-first century.

The History of Marriage and Divorce

If civilization is to be founded on family life, then marriage also is essential. The family in its current form emerged during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the conjugal family developed concomitant with the soon-tobe-discovered concept “childhood.” At that point in time and over the next two centuries, the primary task of the family was to train and nurture children; family life became increasingly oriented toward children. Thus, the modern family developed the concept “home” with its characteristics to include privacy, isolation, and the domestic life (O’Neill 1967:4–6). The history of the marriage institution and the cross-cultural complexity of divorce became well chronicled in an early-twentieth-century three-volume treatise titled A History of Matrimonial Institutions. Written by George Elliott Howard and published in 1904, this grand, scholarly series addressed the vast accumulated knowledge of marriage and divorce within a global context. Published during a period when many interesting questions were being raised about the family institution (see, e.g., Shively’s ([1853, 1889] 1975) edited work Love, Marriage, and Divorce, and the Sovereignty of the Individual: A Discussion between Henry James, Horace Greeley, and Stephen Pearl Andrews ), a previously unpublished work by Stephen Pearl Andrews (1975, edited by Shively) titled Love Marriage, and the Condition of Women, and the references found in the cross-cultural and regional comparative analyses of Willcox (1893), such resources established the import that subsequent research would offer policymakers of the future.

Walter Willcox’s demographic work was the first influential empirical assessment of marriage and divorce and helped to establish the foundation for future population analyses. But the first scholarly American study of the family appears to have been published in 1887 by Charles F. Thwing ([1913] 1887), a minister and later university president, whose analysis of divorce led to the belief that excessive individualism and modern secularism were the root causes of the divorce problem (as cited in O’Neill 1967:170–71). Thirty years later, Arthur W. Calhoun’s three-volume set Social History of the American Family (1917–1919) was to serve social analysts and policymakers well. In the latter instance, the important sociological inquiry into the family institution helped to establish a university-level curriculum for the developing discipline of sociology.

A more limited but no less important inquiry into the history of American divorce is offered by Blake (1962), whose work builds upon the issue of “migratory divorce” raised by Cavers (1937) a generation earlier. Blake’s questions about the conservative New York State’s position on divorce led him to further explore the issue on a national basis, especially as it led to Nevada’s liberal divorce laws. Willcox (1893:90), on the other hand, recognized long before Nevada’s developing reputation that states like Rhode Island offered more liberal opportunities, including divorce, to the residents of New York State.

The rapid expansion of the American frontier as a result of pioneering, the rise of industrialism and urbanization, and the improvement of living conditions in the northern United States had significant effects on the evolution of the American family. This included a greater emphasis on marriage, early marriage for both men and women, and high birth rates to ensure big families (Calhoun 1918:11–25). The following statement illustrates the cultural necessity of these early Americans. Marriage, according to Lowie (1933), is human mating that receives moral appraisal

according to the norms distinctive of each society. Marriage denotes those unequivocally sanctioned unions which persist beyond sensual satisfaction and thus come to underlie family life. It is therefore not coextensive with sex life, which embraces matings of inferior status in the social scheme of values. (P. 146)

As observed by Coontz (1992, 2000, 2005), a single standard definition of marriage is difficult to create due to the wealth of cross-cultural anthropological study literature (see, for example, Lowie 1933). However, marriage is a sort of cooperation between the sexes designed to ensure the perpetuation and ultimate survival of the species (Hankins 1931).

Despite conceptual difficulties, marriage and divorce are two family-related issues that have been the subject of extensive discussion, analysis, and criticism for over 125 years. Arthur W. Calhoun (1917) stated that the American family institution is the outcome of three evolutionary phases: “the complex of medieval tradition . . . on the basis of ancient civilization . . . ; the economic transition from medieval landlordism to modern capitalism; and the influence of environment in an unfolding continent” (p. 13).

Later, in the third volume of a series on the history of the American family, this author indicated that systematic study of the family began in earnest around the same time as the introduction of early inventions (i.e., the telephone, the incandescent lamp, the trolley car, and the typewriter) into American culture, each of which was to have dramatic effects on communications and transportation (Calhoun 1919:7–10). Similarly, Ogburn and Nimkoff (1955:iii) note that changes in the American family and family living from the early 1800s are influenced by what they describe as three clusters of inventions and discoveries: steam and steel, contraceptives, and the numerous scientific discoveries that have influenced religious beliefs. Almost ninety years after the publication of Calhoun’s family treatise, it is acceptable to assert that the American family institution continues to be influenced by a fluid social context, even though the economic forces that thrive today are vastly different from those of the past.

Official records of marriage behavior collected and maintained by states can be traced back to the act of 1842, when Massachusetts began collecting marriage data, including information on age, sex, and place of birth (Monahan 1951). According to Willcox (1893) and Jacobson (1959), the first state censuses to contain information on marital status were those of Michigan in 1854 and New York in 1855. Twenty years later, numerous additional states began collecting comparable census data. However, the national effort to gather and analyze data did not emerge until many decades later, when Willcox (1891, 1893, 1897) applied newly learning methods to a number of demographic analysts’ areas of interest. Interestingly, Willcox (1893) notes the following: “Only in five states, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Ohio, and in the District of Columbia, can the number of marriages be obtained with approximate completeness for each of the twenty years [1867–1886]” (p. 73).

Divorce has long been of interest to sociologists, and the topic has even been cast in importance alongside other social problems. Witness the effort of one eugenics-oriented author, D. George Fournad (1929), who wrote in the Journal of Educational Sociology,

The unfortunate fact . . . remains that the homes of millions of farmers, miners, laboring men, and especially bootblacks are actually cursed by six or more poorly brought up, if not perfectly neglected children, for no other reason than the lack of eugenics or the need of birth-control information. Small wonder that crime, insanity, suicide, homicide, divorce, and physical or mental degeneration are steadily on the increase. (P. 179)

Other observers, however, are more positive, noting that Puritan settlers in the 1600s introduced divorce to the American colonies, where it has a long and venerable tradition (Howard 1909:767). Howard demonstrates that the divorce process has experienced four centuries of liberalization. Long before the twentieth century, moralists, theologians, and statesmen debated the societal implications of a liberal divorce policy. In essence, then, the institution of divorce in the United States was active and expanding well before late-twentieth-century Americans brought it to its present level (Riley 1991:3).

Some of the earliest sociological observers of divorce and its rise lament the decline of the conventional family while describing its demise. However, the incidence of divorce was not the only cause for concern. Rather, divorce was considered at the turn of the twentieth century as “an evil which gravely threatens the social order, which threatens our most profound thought, our most mature wisdom, and our most persistent courage and endeavor” (Howard 1909:767). This is the same complaint that Riley (1991) claims originated in the late 1800s during the Victorian era, which has been designated by some modern alarmists as the model for family life. However, according to Coontz (2005:2–3), each generation over the past 100 years seems dissatisfied with the current arrangement, believing that the marriage connections of their parents and grandparents were significantly more satisfying.

Despite disparities in attitudes regarding divorce across the northern and southern parts of the United States, religious influences were unable to prevent divorce from being regarded as a social safety valve that insures the continuation of marriage (O’Neill 1967:6–10). From this perspective, divorce is not a sign of a failing family system, but rather a characteristic of Victorian patriarchal and industrial households. However, within the postindustrial/postmodernist family, there are still echoes of worry around the proper roles of the husband and wife and their children.

Some contemporary social critics view a high divorce rate as a threat to the institution of marriage, while condemning the liberal legislation that encourages this conduct as weakening traditional family stability. However, the idea that the demise of the patriarchal family is congruent with the movement toward political democracy that shaped American children and young people over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has been overlooked (Calhoun 1918:53). The findings presented in the remainder of the research paper tend to support this assertion. However, such lamentations and the image of an ideal, conventional marriage that is constantly in the past are neither new nor have they become so after the passage of the No-Fault Divorce Act. In fact, it has a considerably longer history. Witness the opinion crafted by Justice Thornton in Martin v. Robson, 1872:

The maxims and authorities and adjudications of the past have faded away. The foundations hitherto deemed so essential for the preservation of the nuptial contract, and the maintenance of the marriage relation, are crumbling. The unity of husband and wife has been severed . . . she no longer clings to and depends upon man. (as cited in Vernier 1935:3)

Moreover, Howard (1904:1–160) documents that during the colonial period, it was established that there would exist a free and tolerant divorce policy, and throughout the century following the founding of the United States, divorce legislation was liberalized even further. And during the mid-nineteenth century, social analysts such as Stephen Pearl Andrews (1975:12–13) recognized that despite the need to provide for and succor children, divorce might be a necessary option to maintaining a relationship between two individuals who never loved one another or who may have ceased to love.

As the legal dissolution of marriage, divorce is a cultural problem-solving technique (Honigmann 1953), and it is a normal remedy for those who are in less-than-fortunate family situations (Blake 1962:iii). John J. Honigmann (1953:38) recognized that divorce is a standardized social response that people employ to change their interpersonal relationships, and, as indicated by Hankin (1931:177), divorce is designed to relieve hardships placed upon and experienced by individuals because of customary marriage rules. And like marriage, divorce also

is a product of social evolution, therefore it is normal and to be accepted . . . inasmuch as certain functions of the parent have passed to the state we must begin to reconcile ourselves to the idea of state care of children to the virtual exclusion of home influence. (Calhoun 1919:10)

According to Calhoun (1919:7–10), the National Divorce Reform League, which began in the early 1880s, and in 1897 became the National League for the Protection of the Family, developed its focus on “existing evils relating to marriage and divorce” (p. 8). Although the extent of the poverty and divorce were unknown at the time, some analysts thought of poverty and divorce as important components of the emerging sociological studies of the family. In Volume III of the three-volume treatise Social History of the American Family, Calhoun documents this emerging relationship through the writings of analysts of the late nineteenth century who were looking into the “divorce question” and the “problems of marriage and divorce.” Many questions were raised, including those relating to polygamy, charity, and children as well as education, economics, politics, and religion—each of these issues and related questions was raised within the context of the lack of information pertaining to the 1880s’American family.

A false idea once implanted is hard to dislodge, and the difficulty of dislodging it is proportional to the ignorance of those holding the idea. (George Cantor’s law of the conservation of ignorance)

The mythology surrounding the American divorce rate is supported by individuals who develop what Sears et al. (1988:98) refer to as the “illusory correlation.” Thus, two factors, the “high divorce rate” and the perceived “breakdown of the family” as a viable social institution, are believed to be highly correlated. Both factors may be contrary to commonly shared set of values, but repeated exposure to such illusory correlation stimuli is consistent with Canter’s law of the conservation of ignorance: Myth eventually assumes the character of a social fact. Within this context, the news media and responsible citizens establish a portion of the public agenda that is based on an inappropriate social reality of the U.S. divorce problem. Dissemination of information in which the work of scholars is either misinterpreted or misrepresented serves to perpetuate social myths (see, for instance, Norton and Miller 1992:1; Kurz 2001).

The lack of public information is also important. In quoting a number of prominent analysts of divorce, Hurley (2005) noted the following:

Part of the uncertainty about the most recent trends (in marriage and divorce) derives from the fact that no detailed annual figures have been available since 1996, when the National Center for Health Statistics stopped collecting detailed data from states on the age, income, education and race of people who divorce. (P. D57)

Perhaps because of the more recent paucity of information, some analysts of the past contributed information that continues to receive notoriety (see, for example, Martin and Bumpass 1989; Cherlin 1992). Despite the fact that Cherlin did not have access to actual data to support his contention, he predicted that approximately one-half of the marriages contracted during the 1970s would end in divorce. Further misunderstanding emerges. In assessing the rise of divorce and separation in the United States during the period from 1880 to 1990, for example, Ruggles (1997), citing Cherlin’s work, stated, “Only about 5% of marriages contracted in 1867 ended in divorce, but over one-half of marriages contracted in 1967 are expected to end in divorce” (p. 455).

William L. O’Neill observes that divorce was rare during the eighteenth century, and, according to Jacobson (1959) and Furstenberg (1990:382), during the 1800s formal divorce was difficult to obtain; thus dissolution of some marriages resulting from desertion were undercounted. But as shown in Table 1, during the next century, marriage and divorce were considered important enough to warrant official documentation, an accounting that began under the stewardship of Carroll D. Wright, then Commissioner of Labor (Dike 1889:592).

The first assessment of the American marriage and divorce question was addressed by Walter F. Willcox (1891, 1893, 1897). Portions of the data shown in the tables reported in this section are from these initial reports. These data beg the question as to why the myth of the 50 percent divorce rate prevails. One possible explanation may lie in the salience of attitude toward divorce reported by Peck (1993). Since the passage of the No-Fault Divorce Act in 1972, divorce, a fairly common event during the final decades of the twentieth century, emerged as a subject of considerable debate with important social policy implications. First, divorce is considered problematic when the union dissolution affects children. This is especially true when the quality of family life in terms of social, economic, and health-related factors for women and children, affected by diminished financial resources, is at risk (Furstenberg 1990). Divorce thus remains a salient issue, especially in terms of the conservative public attitude toward so-called traditional family values.

Evaluation of marriage and divorce in the United States is possible based on data from 1867 to the early twentyfirst century. Included in these data are those published in the first statistical study conducted in the United States and the national vital statistics gathered throughout the course of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.

Marriage and divorce data for 1887 to 1906 first became available in 1908, and sociologists quickly acknowledged the information as representing a “great report” (Howard 1909:766). The data shown in Table 1 are from this first effort to offer an overall view of marriage and divorce in the United States. The researchers avoided reporting data in Part 1, actually reported in 1909, due to general underreporting/nonreporting jurisdictions. Indeed, Calhoun’s (1919:199) assessment of these initial numbers indicates that few jurisdictions outside New England did anything more than supply some numbers. But it is noteworthy that the period from 1896 to 1905, according to Calhoun (1919), was “distinctly prone to marriage” (p. 199) and divorce, which Howard (1909:776) argued was frequent in the two most enlightened and democratic nations in the world, namely, the United States and Switzerland.

     Table 1

Clifford Kirkpatrick (1968) argues that divorce is an imperfect index of marital and social disorganization. The reason is straightforward: There can be disorganization in the family without divorce. This is one oft-cited reason why the divorce laws have liberalized in Western societies from the early to mid-twentieth century (Kurz 2001). Moreover, when the modern family became the dominant form during the nineteenth century, divorce became much more common (O’Neill 1967). Then, during the Progressive Era from approximately 1880 to 1919, a more liberal interpretation of marriage and divorce arose among the urban, industrial middle class. Indeed, O’Neill (1967:viii) found that as the Victorian family was to represent the ideal throughout the nineteenth century, divorce was to become the first in a series of adjustments that emerged from the clash between ideas surrounding the patriarchal family and the new sexual ethic arising in turn from the new urban, industrial society.

Despite the suggested inaccuracy of the data and ofttimes inconsistent method in recording and reporting procedures through which these data were gathered, at least some data are available. During the 40-year period from 1867 to 1906, a total of 1,274,341 divorces were reported in the then states, the District of Columbia, and the Indian Territory (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1908). As shown in Table 1, there is a steady increase in the number of divorces from 1867 on and in the number of marriages from 1887 to 1906. One would anticipate such a trend, given the growth of the general population during this same period. Yet this did not seem so logical to those analysts who defined divorce in problematic terms. Note the not-uncommon statement of the early twentieth century attributed to William Fielding Ogburn (1927),

In 1924, there was one divorce granted to about every 7 marriages performed indicates that divorce is very common. Moreover, the chances of a marriage entered in 1924 being broken by divorce may perhaps be nearer to 1 to 5 or 6 than 1 to 7. There were in 1924 about 15 to 16 times as many divorces as there were in 1870, and yet the population is only about 3 times as large. (P. 7)

A similar, albeit misguided, statement is even later attributed to Newman (1950:89), who looked at the numeric increases instead of the rates of marriage and divorce.

In Table 2, the divorce “granted to whom”—husband or wife category—for most of the period from 1887 to 1932 isshown.Althoughnotavailableforallyears,thepercentage column for “granted to wife” represents a statistic that is noteworthy. Without exception, for each year two-thirds or more of divorces granted are to the wife. The first data for calculating ratios noting the number of divorces per 1,000 marriages also are shown. With a few exceptions, notably the years 1913, 1918, 1921, and 1922, the number of divorces increases throughout the period from 1887 to 1929. For the period from 1930 to 1932, however, the data show a moderate downward trend toward fewer divorces. With the exception of 1928 and the period from 1930 to 1932, the same observation can be made for marriages in that the trend in the marriage rate is downward.

     Table 2

Perhaps the most important aspect of these rich data is the fact that they were to serve well the needs of an admiring and ever-growing community of scientists, and these analysts began to raise important theoretical and methodological cause-and-effect questions. Prominent among these early sociologists was George Elliott Howard (1909), whose interest in the complexities of sex, marriage, and the family and especially the role education might play in solving social problems led him to focus on the officially recorded cause of divorce. Other less obvious reasons for establishing the importance of causal factors of what became known as a “divorce movement” included the excessive use of liquor and the platform advocated by the Temperance Movement.

The most frequently cited legal ground, as noted by Hankins (1931) and shown in Tables 3a, b, and c, represents the legally recognized grounds for divorce—namely, adultery, cruelty, desertion, drunkenness, and neglect to provide. Each was common during the period from 1887 to 1891 and for some time thereafter, lending support to the contention by Flexner and Fitzpatrick ([1908] 1996), who, in 1908, wrote, “Women were only granted divorces in instances of ‘adultery, desertion, non-support, and extreme cruelty.’” Other grounds for divorce, although less frequently cited, included bigamy, coercion, conviction of a crime, impotence, insanity, incompatibility, misconduct, fraudulent representation, vagrancy, infection with venereal disease (Hankins 1931). But what is perhaps most interesting is that even though the legal reasons for divorce currently cited may be less offensive by virtue of the descriptor employed, the general reasons for dissolving marriages cited in the past continue in the present.

The numbers and causes of divorces granted to a husband and wife for the five-year periods for 1887 to 1906 (Table 3a) and for 1906 to 1932 (Tables 3b and c) are shown. As noted in Table 2, throughout the period 1887 to 1906 a total of 1,274,341 divorces were granted. Of this total, 428,687 divorces were granted to the husband; to the wife the number is almost double, at 845,652, and serves as testimony that the women’s movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries worked to gain recognition from the courts to allow the initiation of divorce on behalf of women. As one can ascertain from these data, in the United States this right was granted to women in the nineteenth century (Anderson and Wolchik (2001). The causal factors identified within a legal context seem to hold at least up to the mid-twentieth century, for which period Harmsworth and Minnis (1955:316) reported that the legal functional categories, such as extreme cruelty, desertion, adultery, and nonsupport, represent overt manifestations of the factors leading to divorce but these did not necessarily represent the causes of divorce.

      Table 3a

      Table 3b

      Table 3c

Despite such issues, the position assumed by Howard (1904:Vol. 3, pp. 1–160) appears to be supported by the data reported in Tables 3a, b, and c and Tables 4a and b: Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, divorce legislation became more liberalized, reflecting a social need caused by migratory expansion and social changes in attitudes toward the marital bond. Competing definitions of need and justifiable causes also are reflected in the diversity of state legislation, which led to liberal legislation and thereby an increased number of legally acceptable causes for divorce. By 1891, for example, Washington State’s code included 11 causes, of which at least one cause codified a previous more abstract cause.

      Table 4a

      Table 4b

To this point the data raise interesting issues as to whether the traditional family some contemporary critics argue existed in the past did in fact really exist. Based on these five-year-period data, images of the traditional family may have been just that—images but not necessarily a reality of positive marital bliss. Some interesting findings reported in Tables 3a, b, and c include “adultery” and “desertion.” Although the data for divorces granted to the wife based on allegations of adultery and desertion are most extensive, the divorce data for these same categories granted to the husband also are noteworthy. Other categories include cruelty, a combination of causes granted to the wife. Such historical times hardly seem idyllic. Perhaps it can also be suggested that the reasons cited for divorce have not changed since 1887, albeit the contemporary law allows categories such as irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, incompatibility, or irreconcilable differences to serve as the more general reasons for filing for divorce, reasons allowed even if the divorce being sought is not mutually agreeable (Kurz 2001:3811). But other causes include crimes against nature, impotency, conviction of a felony and imprisonment, pregnancy prior to marriage, and unknown factors.

As with the information reported in Tables 3a, b, and c, the data in Tables 4a and b show the proportion of divorce by cause granted to husband and to wife. These data are broken down into proportions for the periods 1887 to 1927 and 1930 to 1932. Again, the “adultery” cause for divorce granted to husband is noteworthy as is the steady decreasing trend for this specific category. Of course the opposite effect for the “adultery” cause is noted for the “granted to wife” category. Focusing on the “desertion” cause category, the percentages are markedly consistent information pertaining to the sexual behavior of the throughout the entire periods from 1887 to 1927 and from 1930 to 1932 for both the husband and the wife.

Finally, the incompleteness of the data for the early 1930s is attributed to the fact that Congress mandated that the Marriage and Divorce study in progress since the early part of the century cease after publication of the 1932 study phase. By 1959, analysts such as Jacobson (1959) emphatically stated that marriage and divorce statistics represent the least developed branch of American vital statistics even though national data on divorce were available for many years before such information was available for births and deaths (p. 9).

Table 5 shows the 1921 to 1989 three-year average data for marriage and divorce. The three-year average rates increase from 1921 to 1923 up to the 1978 to 1980 period, and then a modest decline throughout the decade of the 1980s is documented. More important perhaps is that these data are from the oft-cited U.S. government report referred to above. It is important to recognize the historical rise and fall in the rate of first marriages. When placed within an historical context to include the relative prosperity of the 1920s, the Depression years, World War II, the tranquil years of the 1950s, and then the more activist years of the 1960s and 1970s, these data provide interesting American people.

      Table 5

Frank F. Furstenberg Jr. (1990) suggests that “Americans have always had a higher propensity to divorce than do Europeans and people of North Atlantic Countries,” a contention that receives empirical support from sources such as the Statistical Office of the European Communities report covering the 1960 to 1988 period. Although the United States is shown to have the highest divorces per 1,000 married women, the same reports indicate that the United States also had the highest marriages per 1,000 persons for this period.

The incidence, rate, and ratio of marriages reported for the United Status during the period from 1887 to 2004 are reported in Table 6. Although the data on the number of marriages are incomplete for the entire period, they are both interesting and suggestive. Ranging from a low of 7.9 for the year 1932 (the heart of the Depression period) and then 7.6 for 2003 and 2004 to a high of 16.4 in 1946 (the end of World War II), the marriage rate had been declining or at a steady state since the peak period from 1980 to 1982. The rates recorded for 2002 through 2004 are the lowest since 1932, at which time the 7.9 rate was the lowest ever recorded for the United States. Trendwise, the highest marriage rate for the entire 118-year period was during 1940 to 1950 or just prior to and immediately after World War II.

      Table 6

Finally, the ratios are important as well. Because of their refinement (but missing for the final decade of the twentieth century and the early twenty-first century), the ratios that are reported in this table may be more representative of the state of marriage.

Calvin L. Beale (1950) recognized the important role separation held as a factor in divorce, especially from the year 1940 onward, a period that includes the years prior to, during, and in the aftermath of World War II. Aside from couple separation as a major factor, as shown in Table 6, an upward trend in the divorce rate can be observed for the period from 1961 to 1981. Since 1981, however, the divorce rate declined, ranging between 5.2 and 4.0. The persistent myth of an increasing U.S. divorce problem may be attributed in part to a focus on the number of marriages and divorces recorded annually, rather than the divorce rate.

In Table 7, the rate of divorce and annulments for the United States during 1887 to 2004 are presented. Most noteworthy is the declining divorce rate since the year 1981, at which time a high of 5.3 per 1,000 population was recorded. The estimates for the years 2003 and 2004, 3.7 and 3.8, respectively, are the lowest since 1972, one year prior to the passage of the California No-Fault Divorce Act legislation.

      Table 7

Use of the ratio for the years from 1920 to 1996 offers a more balanced representation of divorce in the United States. The highest divorce ratio recorded officially is for the year 1979 (22.8). Early ratios offered by the federal government were the number of divorces divided by marriages for a given year; such data are not useful and tend to offer some modest if ill-informed support to the mythical oft-cited 50 percent divorce rate. The empirical facts differ from the myth. Indeed, the data show that after peaking to a high in 1979 (5.3 and 22.8, respectively), the U.S. divorce rate has decreased beginning in 1982 (5.0 and 21.7).

The reaction to divorce data represents an emotional response to social change, and this reaction may be especially noteworthy when the effect of divorce influences the delivery of social services. One example is the national concern that a large number of children from single-parent families are denied the requisite financial support to allow them the opportunity to prepare for the future. This concern has generated policies to make parents, especially males, more financially accountable for the well-being of their children (Anderson and Wolchik 2001). But the traditional view that men were responsible for women throughout their entire life changed with the passage of the no-fault divorce legislation. Women are now expected to provide their own support through employment to be supplemented by child support and an equal distribution of property (Kurz 2001:3811).

Second, as noted by Sears et al. (1988:134–135), the social milieu affects salience. More than a generation of conservative thinking and a changed economy affect social values. The divorce and marriage rates also may be affected by the economic conditions of the late 1980s and early 1990s that prompted people to consider the financial effects of divorce. The reasons for this kind of decision, such as “for the sake of the children,” “the cost of making two housing payments,” and “to keep intact an estate,” are similar to those reported after research carried out by Cuber and Harroff (1966) in a classic study of the attitudes held by upper-middle-class Americans toward maintaining an unhappy marriage. Another salient factor is the emotional desire to bond to one individual and the strong public attitude toward AIDS. Such external constraints, according to Sears et al. (1988:136), are likely to be salient factors that continue to target divorce as a social issue of import. In addition, the experience of growing up in a single-parent home, according to Dickinson and Leming (1990), is the cause of people viewing marriage differently compared with the past.

However, any discussion of the nature and origin of civil laws in debates over divorce remain relatively unexplored. If introduced into such discussions, evaluation of divorce law usually is confined to family law or the no-fault divorce statutes of the 1970s, especially the California Act of 1973. Thus, the argument as to whether the no-fault divorce laws are the cause or an effect of the U.S. divorce rate continues unabated. What is known is that the statutes currently referred to as “no-fault divorce” eliminate the requirement of providing proof in a court of law, as was required under common law, that one of the marital partners had engaged in adultery or some other act unacceptable to the marital relationship. No-fault divorce statutes eliminate the need to enumerate anything derogative as a sufficient ground for divorce. In other words, the no-fault divorce legislation eliminates the requirement to provide potentially damaging evidence by providing for the dissolution of a marriage based on the finding that the relationship is no longer compatible or viable (www.law.cornell.edu—retrieved January 23, 2003). Other acceptable reasons that lie outside the incriminating criteria used under the common law now include irreconcilable differences and incompatibility.

In the sixteenth century, reformists viewed divorce as the medicine for the disease of marriage, while in 1919 Calhoun observed that the American people demonstrate a remarkable inclination toward marriage, a statement that was supported by the census of 1890 and the census Special Reports Marriage and Divorce 1867–1906 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1908, 1909). In 1933, Robert H. Lowie wrote, “It may be safely predicted . . . that the future of marriage will be shaped not merely by utilitarianism but largely on the basis of pregnant ideologies (p. 154). And in 1931, Hankin observed, “Divorce, a symptom of the liberalizing tendencies of modern culture, seems likely to increase as long as underlying conditions continue their present trends” (p. 184). Such statements hold a general appeal—the ideas are not spatially bound or time bound—so that it may be safe to predict that a similar statement offers to forecast the initial decades of the twenty-first century. Witness the early returns. During the first three years of this century, the marriage rate averaged 8.1 per 1,000 population, while the yearly divorce rate averaged 4.0 per 1,000 population. These figures also characterize the final two decades of the twentieth century in that the marriage and divorce rates were lower than in previous years and both these rates declined throughout the final years of the past millennium. Indeed, the rate of divorce in the United States is at its lowest level since 1971, and this downward trend will probably continue or at least remain steady if only because of yet another trend observed by Norton and Miller (1992). These analysts documented the decline in the percentage of ever-married males and females between 1975 and 1990, thereby providing the evidence essential to understanding more recent marriage and divorce patterns in the United States.

Although some modest efforts to counter the myth of the 50 percent divorce rate do occur (see Hurley 2005), this misconception continues because it is reinforced by the news media, clerics, government officials, and even portions of the academic community. The data simply do not support this public misperception. A doubling of the divorce rate was a trend that occurred between 1940 and 1972. The divorce rate increased to 5.3 per 1,000 by 1981, and the decline in the annual rate has occurred since that time, representing an important trend that suggests a return to what may be identified as the normalcy divorce rate. Still, resistance to this fact and the perpetuation of the myth that a 50 percent divorce rate is undermining the family institution will probably continue because of other unrelated salient social issues. As Carter’s law of the conservation of ignorance suggests, a false idea, once implanted, is difficult to dislodge from the human psyche.

Changing social mores throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and changes in the divorce laws removed the legal constrictions and social taboos pertaining to divorce, in turn providing important new perspectives on divorce (Cherlin 1992). Thus, any explanation of marriage and divorce that is inclusive of an historical perspective is to be valued. Within this context, the historical data and a sociohistorical assessment of these data serve to address two sociological issues: (1) Was historical family life as good as some analysts would have us believe? and (2) Is the present family bond as bad as the common wisdom suggests? In focusing on the marriage and divorce topic in this manner, insights that are essential to challenging a longstanding myth pertaining to the solidarity of the traditional family and the most misleading social myth pertaining to the 50 percent divorce rate can be explored.

The importance of economic factors and marital stability was not recognized until the 1940s (Goode 1951), when employment status, occupation, deviant behavior, and public assistance variables were first taken into consideration. Given the important changes in the role of women during the past one-half century, and the call among some reformers to again relegate women to the domestic role, findings such as those reported by Schoen et al. (2002) serve to enhance our current views of marriage and divorce. Past perceptions that dual careers pose a threat to the family and that a persistently high divorce rate will eventually undermine the very foundations of the family institution do not hold up to long-term scrutiny, and it is this kind of analysis of marriage and divorce that must be undertaken within the context of historical change (Scott 2001). Note, for example, that the wife’s employment status, according to Schoen et al. (2002), may be influenced by their labor force participation to end an unhappy marriage, but the wife’s employment status does not appear to affect happy couples. As these analysts note, “There is an interaction involving wife’s employment and marital happiness with marital disruption . . . [but] wife’s employment is not associated with increased risk of disruption when both partners are happy in their marriage” (p. 569).

Thus, it can be suggested that if the cyclical prediction offered by William Strauss and Neil Howe in The Fourth Turning (1997) has merit, then we can anticipate a continued movement toward an American bonding experience throughout the early decades of the twenty-first century, including interpersonal relationships that emphasize the importance of the family. Thus, the marriage rate should remain stable or increase while the divorce rate will also remain stable or decline. If the past does indeed provide a lesson, this fourth turning crisis may thus reunite society by providing the requisite common purpose to reenergize and regenerate society. One possible result is that families are again strengthened, major public order questions are resolved, and a new order is established (Strauss and Howe 1997:256).

The assessment of the contemporary family system in general and of divorce in particular can emerge from a minority point of view to become a part of the new perspective of what the family represents and how this emerging definition fits into the social structure. As noted by O’Neill (1967), and consistent with the historical context emphasis advocated by Cherlin (1992), the period from 1880 to about 1919 was and continues to be important for understanding why the American rate of divorce increased and for identifying the change in the public attitude toward divorce. Thus, it would be erroneous to argue that divorce was, currently is, and will in the future serve as a sign of decadence that is corrupting the family institution.

Thus, as the American society strives to enter into a new cycle or era in which everything seems to be as it should be, Furstenberg’s (1990:381) view that the rate of divorce during the 1980s reflects the state of role conflict and ambiguity within the marriage system can be used to explain the marriage system of the past 25 years. Referring to what he identifies as a voluntaristic form of marriage in the United States, Furstenberg argues that divorce has become an intrinsic part of the family system. Although it may take up to several decades of the twenty-first century to resolve most if not all of the issues that constitute the current “cultural wars,” the outcome of these wars will determine the overall status of the cohesiveness and social bonding elements of the American society, of which the family system remains the most important. In the past, the most important social issues were related to fairness and justice for women; at the end of the twentieth century (Galston 1996) and as we move well into the twenty-first century, the public and moral issues seem to be related to our commitment toward children, which, as noted by Calhoun (1919), also was the case at the end of the nineteenth century. Perhaps the themes Stephanie Coontz has established are most appropriate for the twenty-first century when exploring family issues involving “the way we never where” and “the way we really are” in books with these titles. Certainly, the move toward legal sanctions for civil marriages among gay and lesbian couples and the questions and problems attendant on such unions or pairings really do not differ significantly from those that we are accustomed to.

Although sociologists have long employed divorce data (see, e.g., Ogburn and Nimkoff 1955) and permanent separation data (Beale 1950) as indicators of instability, the limitations of such census data are severe, as Ruggles (1997) noted. Despite the call by then Chief Statistician of the Marriage and Divorce Analysis Branch of the National Office of Vital Statistics Samuel C. Newman (1950) for better vital statistics, and the declaration by White (1990) that bigger and better data sets were available during the 1980s, currently less information is available on marriage and divorce. In turn, we have less rather than more insights into the complex issues surrounding marriage and divorce (Ruggles 1997). But data-gathering problems and methodological issues certainly are not new, and such problems continue. During the 1800s, formal divorce was difficult to obtain, and, for this reason, dissolution of some marriages resulting from desertion were undercounted (Furstenberg 1990:382). Even so, the published historical data were more comprehensive than those available during the final decades of the twentieth century.

Changes in recording practices occurred during the last two-thirds of the twentieth century, and in 1996, the collection of detailed marriage and divorce data was suspended by the federal government because of limitations in the information collected by and from certain states as well as budgetary considerations. Although the total numbers and rates of marriages and divorces at the national and state levels are available in the National Vital Statistics Reports, the paucity of data available for public and scholarly consumption will undoubtedly continue well into the twentyfirst century. Moreover, the total picture will remain less well defined than in the past because of an increasing number and rate of informal marriages formed by cohabitation that will go unrecorded.

Bibliography:

• Anderson, E. R. and S. Wolchik. 2001. “Divorce and Children’s Development.” Pp. 3807–10 in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 6, edited by Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes. New York: Elsevier.
• Andrews, Stephen Pearl. 1975. Love, Marriage, and the Condition of Women. Weston, MA: M & S Press.
• Beale, Calvin L. 1950. “Increased Divorce Rates Among Separated Persons as a Factor in Divorce Since 1940.” Social Forces 29:72–74.
• Blake, Nelson Manfred. 1962. The Road to Reno: A History of Divorce in the United States. New York: MacMillan.
• Calhoun, Arthur W. 1917. Social History of the American Family. 1. Cleveland, OH: Arthur H. Clark.
• Calhoun, Arthur W. 1918 . Social History of the American Family. 11. Cleveland, OH: Arthur H. Clark.
• Calhoun, Arthur W. 1919. Social History of the American Family. III. Cleveland, OH: Arthur H. Clark.
• Cavers, David F. 1937. “Migratory Divorce.” Social Forces 1:96–107.
• Cherlin, Andrew J. 1992. Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Coontz, Stephanie. 1992. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New York: Basic Books.
• Coontz, Stephanie. 2000. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap 2d ed. New York: Basic Books.
• Coontz, Stephanie. 2005. Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Viking.
• Cuber, John F. and Peggy B. Harroff. 1966. The Significant Americans. New York: Appleton.
• Dickinson, George E. and Michael R. Leming. 1990. Understanding Families: Diversity, Continuity, and Change. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Dike, Samuel W. 1889. “Statistics on Marriage and Divorce.” Political Science Quarterly 4:592–614.
• Flexner, Eleanor and Ellen Fitzpatrick. [1908] 1996. Century of Struggle: The Women’s Rights Movement in the United State Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
• Fournad, D. George. 1929. “Eugenics and Eugenic Marriages.” Journal of Educational Sociology 3:171–80.
• Furstenberg, Frank F., Jr. 1990 . “ Divorce and the American Family .” Annual Review of Sociology 16:379–403.
• Galston, William A. 1996. “Divorce American Style.” Public Interest. 124:12–26.
• Goode, William J. 1951. “Economic Factors and Marital Stability.” American Sociological Review 16:802–12.
• Hankins, Frank H. 1931. “Divorce.” Pp. 177–84 in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by E. R. A. Seligman. New York: Macmillan.
• Harmsworth, Harry C. and Mhyra S. Minnis. 1955. “NonStatutory Causes of Divorce: The Lawyers’ Point of View.” Marriage and Family Living 17:316–21.
• Honigmann, John J. 1953. “A Comparative Analysis of Divorce.” Marriage and Family Living 15:37–43.
• Howard, George Elliott. 1904. A History of Matrimonial Institutions, 3. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, Callaghan.
• Howard, George Elliott. 1909. “Is the Freer Granting of Divorce an Evil?” American Journal of Sociology 14:766–96.
• Hurley, Dan. 2005. “Divorce Rate: It’s Not as High as You Think.” New York Times, April 19, p. D7.
• Jacobson, Paul H. 1959. American Marriage and Divorce. New York: Rinehart.
• Kirkpatrick, Clifford. 1968. “Disorganization and Dissolution.” Pp. 313–22 in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by D. L. Sills . New York: Macmillan.
• Kurz, D. 2001. “Divorce and Gender.” Pp. 3810–14 in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, edited by N. J. Smelser. New York: Elsevier.
• Lamanna, Mary Ann and Agnes Riedmann. 1991. Marriages and Families: Making Choices and Facing Change. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Lowie, Robert H. 1933. “Marriage.” Pp. 146–54 in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 10, edited by E. R. A. Seligman and A. Johnson. New York: Macmillan.
• Malveaux, Julianne and Deborah Perry. 2003. Unfinished Business: The Ten Most Important Issues Women Face Today. New York: Perigee.
• Martin, Teresa Castro and Larry L. Bumpass. 1989. “Recent Trends in Marital Dissolution.” Demography 26:37–51.
• Monahan, Thomas P. 1951. “One Hundred Years of Marriages in Massachusetts.” American Journal of Sociology 56:534–45.
• Monahan, Thomas P. 1955. “Divorce by Occupational Level.” Marriage and Family Living 17(4):322–24.
• National Center for Health Statistics. 1991. Monthly Vital Statistics Report 40(4 Suppl.), August 26.
• National Center for Health Statistics. 1992. Monthly Vital Statistics Report 40(13), September 30.
• National Center for Health Statistics. 1993. Monthly Vital Statistics Report: Annual Summary of Births, Marriages, Divorce, and Deaths: United States, 1992 41(13), September 28.
• National Center for Health Statistics. 2005a. National Vital Statistics Reports, Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 2004 53(21), June 28, Table A, Updated October 18, 2005.
• National Center for Health Statistics. 2005b. National Vital Statistics Reports 54(7), December 22.
• Newman, Samuel C. 1950. “Trends in Vital Statistics of Marriages and Divorces in the United States.” Marriage and Family Living 12:89–90.
• Nock, Steven L. and Paul W. Kingston. 1990. The Sociology of Public Issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Norton,Arthur J. and Louisa F. Miller. 1992. “Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the 1990’s . ” S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P23–180. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
• Notestein, Frank W. 1968. “Willcox, Walter F.” Pp. 553–55 in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by D. L. Sill. New York: Macmillan.
• Ogburn, William Fielding. 1927. “Eleven Questions Concerning American Marriages.” Social Forces 6:5–12.
• Ogburn, William F. and M. F. Nimkoff. 1955. Technology and the Changing Family. Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press.
• O’Neill, William L. 1967. Divorce in the Progressive Era. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Peck, Dennis L. 1993. “The Fifty Percent Divorce Rate: Deconstructing a Myth.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare. 20:135–44.
• Riley, Glenda. 1991. Divorce: An American Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ruggles, Steven. 1997. “The Rise of Divorce and Separation in the United States, 1880–1990.” Demography 34:455–66.
• Saunders, John. 1988. Basic Demographic Measures: A Practical Guide for Users. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
• Schoen, Robert, Nan Marie Astone, Kendra Rothert, Nicola J. Standish, and Young J. Kim. 2002. “Women’s Employment, Marital Happiness, and Divorce.” Social Forces 81:643–62.
• Scott, Jacqueline L. 2001. “Marriage.” Pp. 1014–15 in Reader’s Guide to the Social Sciences, 2, edited by J. Michie. London, England: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.
• Sears, David O., Letitia Anne Peplau, Jonathan L. Freedman, and Shelley E. Taylor. 1988. Social Psychology 6th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Shively, Charles. [1853, 1889]. 1975 Love, Marriage, and Divorce and the Sovereignity of the Individual: A Discussion between Henry James, Horace Greeley, and Stephen Pearl Andrews. Weston, MA: M & S Press. (Originally published in 1853 and republished in 1889 in Boston, MA, by Benj. R. Tucker)
• Statistical Office of the European Communities, Demographic Statistics. 1988–1990. “Marriage and Divorce Rates, Selected Countries: 1960–1988.” S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics. Monthly. Retrieved January 23, 2003 (http://ed.gov/pubs/ YouthIndicators/indtab05.html).
• Strauss, William and Neil Howe. 1997 . The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy. New York: Broadway Books.
• Thwing, Charles F. [1913] 1887. The Family: An Historical and Social Study, 2d ed . Boston, MA: Lee & Shepard.
• S. Bureau of the Census. 1908. Marriage and Divorce 1867–1906. Part II, General Tables, 1908. Vital Statistics Division, Special Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of the Census. 1909 . Marriage and Divorce 1867–1906, Part I, Summary, Laws, Foreign Statistics. Vital Statistics Division, Special Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of the Census. 1919. Marriage and Divorce, 1916. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of the Census. 1926. Marriage and Divorce, 1924. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of the Census. 1930. Marriage and Divorce, 1928: Statistics of Marriages, Divorces, and Annulments of Marriage. Seventh Annual Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of the Census 1931. Marriage and Divorce, 1929. Statistics of Marriages, Divorces, and Annulments of Marriage. Eight Annual Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of the Census. 1932. Marriage and Divorce, 1930, Statistics of Marriages, Divorces, and Annulments of Marriage. Ninth Annual Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of the Census. 1934. Marriage and Divorce, 1932, Statistics of Marriages, Divorces, and Annulments of Marriage. Eleventh Annual Report . Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of the Census. 1940. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1939. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of the Census. 1941. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1940. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of the Census. 1942. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1941. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of the Census. 1947. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of the Census. 1975. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970. Bicentennial ed., Part 2 . Pp. 49, 64.
• S. Bureau of the Census. 1999. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1999, Table 115, p. 110 (119th ed.) Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of the Census. 2001 . Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001, 121st ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of the Census. 2004. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004–2005, 124th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. 1930. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1930. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of Statistics. 1911. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1910. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
• Vernier, Chester. 1935. American Family Laws: A Comparative Study of the Family Law of the Forty-Eight American States, Alaska, the District of Columbia, and Hawaii. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
• White, Lynn K. 1990. “Determinants of Divorce: A Review of Research in the Eighties.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 52:904–12.
• Willcox, Walter Francis. 1891. The Divorce Problem: A Study in Statistics. Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law. 1, No. 1. New York: Columbia College.
• Willcox, Walter Francis. 1893. “A Study in Statistics.” Political Science Quarterly 8:69–96.
• Willcox, Walter Francis. 1897. The Divorce Problem: A Study in Statistics. New York: Columbia University.
• Zellner, William W. 2001. Extraordinary Groups: An Examination of Unconventional Lifestyles. 7th ed. New York: Worth.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

How to Stop a Divorce After the Papers Have Been Filed

There are a couple different ways you can stop a divorce after the papers have been filed if you were the one to initiate the divorce proceedings. Follow these steps in order to do so.

Find out more about divorce

by   Stephanie Kurose, J.D.

Stephanie Kurose earned a juris doctor from American University Washington College of Law and a master of arts f...

Read more...

Updated on: August 15, 2024 · 3 min read

How to Stop a Divorce in its Early Stages

How to stop a divorce in the later stages.

If you are not the spouse who filed for divorce, you generally cannot stop the process after the papers have been filed. You can contest the grounds upon which your spouse cites in the divorce petition, and you can argue custody and property distribution, but no state will force a person to remain married just because the other partner does not want to break up. However, if you are the one who initiated the proceedings, you can usually stop the divorce process depending on how far along it is.

Especially in the early stages of the divorce process—such as after the petition has been filed but before it is served on your spouse, or even after it has been served papers—you can simply decide to do nothing more, which will stop the case from proceeding any further than it has.

State law likely requires that, upon filing your petition, it be served to your spouse. This is known as due process . If you want to stop your proceedings, you do not have to follow through with due process, and the court will eventually dismiss your case.

If your spouse has already been served, you can still stop the case from proceeding as long as they do not want the divorce either. If neither you nor your spouse do anything to move it forward, the court will dismiss your case just as it would if you failed to serve them. However, because your spouse is now an active participant in the proceedings, they can decide to proceed with it even if you no longer want to.

The best way to stop a divorce after the papers have been filed is to tell the court you are voluntarily withdrawing the case and do not wish to proceed any further.

1. Obtain the Proper Form

Obtain the proper form from the courthouse where you originally filed your petition. The court clerk can give you the right forms to fill out.

2. Complete the Document

Complete the required form. In most states, this is a simple one-page document that states you are voluntarily dismissing or withdrawing your own case. You do not need to provide an explanation to the court for why you are doing so.

3. File the Form with the Court

Upon completing the form, you must file it with the court. The clerk will return a copy for your records as well as one to serve on your husband or wife.

4. Serve Your Spouse

If your state requires your spouse to be served, you must serve them with a copy of your dismissal. Some courts will mail it for you, but others may require you to either give it to them yourself, use a process server , or mail a copy by certified mail.

5. Consult a Divorce Attorney

If you're concerned about how far along you are in the divorce process, it's recommended to get legal guidance from a divorce attorney in your area. Even with a quick consultation, a lawyer could advise you on any potential steps you need for your state.

If you initiated divorce proceedings but are now having second thoughts, you can likely still stop the process depending on how far it has gone. You might also choose to speak with your spouse regarding how you can both come to an agreement to reverse the process and continue the marriage.

You may also like

10 Questions to Ask a Divorce Attorney

The divorce process is not always simple. Different states have different requirements. To get through unscathed, it’s best to ask your divorce lawyer as many questions upfront as possible. Here are 10 questions to ask a divorce attorney.

July 29, 2024 · 10min read

Annulment vs. Divorce: What’s the Legal Difference?

When it comes to ending a marriage, you can get an annulment or divorce. Learn more about the differences between the two.

August 15, 2024 · 9min read

Contested vs. Uncontested Divorce

Getting a divorce? Learn the differences between contested vs. uncontested divorce, including duration, cost, and grounds for divorce.

July 28, 2024 · 13min read

Leave a comment or thought. We`d love to hear what you are thinking after reading this post . Cancel Reply

This site uses cookies solely to provide you with a thoughtful user experience.

By using SAS for Women, you accept our use of cookies. Read about our Cookie Policy here .

• Our Results
• Key Articles
• Community Resources
• In The News
• Benson Varghese
• Anna Summersett
• Christy Jack
• Leticia Martinez
• Tiffany Burks
• Ty Stimpson
• Lisa Herrick
• Wade Griffin
• Nicole Carroll
• Turner Thornton
• Alex Thornton
• Kristen Car Mullins
• Stephanie Sabelhaus
• Steve Baker
• Mitch Monthie
• Audrey Hatcher
• Hailey Klingbeil
• Laura Richardson
• Melody Lanier
• Bresha Shepherd
• Julie Lystad
• Jennifer Ridgeway
• Andrew Goode
• Natasha Walkup
• Kate Daniel
• Lamour Kongaika
• Shantae Haymer
• Alex Iacomini
• Allison Martin
• Amanda Delagrange
• Brittni Forbis
• Morgan Hackwell
• Michelle Avelar
• Sarah Griffin
• Kayleigh Conley
• Savanna Wyse
• Emrey Mullins
• Rachel Zahn
• Carmen Griffith
• Possession of a Controlled Substance
• Manufacture/Delivery of a Controlled Substance
• Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
• Possession of Marijuana
• Delivery of Marijuana
• Sexual Assault
• Aggravated Sexual Assault Vs. Sexual Assault
• Indecent Assault
• Indecent Exposure
• Solicitation of Prostitution
• DWI Defense
• Felony DWI Defense
• DWI Child Passenger
• Intoxication Assault
• Intoxication Manslaughter
• Juvenile Intake Process
• Juvenile Detention Hearing
• Juvenile Certification
• Juvenile Assault
• Tarrant County Juvenile Detention Center
• Federal Conspiracy
• Federal Drug Charges
• Federal Proffer Interviews
• Federal White Collar Crimes
• Federal Sentencing
• Assault by Contact
• Assault Bodily Injury
• Assault By Choking Or Strangulation
• Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon
• Child Sexual Assault
• Improper Relationship
• Online Solicitation Of A Minor
• Possession Of Child Pornography
• Manslaughter
• What to Do if a Detective Calls
• Court Settings
• Dissmissals
• Probation vs. Deffered
• Statute of Limitations
• Economic Damages
• Slip & Fall Accidents
• ATV Injuries
• Length of a Personal Injury Case
• Car Accidents
• Bicycle Accidents
• Motorcycle Accidents
• Pedestrian Accidents
• Truck Accidents
• Construction Accidents
• Oil & Gas Accidents
• Explosion Injuries
• Farm & Ranch Accidents
• Railroad Accidents
• Amputation/Loss of Limb
• Spinal Injuries
• Traumatic Brain Injuries
• Broken Bones & Fractures
• Burns, Scarring, & Disfigurement
• Negligence in Wrongful Death Cases
• Wrongful Death Claim Guide
• Who Can File a Wrongful Death Claim
• Wrongful Death Claims
• Common Car Accident Scenarios
• Premises Liability
• Red & Yellow Light Accidents
• Fault in a U-Turn Accident
• Driving in Bad Weather
• Whiplash Injuries
• Airbag Injuries
• Seatbelt Injuries
• Eye Injuries
• Stowers Demand
• Insurance Adjusters
• Claims Against USAA
• Claims Against State Farm
• Claims Against Chubb
• Personal Injury Glossary
• Co-Counsel Opportunities
• Contingency Fees
• Medical Bills After an Accident
• Grounds for Divorce
• Filing First
• Divorce with Kids
• High Profile Divorce
• High Net Worth Divorce
• Texas Standard Possession
• Father’s Rights
• Top 5 Custody Disputes
• Emergency Custody Orders
• Child Support Enforcement
• Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
• Modifying Child Support
• Time to Get Child Support
• Private School Expenses
• Property Division
• Divorcing with a Business
• Marital Home During Divorce
• Alimony & Spousal Support
• Enforcement of Family Court Orders
• Updating Your Will After Divorce
• Post-Nuptial Agreements
• Paying for College After Divorce
• Co-Parenting Tips
• Temporary Orders
• Family Court Hearings
• Discovery in Family Law
• Tarrant County Family Courts
• Answer & Counter Petition
• Adoption Evaluations
• Ready to Adopt
• Adopting a Child
• Step-Parent Adoption
• The Adoption Process
• Southlake Family Lawyer
• Southlake Divorce Lawyer
• Southlake Child Support
• Southlake Collaborative Divorce
• Southlake Child Custody
• Fort Worth Divorce Lawyer
• Fort Worth Child Support Lawyer
• Fort Worth Criminal Defense
• Fort Worth Personal Injury
• Fort Worth Family Lawyer
• Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer
• Dallas Personal Injury
• Dallas Divorce Lawyer
• Southlake Personal Injury

Served Divorce Papers? Here’s What to Do Next.

Being served divorce papers can be an overwhelming and emotionally charged experience. For decades, our lawyers have helped individuals in Fort Worth and throughout Tarrant County through this difficult process. While every situation is unique, some key steps and considerations apply in most cases when responding to a divorce petition. This comprehensive guide will walk you through the process and provide practical advice on protecting your interests and navigating this challenging time.

Don’t Panic – Take a Deep Breath

The moment you’re handed divorce papers , it can feel like the ground is falling out from under you, even if you knew it was coming. The natural response is often panic, anger, or despair. However, it’s crucial to stay as calm and level-headed as possible. Remember, being served means the legal process is beginning – it doesn’t determine the outcome.

Take a deep breath, and know you have time to respond thoughtfully with the guidance of an experienced divorce lawyer .

Read the Petition Carefully

Once you’ve collected yourself, sit down and read through the divorce petition in its entirety. Pay close attention to:

• The grounds for divorce cited. In Texas, most divorces cite insupportability rather than a more specific basis.
• Any temporary orders requested;
• Child custody and support proposals;
• Division of assets and debts;
• Spousal support requests; and
• Deadlines for responding.

Make notes of anything you disagree with or find concerning. This will help you discuss the petition more effectively with your attorney .

Be Mindful of Deadlines After Being Served Divorce Papers

In Texas, you generally have 20 days from the date you were served to file a response with the court. This is called your “Answer.” While you may be able to get an extension in some cases, it’s best not to delay. Missing this deadline could result in a default judgment against you, meaning your spouse could be granted everything they’ve requested in the petition.

Contact an Experienced Family Lawyer

Remember that the next steps, including gathering documents and formulating the best responses and getting ready for a preliminary hearing and temporary orders all need to be done with the assistance of an experienced family lawyer. This is the best time to reach out for a consultation and hire an attorney to be your advocate and advisor.

An experienced divorce attorney can:

• Explain your rights and options
• Help you understand the likely outcomes of various approaches
• Ensure your response is properly filed and legally sound
• Negotiate on your behalf with your spouse’s attorney
• Represent you in court if necessary

When choosing an attorney, look for someone with extensive experience in family law, a track record of success, and a communication style that makes you feel comfortable and heard.

Secure Important Documents

As soon as possible, gather and secure important financial and personal documents. This includes:

• Tax returns
• Bank statements
• Investment account information
• Retirement account statements
• Mortgage documents
• Vehicle titles
• Life insurance policies
• Social Security statements
• Birth certificates and marriage license

Having these documents readily available will be crucial for your attorney and protecting your interests as the divorce proceeds. The more of this you have together before your consultation, the better. But this is where you should start immediately after hiring an attorney if you have not already gathered this information. Depending on several factors, the attorney will also tell you what other information you may need to gather.

Decide on Your Approach

Based on the circumstances of your marriage and divorce, as well as your goals, you and your attorney will need to decide on an overall approach to your response. This could range from an amicable, cooperative stance focused on mediation and negotiation, to a more aggressive posture if your spouse is being unreasonable or if there are serious disputes over child custody or significant assets. Our deep bench makes it possible for us to pair you with just the right attorney for your needs.

Filing an Answer

Your formal response to the divorce petition is called an Answer. This document should address each point raised in the petition, either admitting, denying, or stating that you lack sufficient information to admit or deny each claim. Your Answer may also include:

• Counterclaims if you disagree with aspects of the petition
• Affirmative defenses if applicable
• Requests for temporary orders if needed

Your attorney will draft this document, but it’s important that you review it carefully and ensure it accurately reflects your position.

Consider Temporary Orders

Temporary orders can address crucial issues while the divorce is pending, such as:

• Who will live in the family home
• Temporary child custody and visitation schedules
• Temporary child support or spousal support
• Who will pay which bills
• Restrictions on selling or transferring assets

If your spouse has requested temporary orders, you’ll need to respond to these. If they haven’t, you may want to request them yourself. These orders can provide stability and protect your interests during the divorce process.

Prepare Financial Disclosures

In most divorces, both parties are required to provide detailed financial disclosures. This typically includes a sworn inventory and appraisement listing all assets and debts, along with supporting documentation. Be thorough and honest in these disclosures. Hiding assets or providing false information can severely damage your case and may result in penalties from the court.

Develop a Parenting Plan

If you have children, one of the most critical aspects of your divorce will be determining custody and visitation arrangements. Start thinking about what kind of parenting plan would be in your children’s best interests. Consider factors like:

• Each parent’s work schedule
• The children’s school and extracurricular activities
• Each parent’s ability to care for the children
• The children’s relationships with extended family members
• Any special needs the children may have

Remember, Texas courts prioritize the best interests of the child above all else when making custody decisions.

Many Texas courts require couples to attempt mediation before taking their divorce to trial. Even if it’s not required, mediation can be a valuable tool for resolving disputes and reaching agreements on various aspects of your divorce. It’s often less costly and time-consuming than litigation, and it gives you more control over the outcome. Discuss with your attorney whether mediation might be appropriate in your case.

Protect Your Privacy

Be cautious about what you share on social media or with friends and family regarding your divorce. Anything you say or post could potentially be used against you in court. It’s generally best to limit discussions about your divorce to your attorney and perhaps a trusted therapist or counselor.

Take Care of Yourself

Divorce is one of life’s most stressful experiences. While it’s important to focus on the legal aspects, don’t neglect your physical and emotional health. Consider seeing a therapist to help process your emotions. Maintain healthy habits like regular exercise, a balanced diet, and adequate sleep. Lean on your support network of friends and family. Taking care of yourself will help you make better decisions and cope with the challenges ahead.

Be Prepared for Negotiations

As your case progresses, there will likely be negotiations with your spouse’s attorney over various issues. Be prepared to prioritize what’s most important to you and where you might be willing to compromise. Your attorney can guide you on what’s reasonable to expect based on Texas law and the specific circumstances of your case.

Consider the Long-Term Impact

When making decisions during your divorce, try to think beyond the immediate future. Consider how choices about property division , spousal support, or custody arrangements might affect you 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. This long-term perspective can help you make more informed decisions.

Be Realistic About Outcomes

It’s rare for either party to get everything they want in a divorce. Texas is a community property state, which generally means a 50/50 split of marital assets, though there can be exceptions. Child custody is typically shared unless there are compelling reasons for one parent to have sole custody. Understanding these realities can help you set realistic expectations and focus your energy on achievable goals.

Keep Communication Professional

If you need to communicate with your spouse during the divorce process, keep it businesslike and focused on necessary issues, especially if you have children together. Avoid rehashing old arguments or making accusations. If direct communication is difficult, consider using a co-parenting app or communicating through your attorneys.

Be Prepared for Court

While many divorces are settled out of court, you should be prepared for the possibility of a trial. This might involve:

• Giving depositions
• Responding to discovery requests
• Preparing exhibits and witness lists
• Testifying in court

Your attorney will guide you through this process and help you prepare thoroughly if a trial becomes necessary.

Consider the Tax Implications

Divorce can have significant tax consequences, particularly regarding property division, spousal support, and child-related tax benefits. Consult with a tax professional or ask your attorney to bring in a tax expert to ensure you understand the tax implications of various settlement options.

Plan for Your Post-Divorce Life

As your divorce progresses, start thinking about and planning for your life after divorce. This might involve:

• Creating a new budget based on your changed financial situation
• Finding new housing if necessary
• Updating your estate plan and beneficiary designations
• Considering career changes or additional education
• Developing new routines and traditions, especially if you have children

Responding to divorce papers is just the beginning of what can be a complex and emotionally challenging process. By taking a thoughtful, strategic approach and working with an experienced divorce attorney, you can protect your rights and interests while working towards the best possible outcome for yourself and your children. Remember, while divorce marks the end of a marriage, it’s also the beginning of a new chapter in your life. With proper preparation and support, you can navigate this transition and emerge stronger on the other side.

If you have been served divorce papers, the legal team at Varghese Summersett can help you through this difficult time. Call 817-203-2220 to schedule a free consultation with an experienced divorce attorney. We serve clients in North Texas and have offices in Fort Worth and Southlake.

Who Gets the Engagement Ring in Divorce?

Contested and Uncontested Divorces in Texas

Divorce with Business In Texas

Crash of a Tupolev TU-154B-1 in Omsk: 178 killed

Category : Bodies of water in Omsk Oblast

Federal subjects of the Russian Federation:

Instance of
Authority file   Subcategories This category has the following 3 subcategories, out of 3 total. Fountains in Omsk Oblast ‎ (1 C) Lakes of Omsk Oblast ‎ (3 C, 8 F) Rivers of Omsk Oblast ‎ (3 C, 7 F) Geography of Omsk Oblast Nature of Omsk Oblast Bodies of water in Russia by region Uses of Wikidata Infobox Uses of Wikidata Infobox with no topic Navigation menu Category : en:Cities in Omsk Oblast Newest and oldest pages  : Fundamental  » All languages  » English  » All topics  » Names  » Places  » Polities  » Cities  » Cities in Russia  » Cities in Omsk Oblast English names of cities in Omsk Oblast, a federal subject ( oblast ) of Russia . NOTE : This is a name category. It should contain names of specific cities in Omsk Oblast, not merely terms related to cities in Omsk Oblast, and should also not contain general terms for types of cities in Omsk Oblast. Pages in category "en:Cities in Omsk Oblast" This category contains only the following page. en:Cities in Russia en:Omsk Oblast en:Places in Omsk Oblast en:List of name categories Cities in Omsk Oblast Pages using DynamicPageList Navigation menu 176 IMAGES 40 Free Divorce Papers (Printable) ᐅ TemplateLab Free Divorce Settlement Agreement Template FREE 11+ Sample Divorce Forms in MS Word 40 Free Divorce Papers (Printable) ᐅ TemplateLab 40 Free Divorce Papers (Printable) ᐅ TemplateLab 40 Free Divorce Papers (Printable) ᐅ TemplateLab COMMENTS Coming to Terms: Divorce Terminology in Court In most U.S. states, this is the legal term for divorce. Divorce: The legal proceeding by which a marriage is legally terminated. It may be contested (where one party denies the allegation or wants to keep the marriage in place) or uncontested. Equitable: Means fair; does not necessarily mean equal. Divorce and Health: Current Trends and Future Directions This paper reviews what is known about the association between marital separation, divorce and health outcomes. ... most people cope well and are resilient after their marriage or long-term relationship ends. Despite the fact that resilience is the most common response, a small percentage of people (approximately 10-15%) struggle quite ... Exploring the Effects of Divorce on Children's Psychological and This paper examines the multifaceted effects of divorce on children, focusing on their psychological and physiological well-being. It highlights the significant disruption divorce causes in family ... (PDF) Divorce: Trends, patterns, causes, consequences paper is a contribution to a book volume edited by Judith Treas, Jacqueline Scott and Martin ... An other long-term effect of parental divorce concerns the family life experiences of the ... The Long-Term Effects of Divorce on Children: A Review A comprehensive review of research from several disciplines regarding long-term effects of divorce on children yields a growing consensus that significant numbers of children suffer for many years from psychological and social difficulties associated with continuing and/or new stresses within the postdivorce family and experience heightened anxiety in forming enduring attachments at later ... The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of The effects of recent parental divorce on their children's sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 35: 125. [Google Scholar] Jónsson F.H., Njardvik U., Olafsdottir G., and Gretarssson S.. 2000. Parental divorce: Long-term effects on mental health, family relations, and adult sexual behavior. (PDF) The Effect of Divorce on Families' Life The effect of divorce on children. According to Ada mu and temes gen (2014), Children dropout schoo ls, engage in addiction, co mmit sex before. marriage a nd develop delinquent behavior in the co ... A 20-year prospective study of marital separation and divorce in Remarriages and stepfamilies are an increasingly common family structure (Guzzo, 2017).In Canada and the U.S., more than half of adults who divorce eventually remarry and one in three marriages is a remarriage for one or both partners (Ambert, 2009; Lewis & Kreider, 2015).Many remarrying individuals bring children from a previous union into their new household to form a stepfamily. Divorce Glossary Discovery. The information-exchanging process during legal proceedings, including serving and answering interrogatories and requests for production of documents, and taking depositions. Dissolution. A legal term that is another word for divorce, which is the legal termination of a marriage relationship. When Love Hurts Cooperation after Divorce covers three main areas: (1) the divorce, (2) children, and (3) cooperation following divorce, employing 17 learning modules delivered through an online platform. This paper reports only the baseline results of the study, therefore, please also see Hald et al. (2020a) for a more thorough description of the CAD platform ... Divorce Papers & Forms (2024 Guide) Filling Out Divorce Forms. Typically, to start a divorce, you must file three forms with the family court. The forms include a Family Court Cover Sheet, Complaint for Divorce and a Summons ... How To Serve Divorce Papers Serving divorce papers is the process by which your spouse is provided with this notification. Serving divorce papers simply means giving copies of the court papers to your spouse. The exact ... The Divorce Process: A Step By Step Guide In most cases, when you serve your partner with divorce papers, they have a set period of time to respond. If your partner does not do so, you can petition the court and request a default divorce ... Divorce Forms Lists the papers that were served and tells when and where the papers were served, as well as who served them. Serve your request to change long-term spousal support. Responsive Declaration to Request for Order: FL-320: Allows the respondent to reply to your request for orders. Serve a blank copy of this form when you serve your other papers. Divorce Research Paper This sample divorce research paper features: 9000 words (approx. 30 pages), an outline, and a bibliography with 82 sources. ... high divorce rate will eventually undermine the very foundations of the family institution do not hold up to long-term scrutiny, and it is this kind of analysis of marriage and divorce that must be undertaken within ... How to Stop a Divorce After the Papers Have Been Filed The best way to stop a divorce after the papers have been filed is to tell the court you are voluntarily withdrawing the case and do not wish to proceed any further. 1. Obtain the Proper Form. Obtain the proper form from the courthouse where you originally filed your petition. The court clerk can give you the right forms to fill out. Divorce Running Head: Research Paper - Effect of Divorce on Parenting. Derin Ireyomi. 103091991. University of Windsor. 02-48-305. Dr. Omorodion. Abstract. In the past two decades, the trend of divorce and shared custody has increased and affected the lives of almost 57% of couples and their children (Boyan, 2003). Divorces have been known to have a ... Divorce Papers: What the Heck Are They? Paper #1: Starting the Divorce Petition. First things first, someone needs to begin the divorce process. The petition is the first step in the divorce. This means that one spouse needs to officially ask a court to end their marriage. This is the legal step that sometimes follows a separation. How to Get a Divorce A divorce takes place when a court declares that a marriage ... This is a simplified process with standard forms to fill out so you can serve a spouse with papers by certified mail, sheriff or process server. ... "People devolve into this battle and they feel good in the short term, like, 'I'm getting back at the person.' They feel like ... Served Divorce Papers? Here's How to Respond If you have been served divorce papers, the legal team at Varghese Summersett can help you through this difficult time. Call 817-203-2220 to schedule a free consultation with an experienced divorce attorney. We serve clients in North Texas and have offices in Fort Worth and Southlake. Related Articles. Filing for Dissolution or Divorce Yes, the court can grant a divorce if the wife is pregnant, but will likely address issues about the unborn child (setting up a parenting plan and child support) after the child is born. You can ask the court to grant the divorce and then deal with the custody and child support issues later when the child is born by filing: Crash of a Tupolev TU-154B-1 in Omsk: 178 killed 4. Total fatalities: 178. Circumstances: Following an uneventful flight from Krasnodar, the crew started the approach to Omsk Airport in a reduced visibility due to the night and rain falls. The aircraft landed at a speed of 270 km/h and about one second later, the captain noticed the presence of vehicles on the runway. Category:Flag of Omsk Media in category "Flag of Omsk". The following 4 files are in this category, out of 4 total. Flag of Omsk (2002).svg 1,200 × 800; 111 KB. Flag of Omsk.png 200 × 133; 7 KB. Flag of Omsk.svg 900 × 600; 438 bytes. Category : Bodies of water in Omsk Oblast From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository. Jump to navigation Jump to search. Federal subjects of the Russian Federation: Republics: Adygea · Altai · Bashkortostan · Buryatia · Chechnya · Chuvashia · · Dagestan · Ingushetia · Kabardino-Balkaria · Kalmykia · Karachay-Cherkessia · Karelia · Khakassia · Komi · Mari El · Mordovia · North Ossetia — Alania · Sakha ... Category : en:Cities in Omsk Oblast English names of cities in Omsk Oblast, a federal subject of Russia.. NOTE: This is a name category.It should contain names of specific cities in Omsk Oblast, not merely terms related to cities in Omsk Oblast, and should also not contain general terms for types of cities in Omsk Oblast. assignment essay homework paper phd report resume review speech thesis