divorce moral issue essay

152 Brilliant Divorce Essay Topics & Examples

For those who are studying law or social sciences, writing about divorce is a common task. Separation is a complicated issue that can arise from many different situations and lead to adverse outcomes. In this article we gathered an ultimate list of topics about divorce and gathered some tips to when working on the paper.

An Honest Look at the Pros and Cons of Divorce

Consider these topics and how to minimize the negative effects of divorce..

Posted September 27, 2023 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

• The Challenges of Divorce
• Find a therapist to heal from a divorce
• Divorce can cause positive and negative outcomes for both the parents and children involved.
• Among the pros are greater freedom, room for growth, and an improved environment for children.
• However, stress and financial challenges can complicate outcomes for the family.

Are you considering divorce? Or has your spouse decided to end the marriage ? Divorce is a complicated and emotional process that can have both positive and negative consequences. Some outcomes are positive for some people but affect others negatively.

Here are some of the pros and cons of divorce.

These are generally considered the pros of divorce:

Freedom and Independence

Pros: Divorce can provide individuals with the freedom and independence to make their own choices and live life on their terms. Don (not his real name) felt that he was in a constant power struggle with his wife. He wanted control over his own life, his environment, and his decisions.

Cons: Some may find this newfound independence overwhelming or lonely , especially if they are accustomed to a long-term partnership. Stuart had grown accustomed to a social life managed by his wife. After the divorce, he withdrew from friendships and struggled with depression .

Escape From Unhealthy Relationships

Pros: Divorce can provide an escape from abusive or toxic relationships, which can lead to improved mental and physical health. Ingrid had lived with an angry husband who frequently berated her in front of other people. She felt she always walked on eggshells to avoid triggering him. After her divorce, she felt liberated and relieved of the chronic stress, and her migraines stopped.

Cons: The divorce process can be emotionally challenging, and most people experience intense emotions during a divorce, such as sadness, anger , guilt , and anxiety . However, these emotions usually subside as you adjust to your new life.

Opportunity for Personal Growth

Pros: Some people view divorce as an opportunity for personal growth and self-discovery, leading to a stronger sense of self and increased self-esteem . Tina told me that she felt she had finally found herself after her divorce. She had spent 20 years trying to be the wife her husband wanted. Now, she felt she could come into her own.

Cons: The emotional toll of divorce can hinder personal growth, at least in the short term. In the early stages of divorce, most people are overwhelmed and operating in “crisis mode.” It may be very hard to imagine what your future will look like. Nevertheless, you can focus on building a life that you will find fulfilling. Be patient; it may take one to two years to fully recover from the divorce.

Improved Financial Situation

Pros: Depending on the circumstances, divorce can lead to improved financial stability and the ability to make independent financial decisions. Clara and her husband argued about money all the time. He felt she bought too many clothes, and she accused him of buying expensive electronics. They could not agree on a budget, so they spent beyond their means every month, unable to save for retirement . Both felt that if they divorced , they could become financially independent and stable.

Cons: Divorce can also result in financial hardships, especially if there are disputes over assets, child support, or alimony. Many people have to reduce their lifestyles when they divorce. The same income now has to support two homes. There may be legal expenses, additional therapy costs, or alimony. Downsizing is frequently the best solution, at least for a few years.

Better Environment for Children

Pros: In cases of high-conflict or abusive marriages, divorce may provide a safer and more stable environment for children. Lee and Ellis argued frequently in front of their children. At times, they yelled at each other and shoved each other around, stopping only when their children begged them to or cried. Children in two stable, calm homes feel safer and more secure.

Cons: Children may still experience emotional turmoil and adjustment issues during and after a divorce. Children will also experience the loss of the family unit and may have symptoms due to the trauma of witnessing their parents in conflict. It is normal for children to need 1-2 years to adjust to the new family structure.

These are usually considered the cons of divorce:

Emotional and Psychological Stress

Divorce is almost always emotionally and psychologically taxing, leading to stress, depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues. Some individuals may struggle with these challenges for an extended period, impacting their overall well-being. Some seem to get stuck in their anger or grief after the divorce and can't “move on.” Working with a therapist can help you work through the emotions so that you can rebuild your new life.

Financial Challenges

While some experience improved financial situations, others may face significant financial challenges, including legal fees, dividing assets, and maintaining separate households. The financial burden of divorce can be long-lasting, affecting both spouses and their children. Supporting two homes may be stressful , and your children may be aware that money is tight.

If possible, protect them from the stress or worry that they might pick up from you. Megan, a child I worked with, told me, “There won’t be Christmas presents this year because Mom took all our money.” Megan felt insecure and angry at her mother.

Impact on Children

One of the most common worries parents express is how the divorce will “damage our children.” Divorce can create a more stable and peaceful home environment in some cases, which may be better for children’s well-being. Children often face emotional and psychological challenges during and after divorce, and it can strain parent-child relationships when they are drawn into loyalty binds or assume the roles of ally, messenger, spy, or confidante.

Social Stigma

In some cases, divorce may free individuals from a marriage that wasn’t socially or culturally accepted. Divorce can still carry a social stigma in some communities and cultures, leading to judgment and isolation. While the stigma of divorce has decreased over the past decades, many people still carry an internalized stigma. James said that the voice in his head kept saying, “You’re a failure, you’re a loser, you’ll never be happy, etc.” Remind yourself that it is the marriage that failed, not necessarily that you failed. It helps to understand your contribution to the failure of the marriage so that you can avoid those mistakes in the future.

Legal Process Complexity and Stress

The legal system can provide structure and protection during divorce proceedings. The law is there to protect you if necessary. Navigating the legal system can be time-consuming, expensive, and emotionally draining. However, if you choose an alternate dispute resolution process that keeps you out of court, the divorce will be less stressful. Consider mediation or a collaborative divorce instead.

Whether you are contemplating divorce or your spouse has already made the decision, these topics are worth discussing, perhaps with the help of a therapist. Some of these points may not be relevant to your circumstances, but seek guidance and support if you do decide to divorce. With the help of an experienced divorce coach or therapist, you may be able to reduce some of the negative outcomes.

© Ann Gold Buscho, Ph.D. 2023

Ann Gold Buscho, Ph.D. , is the author of The Parent's Guide to Birdnesting: A Child-Centered Solution to Co-Parenting During Separation and Divorce.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• < Previous

Home > Faculty Scholarship > Articles > 1940

Marriage, Morals, and the Law: No-Fault divorce and Moral Discourse

Carl E. Schneider , University of Michigan Law School Follow

Document Type

Publication date.

In this Essay, I want to reflect on no fault-divorce and the social attitudes that underlie it. In particular, I want to consider that reform in light of an article I wrote some years ago entitled Moral Discourse and the Transformation of American Family Law . There I argued that in recent years the language of American family law has changed notably: today family law issues are decreasingly discussed in the language of morality. In other words, legal institutions have decreasingly talked about those issues in moral terms. Rather, they have tended to avoid handling some moral issues altogether-often by transferring responsibility for such decisions to the people the law once regulated-or to discuss those issues in other than moral terms. This argument might be misunderstood in one respect. I am not suggesting-I have never suggested-"that lawmakers' decisions are necessarily less moral, that family law is necessarily deprived of a moral basis, or that lawmakers may not have moral reasons for avoiding moral discourse." Quite obviously, much of this change can be defended in quite conventional moral terms-as an expression, for instance, of a number of standard liberal views. My point,·rather, is that "the terms lawmakers use in explaining (and presumably in thinking about) their work are decreasingly drawn from the vocabulary of morals and are increasingly drawn from the discourse of economics, psychology, public policy studies, medicine, or from those aspects of legal doctrine which speak in other than moral terms." Thus the language of morals is being displaced by other discourses or even by silence.

Recommended Citation

Schneider, Carl E. "Marriage, Morals, and the Law: No-Fault Divorce and Moral Discourse (Symposium: Twenty-Five Years of Divorce Revolution)." Utah L. Rev , no. 2 (1994): 503-85.

Since April 26, 2018

Included in

Family Law Commons , Law and Society Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Submissions

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Divorce as a Moral Act

HERBERT GOLD

I DIVORCE you for ever and ever, and even death shall not break it.”

Divorce is perhaps the extremest moral event which we can consummate on earth. It may be an evil act or it may be a good one, but it is moral all the way down — we reach it only with a rope woven of a thousand difficult decisions. Marriage, with which divorce might be compared under some of its aspects, has an older, premoral character. It usually seems to be a good thing, but it is a good act called into being without a clear sense of consequences by individuals who are led by hope, trust, and desire. Forgive them, Lord, they know not what they do. If it is good, when it is good, it begins as natural virtue, not moral virtue. It is good as growing plants are good — out of the impulse of life itself. It is good as sleep is good (sleep is a natural virtue which the divorced sacrifice) or as waking in the morning refreshed is good. Of course, the preservation of marriage depends on more than natural virtue, usually to the surprise of the married, but these later moral decisions have come unanticipated in the flesh. They are initiated after the natural act of marriage.

Natural virtue — doing what is right by instinct, habit, tradition, or in obedience to some great faith — is mostly past for man as a species. We are long out of the garden of innocence. The angel sent down to expel Adam and Eve was the first Reno judge, but we are conservative; despite all thunder, trouble, and waste of spirit, we failed to recognize him. Now the day of natural virtue, when divorce was almost inconceivable, is over. Decisions, decisions! To shore up a marriage, despite suffering, sinking, a reign of destruction, may be a good or an evil act — it is a moral decision; the same to enter upon this always new and strange compact, within the clutter of bitterness and mistake, among the broken furniture of intentions, in the abrupt dead silence, after much thrashing noise, of eternal acquiescence in misunderstanding — in hushed piety now: “I do divorce you and cherish you, through age and new marriages, all the way past death’s vain effort to part us.”

For the pulse of marriage is not broken by divorce’s hemp. With children we cannot even conceive of breaking it — that eternal physical presence of the new and unending family we have created, children having children having children, long after we have died. Our being in them is never dead. (“When, now you tell me when are you coming to live at home again, Daddy?” “Never. But I’ll come to see you every day, unless, unless —” “Will I have to get a new daddy?” “I’m your daddy and you’re my daughter, and we won’t change that.”) The state of being father and child, having children, having a parent, never changes, although the manner of that being is hurtfully altered.

Even without children, we have become ourselves only together and in our marriage and we go toward what we are becoming only together and in our divorce. Divorce is not a dissolving fluid, although it may be a corroding acid. It is like marriage but extremer: it is to marriage as an explosion is to rust. Under certain circumstances an oily cloth may smolder and decay under slow oxidation; in a tight closet it bursts into fiery life. But all that is metaphor; marriage and divorce are kin in that we have formed ourselves together within them. We do not become innocent now. Your face is mirrored on mine; my body is written on yours. Even if we love again — and of course we will — our old marriage grows in the new love. In fact, we may only reveal the meaning of our marriage through the new love. If we are lucky and good, we will have a new marriage which is continuous with the old one. The more truly we are loved for ourselves, the more true this is. The new lover loves what we can bring; a large part of what we can bring comes from the old marriage which we created together; the old love is now a vitally changing element in our flesh and memory, fantasy and intention.

If the new love is happy, the old marriage is vindicated: Through me you have learned to love. Or if not so much, at least this: I left you with the strength to be happy, an ambition to know love, the suspicion that it is possible. Perhaps I have even left you with a belief and a brilliant need. Together we have put an end to the monstrous expectations of first marriage, and without cynicism we may now go on to what is possible.

How does a divorce grow into being? Or rather how is it decided into being?

It is always a question of character, not incident; personality, not anecdote. Legal briefs are notorious liars, although such phrases as “Incompatibility” or “Mental Cruelty” seem to be pathetic efforts to tell a general truth. Divorce appears as almost the absolutely free act because almost uncaused — that is, caused by anything, by any constellation of accidents. It is always caused by something but the something is never the same. Each divorce is unique. Let us dispose of some common simplisms:

The free personality married to the dependent may divorce. The dependent personality married to the dependent may divorce. And the free married to the free may divorce. In the first case, the liberal, hard-loving personality feels imprisoned by a partner who feels more and more afloat, uncared for. In the second case, the two needful, lonely ones lean off balance against each other until they topple helplessly in a strident crescendo of demand for reassurance; they can no longer hear or feel each other — they have been too close. At last, in their desperation, the pain of clawing each other blindly in the dark seems less than the pain of bleeding quietly and alone in the dust. In the third and strangest case — the free and the free — it is because they are free away from, not toward each other.

In each case, the origin of divorce is character. The dynamics — or rather the tactics, since this becomes that worst war, civil war — are expressed in a series of incidents. However, these do not evolve in a straight line. They circle each other; they grow upon and nourish each other; is not any marriage, as Aristophanes suggests, a body? Divorce grows as the pearl grows, as the cancer grows — as the pearl in some ways, as the cancer in others. The pearl of divorce may be ejected by a powerful oyster. The malignancy, once started, is generally irreversible and proliferates with rapid fibrous insistence while the rest of the body wastes and rots.

Again: A grit of disagreement becomes, by accretion, an intolerable burden when it is not a cause of trouble but a symptom. The body of marriage is working against itself. Like the seed of the pearl, the grit torments this oyster, which increasingly busies itself with it, and so it grows; like the cancer, it steals the strength needed for health, thus mysteriously nourished through novel conduits; and like the goiter on a neck, it is soon all that you can see. This sort of grit may take years to mature within the life of its host: the marriage resists, resists, and its struggles leave sores, scars, and crippled healing.

When they can no longer bear the agonies of distrust and the weariness of effort, the couple parts, in longing and sorrow, with great staring tenderness. This false revival of the old moody courting is like the pertness of the last moments of a wasting illness. Dissolution follows fast; no longer virgin to divorce, they fly apart in a sensual rage — quarreling about money, property, those things which never troubled them before, bitter about her use of make-up and his clumsy slouch, spinning off into contempt in order to sear and so seal the wound.

True remissions sometimes occur — and false remissions. A springtime, a miraculously tender evening when desire and expectation meet — but these are reminders, depending on sentimentality, and the foreboding returns first and then the disease. The true remission of any disease, in the face of destruction, seems an almost divine intervention. With death plucking at your sleeve, the body writhes in anger and joy, “something clicks,” and the course and pattern become what they have not been. Sometimes; rarely. In the face of the death of divorce — I am speaking here of people who have loved each other — at the worst and darkest moment — when they feel spiders in their ears and mice at their hearts — they may reject their monstrous denial of the past. Does it really happen? It can; at least we can imagine it, and that is enough to make it possible.

ON THE other hand, the healthy divorce may be the necessary radical cure of character. It is not merely surgical, although it aches as much as surgery: the divorce disentangles living flesh which has entwined and even grown together. It is systemic; and with all its pain, it may be the sign of a cure.

For example, her father was an alcoholic, say, and she never could fight him through about it. Her mother failed, naturally, but she ... So she marries an alcoholic, finds it impossible, and is freed of her father for the next marriage. Here is another trivial, overschematic example. His mother was a manager; he could not disengage himself; he crawled into another manager’s pen. But lo, under threat of extinction as a man, he is not a child and he can free himself. Now having practiced successfully against his mother, he no longer needs to defeat her. He can even find, next, the yielding, giving, and responsible woman whom the glare off his mother’s rage hid from him.

All examples are radically falsifying. Divorce is a fragile snowflake in the December sun. Who breathes on it decides for himself about it.

And there is something still more subtle, clever, and diseased: we may make our wife or husband into the image of the unconquered parent, just in order, later, to destroy it. This is pathetic and comic. You were chosen, but you did not know for what, and pressed into service against your will, but slowly, gradually, so that you did not know what you were doing, and then — at the moment of ripeness, when you are perfectly what your partner needs you to be — the knife! Perhaps the squealing cattle should organize against the slaughter, but they did not see the end, only the busy chain of events in the yard. And you were, very likely, too busy making your own effigy. This is painful. These are the very bad divorces, where there was no thou-saying ever, where human beings were used as tools. We should warm ourselves by the good divorces, rare though they are.

“Will you go to dinner with me?” he asks.

“No,” she says, “I have a jealous husband.” And the smile of complicity: he might find out, but if he doesn’t . . . The husband is used, rearranged, scrambled, an image formed totally of her uses for him. She does not think: I love him. Instead, she refuses the invitation with smug, mouth-narrowing thoughts of possessions: he is jealous. This woman is unfaithful even if she never enters another’s bed. Her husband feels her infidelity in their own bed — in her passivity, in her absent devouring of his substance. She needs him, true; he may take that for love. She wants him perhaps. She cannot do without him.

But even in his arms she is unfaithful. She cannot love anyone but her incomplete, uncompletable self. She yearns to exist, but her yearning is a bottomless pit down which her husband and children careen.

I keep promising myself not to use examples. There are too many individual members of divorce. As to incident, all marriages suggest them — money, infidelity, boredom, should we go out or should we read, in what manner shall we love, how many children do we want. Ways of being parents and friends, Taking and giving ways. These matters are all symptoms of character. True, they also change character. But when they attack the marriage, it is in their role as symptoms. All married people can supply their own instances. Every marriage is a potential divorce.

So we are practical, “The children — think!” Those who for so many reasons need too much of love can do nothing to preserve a form of marriage for the sake of the children. They perpetuate their own suffering in their children, of course, but they can do nothing else.

Back for another moment to the knotty question of infidelity. Imagine this: a woman who feels wronged tells her husband of infidelities with a man now living abroad. They struggle — tears, beatings, desperate lovemaking as the husband strives to possess her for himself. At last he forgives her. When does she leave him? When does the marriage fly apart for all to see?

When the husband discovers that it is a lie, that she had been helplessly true to him, that she had fought in this hysterical way to gain ascendancy over him. Now she feels judged utterly, and with no strength to give and take from him, she gives up. She finds that last creative strength of character necessary to tear herself from him. Either that or suicide.

Rare? Mythological? Yes, but it tells how much we need infidelity, and it tells how much we can bear to suffer, and it tells what we finally cannot bear. We can suffer the hurt of strength — even the unsure, petty strength of a three-week stand, fragile and self-denying; we cannot suffer the wound administered by weakness — by weakness aware of its weakness and being nothing but weak.

It is said that the widow who was truly devoted to her husband is the one who has faith in marriage, believes in love, marries again. The unhappily married, unfulfilled man or woman, having his problem fantastically solved by a death he only dreamed of, must mourn forever — guiltily. regretfully, guiltily. He must even invent a justificatory bliss in the past. Gray-faced, always in mourning, his life is over.

No! cries the grief-stricken true lover when the time of sharpest bite is finished. This no is a yes to life. No, no, love is too important to pass out of my life by this accident. My dead lover tells me this: he wants me to have the best part of his legacy, and this is the power to give and take love. This widow or widower inspires love, deep and sensual love, at any age; and gives and takes it. A new sharing occurs on earth — the best gift which earth offers everyone in the democracy of blood.

May it not be, in the same way, that only the divorced couple who sometimes were truly happy and loving have the chance to find love again? The good divorce is that between two who have once loved each other. Justly they may pity the bad divorce — that of beings who have merely made mistakes, merely rectified mistakes, merely repeated old errors bred in the family. The bad divorce is the one of diminished decision: submission to a painful pattern, a deathly cure by living through the sins of the fathers. The good divorce dares to love again — as only the widow who was happy can dare to give up her fabricated memories.

Good luck! Let us divorce tenderly, and believe in each other forever.

Home Essay Examples Philosophy Virtue Ethics

Arguments For And Against Divorce: Virtue Ethics And Natural Law

• Category Philosophy
• Subcategory Ethics and Moral Philosophy
• Topic Virtue Ethics

People make decisions through every aspect of their life; they decide what to wear, what to eat and what to do. These decisions can either be good or bad. Decisions are based on a person’s morals and values. A person with skewed morals and values will more likely make bad decisions. A person does not need to have bad morals and values to make a bad decision, they could have made a mistake, or their mental health could have not been the best at the time. Ethics and conscience, conscience is “the awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one’s conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong,” help people make good decisions through them judging situations and having the understanding and feeling of what the right decision is. The definition of ethics is “the systematic, rational reflection on what we are to do and who we are to become. A search for principles and norms, decisions of right versus wrong, just, fair, qualities of character and actions which make us successful at being human.”

Divorce is the act of legally ending a marriage. Divorce is an issue in today’s world as it can be a stressful experience affecting finances, living arrangements, household jobs, schedules, parenting and affecting the children from the marriage. Divorce or parental separation is associated with these children having academic difficulties, e.g. dropping out of school and having lower grades. Disruptive behaviours have also been associated with divorce. Young people who have experienced the divorce of their parents have higher rates of emotional distress, lower self-esteem and depressed moods. These children are also more likely to experience educational failure, earlier marriage, divorce and poverty. Divorce also affects the lifestyle and the people personally; it causes stress and can cause setbacks and changes in lives. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the number of divorces granted increased by 2,428 (5.2%) in 2017 and the crude divorce rate increased from 1.9 divorces per 1,000 estimated resident population in 2016 to 2.0 divorces per 1,000 estimated resident population in 2017. The median age of divorce for both males and females were unchanged in 2017. For males the median age at divorce was 45.5 years of age and the median age of females was 42.9 years of age. The median duration from marriage to divorce in 2017 also remained stable at 12.0 years.

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

Arguments in support of divorce include where there has been wrongdoing within a marriage that cannot be forgiven by the person who was wronged. Examples of this include violence, addictions and infidelity. In these cases, if a person stays in a marriage they could be harmed. However, some couples fall out of love and choose to divorce. The fact that divorce has been legal in Australia for so long suggests that many people argue in support of divorce. The key to being successful in a family is to love and care for each other unconditionally and if something were to happen that would cause resentment, the family is not successful, which in turn make an unsuccessful human.

One of the opposing arguments for divorce is that God made marriage a sacrament and sacraments should not be broken. God made marriage to be a lifelong union and divorce breaks that. Another argument is that an individual has a family, it is best not to cause distress to the children and work through the problems. Finally, there is a reason the couple fell in love in the first place which is natural for humans, as we are social creatures, finding that attraction and love and using it to mend the marriage is another argument against divorce.

According to natural law divorce is wrong. Natural Law is the ethical framework of following human nature and letting things occur naturally. This is because the idea of going through with the divorce and breaking up a family is not a natural occurrence. A person following natural law would not get a divorce as they would believe that breaking up their family goes against nature, and they would try and work things out with their partner. The fact that divorce interferes in the relationship of marriage by putting the idea that a marriage will not last and will end in divorce into people’s heads. The statistics and in some cases, negativity concerning marriage tarnishes the idea that marriage will be everlasting. Natural law is mostly about following human nature and it is in human nature to fight and argue but also to forgive and makeup, divorce is not about forgiveness, so it is wrong according to natural law.

Virtue ethics is doing what is best for a person and their opinions are the right things to do for all people involved in the situation. If going through with a divorce is what is best for a person and those around them, then virtue ethics says divorce is right. However, if a person’s opinion does not match up with divorce and it is not best for them or those around them, then virtue ethics says divorce is wrong. These mindsets say that virtue ethics is both, for and against divorce as it regards how people involved will be affected by the issue. With virtue ethics every decision is based on an individual’s conscience and what is best for the people also affected.

To compare the two frameworks of natural law and virtue ethics, it could be said that their approaches to divorce are very similar. With the both of them doing what is best for those also involved in the situation. The only difference is that regarding virtue ethics, there is a more personal approach to situations. As to the ethical frameworks regarding divorce, they say that divorce is wrong, but virtue ethics can also say that divorce is right. Natural law requires following a form of the pre-determined ethical framework while virtue ethics allows an individual to make choices, although based on the idea of virtue.

The Catholic Church disagrees with divorce. The church has this position because marriage is sacred as it is a sacrament. The church also believes that divorce is morally wrong, ‘People naturally know what is right through the use of their intelligence. Reason and reflection. Moral wisdom to guide them in making choices and decisions.’ – the ten principles of catholic ethical behaviour. A bible reference that shows this is Matthew 19:6 “6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:6 is saying that two humans joined together in marriage are finally complete and are no longer two flesh but one and they cannot separate. The reference refers to God and his role in joining people together. The joining represents that God plays a role in everything and what happens, happens because God has a plan for us. A reference from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that explains the churches position is ‘2384 divorce is a grave offence against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognised by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:’ The reference is saying that divorce is a grave offence. The reference says that it is a grave offence because divorce breaks the contract of marriage, which was done in free will. It says that divorce injures the covenant of salvation, which is marriage. The Catechism also explains that even after remarrying, the spouse is then committing public and permanent adultery.

I think the argument that the Catholic Church and The Catechism present concerning that divorce is a grave offence and after divorce, a person is then committing public and permanent adultery, is what I find to be the least persuasive. I believe this because the separation between two parties is what they chose, and it is not what others think that counts. After a divorce, if a person chooses to have another relationship or remarry The Catechism says that they are committing adultery. Adultery is by definition a “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse”, they are no longer married so they are not committing adultery.

The most persuasive argument for divorce to me, a one from virtue ethics, is that if a person cannot find it in themselves to forgive their spouse for cheating. If they are truly hurt by the mistreatment they receive from their spouse, they do not need to forgive them, as it is what they value and how they feel.

According to virtue ethics my opinion would be dependent on what I was feeling and my opinions. I would also look to others for advice and work out how it would affect others.

We have 98 writers available online to start working on your essay just NOW!

Related Topics

Related essays.

By clicking "Send essay" you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

By clicking "Receive essay" you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

We can edit this one and make it plagiarism-free in no time

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Subscribe Now

[OPINION] On divorce and Filipino values

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

“Filipino values. Family values. But what do we really value? Life, safety, and sanity through divorce? Or that superficial image of a supposedly ideal marriage?”

Em Abuton is a mother of four girls who describes herself as a “staunchly pro-divorce advocate.” In a piece for Rappler , she minces no words for the “hypocrisy” of religious leaders. She takes them to task for advising couples to stay together despite domestic violence when, in fact, the clergy themselves are unmarried. She also believes the latter is unjust for denying the abused party – often the woman – “the right to be totally free from the abuser.” 

Like many other Filipinos, she’s upset that “Filipino” and “family” values have become a convenient excuse to neglect the welfare of abused women. And we have reason to believe she’s not alone.

Since 2005, public support for divorce legislation has been growing consistently. In fact, according to the latest data from SWS, 53% of Filipinos (as opposed to 32%) agree that “married couples who have already separated and cannot reconcile anymore should be allowed to divorce so they can get legally married again.” (I wrote about this trend in another piece: Is the Philippines ready for divorce? )

Spanish period

To this day, there’s no divorce law in the country except for Muslim Filipinos, who are covered by the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. For context, relative divorce or legal separation was allowed for Filipinos during the Spanish period. It was not until during the American occupation that the first civil divorce law, based on adultery or concubinage, was made possible. 

Marital dissolution was repealed, however, when the Philippines gained its independence, and the Civil Code had to be revised in 1950. In that revised version, legal separation replaced absolute divorce. As historians of that period observed, the move was prompted by strong resistance from the Catholic Church. In 1987, legal separation was retained in the Family Code under Executive Order 209 and remains in force. 

In the past three decades, renewed efforts have been made to legalize divorce in the country. A series of proposals were initiated in 1999 and then in 2001. Many others followed suit over the years, but none has been successful. In 2023, an unprecedented turn occurred when a Senate committee approved a consolidated measure. 

This, however, may have raised hopes too soon. Just last month, the Philippine senators’ counterparts in the House of Representatives sent their own divorce bill back to the original committee. Its primary author, Representative Edcel Lagman, “cried foul.” In his view, the move was only meant to “derail the proceedings.”

Delaying forces? House panel approves divorce bill, again

Marriage, a Filipino value?

What is also striking about Abuton’s piece is that it calls into question the repetitive claim that marriage is a Filipino value. But is it? 

The claim is not new. In the 1920s, when absolute divorce became the law of the land, Jose Lopez-Vito, Jr., a prominent lawyer, criticized the Supreme Court. In a piece published by the Philippine Law Journal, he disagreed with its conclusion that marital dissolution effectively repealed legal separation. In his view, the latter should have been retained because marriage was not only a sacred vow. “The sanctity of the family,” argued Lopez-Vito, Jr. “is one of the greatest prides of our race.” 

In 1960, Jorge Coquia, another prominent lawyer, castigated his women colleagues who participated in the convention of the Federacion Internacional de Abagadas (FIDA) in Manila. The women rallied behind FIDA’s resolution in favor of a standard divorce law worldwide. Published in another scholarly journal, here’s what he said: “The matter of absolute divorce has no place among the accepted mores, customs and family traditions of the Philippines…[and] is not consonance with the moral and religious convictions of Filipinos.”

Were these lawyers justified? 

From the perspective of the majority, one can argue that they were. In a way, their legal gravitas reinforced the Catholic Church’s position. As I mentioned above, the Catholic Church in the mid-20 th century appealed to the framers of the Civil Code in the name of the public. Writing around that time, Deogracias Reyes made the following observation: “The code reaffirms in many of its provisions the Filipino tradition of family solidarity, further strengthened by the Catholic faith of the people.”

No more majority

Can the same argument be made in 2024? 

According to the survey data I mentioned above, the majority of Filipinos are now in favor of a divorce law. This means the religious sector can no longer rely on the majority to rally behind it.

I think this explains why the religious resistance to marital dissolution now portrays it as a moral evil that threatens Filipino values. This is a different take altogether.

For my ongoing book project, I’m documenting how the religious rhetoric now portrays divorce as a moral evil because it destroys the Filipino family. And the family is what defines Filipinoness. This take is no longer majoritarian. Instead, what we have here is an essentialist argument. One priest has this to say: “Divorce is…anti-family, anti-marriage, and anti-children.”

It’s worth reiterating that in this worldview, the family is heteronormative. This explains why the religious community has fought tooth and nail over the SOGIE Equality Bill. From this vantage point, divorce and homosexuality are lumped together as facets of a “culture of death” that they believe threatens Philippine society.

Moral fortitude

Since divorce is a moral evil, the logical recourse is moral fortitude.

The religious discourse expresses this in different ways. Couples must fight for their marriage, rediscover their faith in God, be humble enough to admit their mistakes, forgive each other, and stick to one another for the sake of their children. 

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines makes a strong statement: “If you cannot keep the promise, do not make it [at] all. Do not claim its privileges while refusing to own up to its demands.”

I get that it’s a moral concern. But portraying divorce only as a moral evil sidetracks many other issues. 

Divorce, for example, is also a matter of mental health, as some scholars have rightly pointed out. One must also mention that legal separation does not allow parties to get married again. This means that their legal spouses may retaliate by charging them with adultery or concubinage if they enter into another relationship. This warning comes from no less than the Philippine Commission on Women. It also reminds the public that children born out of these new relationships are not considered legitimate. 

Divorce, I have no doubt, is a moral concern. Many Filipinos, after all, are still of the view that marriage is worth fighting for. 

But if this morality is tied to Filipino values (or Filipinoness), what does it ultimately make of those who suffer among us? Are they not Filipinos too?

I suppose one more question must be asked as our society debates divorce. Is it not Filipino too to “build a just and humane society”? 

It must be. It’s right there in the very first sentence of the Philippine Constitution. – Rappler.com

Jayeel Cornelio, PhD is a visiting scholar at the Center for Asian Democracy at the University of Louisville. On sabbatical from the Ateneo de Manila University, where he is Professor of Development Studies, he is working on his book on religion and politics in the Philippines. Follow him on X @jayeel_cornelio . 

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

Thanks to Prof. Jayeel Cornelio for his educational and enlightening ideas on Divorce. Most importantly, it relates to Filipino values and building a just and humane society. I eagerly wait for his following articles expounding on this relationship. I also wish he could work on the origin of the love of family as a value and how such value becomes one of the Filipino values. Again, thank you, Prof. Cornelio.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}, catholic church, after pulpit panels, boljoon moves to recover tabernacle sold at auction.

Fire engulfs 17th-century Isabela church during renovation

National Museum, Archdiocese of Cebu agree to prioritize conservation of panels

Pope Francis names Mindanaoan priest as 5th Filipino bishop in US

NAIA personnel who swallowed $300 to face ‘maximum penalties’ | The wRap

Villanueva: Divorce bill approval at committee level doesn’t guarantee passage

Divorce bill hurdles Senate committee level

Faith and Spirituality

[opinion] stop getting owned by apollo quiboloy.

[Judgment Call] Is Rappler an ‘enabler’ of Catholic ‘copycats’?

For Gazan refugees in Philippines, Ramadan is over but not their suffering

The marriage debate, in online sentiment and in statistics

Gay marriage case could bring gold rush to Indian wedding industry

How to avoid toxic perfectionism when planning a wedding

Korean singer SE7EN, actress Lee Da-hae to wed in May 

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

• Divorce Coach
• Decision Coach
• Legal Consultant
• How to Prepare for Mediation Online Program
• The Divorce Road Map 2.0 Online Program
• About Karen
• Find a Therapist
• Common Divorce Questions (FAQs)
• The Illinois Divorce Process
• Alimony in Illinois
• Illinois Family Law FAQs

Be Careful of What You Agree to: Understanding the Morality Clause in Your Divorce

Are You Ready for Divorce?

TAKE THIS QUIZ and Find Out. 

Minute Read

When you’re a divorcing parent, one of the issues you will likely face in your divorce is whether to include a “morality clause” in your divorce judgment . Depending on the state you’re divorcing in, you may also have to live with a morality clause while your divorce is going on. Understanding that clause, and defining it in your divorce, can have tremendous long-term consequences for both you and your kids.

What is a Morality Clause?

While there are many variations of that clause, a morality clause is essentially a provision in a divorce decree, or court order, that says that neither parent can have a romantic partner spend the night while the children are present.

There are also morality clauses that prohibit a parent from using drugs or alcohol while in the presence of the children.

Putting a morality clause in a divorce judgment is typically something that parents can decide to do (or not) at the end of their divorce. However, it’s also possible to put a morality clause in place while a divorce case is pending.  What’s more, some courts (like in Texas) have a standing order that imposes an automatic morality clause in every divorce.

If your divorce is filed in a court that has such a standing order, you must abide by the terms of the automatic morality clause for as long as your case is pending. It doesn’t matter whether you like or agree with that clause. You must do what the order states. Period.

Morality Clause Examples

There is no ONE “morality clause” that everyone everywhere uses. However, most of these clauses are fairly similar.  For example, they might say something like this.

Neither parent shall co-habitate with, or sleep overnight with, any person to whom that parent is not legally married and with whom that parent is involved in and intimate relationship, while the children are in that parent’s physical possession.

The clause may also specify the exact times that a parent’s “significant other” may not be at the home with the children. For example, the clause might state:

Both parents agree that no unrelated person with whom the parent is involved in an intimate and/or romantic relationship shall be present between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. when the children are in that parent’s physical care.

The exact wording of the clause can vary. But the idea behind them is always the same.

Why Have a Morality Clause?

Morality clauses were designed to protect children.

Preventing parents from having their new “significant other” spend the night while their children are around theoretically keeps children from being subjected to a “revolving door” of new boyfriends and girlfriends.

That’s especially helpful while a divorce is pending. Like everyone else, children need time to adjust to the new life they will have after their parents divorce.

Morality clauses also keep kids from having to deal with managing a “new family” before their “old family” has even dissolved.

For the most part, that makes a lot of sense. It especially makes sense in the beginning stages of divorce.

But, the longer a divorce drags on, the more challenging living with a morality clause becomes.

It’s one thing for a parent to say, “I won’t have anyone sleep over while the kids are here” when their divorce takes a few months. But when it drags on for a few years, maintaining a “no sleepover” rule becomes harder.

And having a morality clause included in a divorce judgment which will last long after your divorce is over can create serious problems for a divorced parent (and the kids!) long into the future.

Here’s how.

The Morality Clause in Action

A lesbian couple in Texas lived together for three years after she was divorced from her husband. Her children lived with her.

The woman’s ex-husband took her back to court in a custody dispute. When he did, he also sought to enforce the morality provision contained in the couple’s divorce decree.  He claimed that he was enforcing this provision “for the benefit of the children.”

The lesbian couple objected, stating that they were providing a stable, loving home for their children. What’s more, at that time, they couldn’t get legally married. So it was impossible for them to get out from under this clause in the divorce decree.

Ultimately, the judge enforced the provision. He gave the ex-wife’s paramour 30 days to move out of the home they shared with the children.

Should You Have a Morality Clause in Your Divorce Judgment?

Over the years, I’ve had many clients, or their spouses, insist on putting a morality clause in their divorce judgment. The reason always boils down to some variation of: “Its in the children’s best interest.”

But, is it?

What happens three or five or ten years after your divorce is over when you’re in a serious relationship with someone new? Do you make him/her leave at 9:00pm, only to sneak back into the house once the kids are asleep - then leave before they get up? Or do you marry that person just so that s/he can spend the night with you?

Neither one of those options seems particularly enticing.

Or, what if you are planning to get married, but your fiancé sells his or her house two months before the wedding and has nowhere to go? Is your fiancé supposed to get a two month lease somewhere and move twice when, in a few months, your children are going to see you living together anyway?

What if both you and your fiancé have children and you want to try spending a few weekends together as a blended family before you get married?  Doing that will help you discover and address any issues your kids might have before you throw them together into a permanent blended family. But abiding by a morality clause will make testing the waters like that impossible.

What do you do if you and your boyfriend/girlfriend/fiancé want to go on vacation together with the kids? Requiring the two of you to sleep in separate rooms will add a whole layer of extra expense to your trip. It also won’t make your vacation much of a getaway for you.

The Problem With Morality Clauses

The problem with a morality clauses is that life changes. They don’t.

Enforcing these clauses is also both tricky and troublesome.

That’s because, most of the time, the only witness to the violation of the clause is your kids. So taking your ex to task over violating the morality clause in your divorce decree usually means you’re going to have to put your kids on the witness stand to testify against him/her.

Is that what you really want to do? Is testifying against a parent REALLY in your kids’ best interest?

Another problem with enforcing these kinds of provisions is that they put the judge in an extremely difficult position. Most judges don’t want to know who your ex is sleeping with. They don’t care.

They don’t like putting kids on the witness stand. And they hate putting kids in the position of having to testify against one parent or the other, unless the kids are in grave danger.

Finally, judges are often reluctant to insert themselves unnecessarily into a family situation that may be working well in every way except this one.

Put in another way, courts weren’t created to enforce morality. They were created to enforce laws.

On the other hand, judges don’t appreciate people ignoring their court orders, either.

If you agreed to put a morality clause in your judgment, and you signed off on it, you can’t expect to get a lot of sympathy from the judge when you discover later that it is affecting your life in ways you never dreamed about.

So, what happens when the morality in clause in your divorce judgment comes back to haunt you? That depends on where you live, and what judge you find yourself in front of.

Some judges will enforce these provisions. Others will not.

If a judge does hold that you can’t have your romantic partner spend the night unless you get married, your choices are pretty simple. You get married. You risk losing your kids. Or, you sleep alone. Those are your only choices.

So, do yourself a favor now.

Before you agree to have a morality clause in your judgment, think long and hard about whether that’s something you really want, and are willing to live with  long term.

This was originally posted in May, 2013 and updated on July 23, 2022.

Karen Covy is a Divorce Coach, Lawyer, Mediator, Author, and Speaker. She coaches high net worth professionals and successful business owners to make hard decisions about their marriage with confidence, and to navigate divorce with dignity.  She speaks and writes about decision-making, divorce, and living life on your terms. To connect with Karen and discover how she can help you, CLICK HERE.

divorce blog, morality clause, parenting after divorce, parenting issues

You may also like

How to know if you’re quiet quitting your marriage, 10 signs you’re in a loveless marriage – and what to do about it, how to create a trial separation that doesn’t suck.

Awsome site! I am loving it!! Will come back again. I am taking your feeds also.

Hello there! Do you use Twitter? I’d like to follow you if that would be ok. I’m definitely enjoying your blog and look forward to new updates.

I will be active on Twitter soon. Stay tuned!

Just click on the RSS feed.

I truly enjoyed reading your blog, I find the morality clause like you said to be something that you should truly think about before signing the document. I am a lesbian and my partner and I have be raising my two year old from my previous marriage for almost two years. Our home for my son is filled with nothing but love, guidance and structure for him. My ex disagrees, called our son a name that i care not to repeat, yesterday and he’s trying to threaten me by saying that he will add a morality clause to where I can not have any overnight guest, unless married and he made the comment saying.. You know Texas doesnt recognize or allow same sex marriage, so he’s basically doing it out of spite because he’s still bitter. My question is, can he go back to court and add a morality clause and have it enforced just because?

The laws in every state are different, so you would have to check with a Texas lawyer. What it sounds like your ex is threatening to do is to take you back to court and claim that what you are doing is not in your son’s best interest. If your ex is really that bitter, I would definitely take his threat seriously. Its worth your time and money to spend an hour talking with a good family lawyer in your area to find out what your ex realistically can and can not do. If you learn that, under Texas law, he can’t go back to court on this issue, you will have gained some peace of mind. On the other hand, if it turns out that he actually could take you back to court, you will find that out, too. That might not be great news, but at least you will know exactly what you are facing. The lawyer may also be able to give you some specific advice on what you can do now so that, even if your ex does take you back to court, he won’t be successful. Finally (and I know this is probably a long shot), I would see if your ex would agree to go to counseling with you so that the two of you could set some ground rules for dealing with each other over issues arising with your son. Going back to court will not be good for your son…or either of you. If your ex truly has concerns about your son’s well being, then talking through those concerns in counseling can help both of you address them in a more constructive way than by fighting about them. If your ex is just using this issue as a way to get back at you because he is bitter, a good counselor should be able to figure that out and help him deal with the real issue.

Thank you for the post. Can a morality clause only be inserted into divorce decrees with the approval of both parties, or can they be inserted unilaterally by a judge? Is this true in every state? I would be particularly concerned if the approval of both parties is not needed.

Typically, morality clauses must be agreed to by both parties. I have never had a judge unilaterally insert such a clause into a divorce judgment in any case in which I have been involved. I don’t think the judge can unilaterally insert such a clause into a divorce judgment under Illinois law. The truth is that these clauses are very difficult to enforce and judges usually aren’t too crazy about them. While I can’t answer this question for every state, I would be very surprised if other states allow a judge to unilaterally insert a morality clause into a judgment absent the parties’ consent. If this is an issue for you, I suggest you ask this question of a lawyer in your jurisdiction, just to be on the safe side.

Hi there! Great article!

I had my JPA finalized in November 2013. In it we have a no paramour clause. I am now 24 weeks pregnant by my boyfriend (who lives 6.5 hours away). We have been together over 2 years. I didn’t allow him to meet her until over a year of him and I dating. He is trying to find a job down here in his field. He will not be living with me until we get married (we do not have a set date). The plan is to have him move down here as soon as possible, which will allow for more time for him & my 6 year old daughter to bond, and get married eventually. However, with the baby coming I have questions on him spending the night. In the unfortunate event I have health issues arise or my unborn child, is there an exception to the rule. I should also state that I have zero family in my area. I would love some advice on what to do if I need him a night that I have my daughter? Our paramour clause states “neither parent shall have his or her boyfriend or girlfriend spend the night while in her presence”. Any help or direction would be appreciated! Thank you kindly, Misty

Great question! It highlights one of the problems that can arise when you have this kind of a clause in your Parenting Agreement. And you are very wise to be thinking about this NOW, before you are in a bind and don’t know what you can or can not do. Unfortunately, because the law in this area can be quite complex, and because divorce laws vary form state to state, I can’t give you legal advice online. But I would suggest that you do 2 things: 1) talk to your ex about the situation. If, as parents, the two of you agree that there will be certain exceptions to your “no paramour” clause (and you would have to decide exactly what those exceptions would be) you may be able to modify your JPA to accommodate your new circumstances; and 2) talk to an attorney in your area who is familiar with the laws of your state and can read your entire JPA and advise you about your options. Many attorneys will give you a free consultation and, since you are only asking them about one issue, your consultation should be relatively short.

All the best. Karen

What time is considered spending the night? Is there a time? Or is it just stated “no overnight stay?”

It depends on what your divorce documents say. Some divorce judgments spell out the times exactly (i.e. from 10pm to 6am.) Others don’t. Those are open to a judge’s interpretation. While I can’t say what a judge in your jurisdiction would do, “spending the night” generally means what it says: that someone stays overnight. If that person leaves at 6am, did s/he spend the night? Probably, yes. If that person left at 2am, did they “spend the night?” That is harder to say. You need to check with an attorney in your area to see how your judge would likely interpret the morality clause in your case.

Exceptionally great post. I completely enjoy this web page. Commence the Excellent energy!

My husband and I separated in early 2016 but in Virginia, the state where I still reside, couples with children cannot file for divorce until 12 months have elapsed. He moved to another state more than 600 miles away and we are struggling to work out the details of our separation agreement so that we’ll have most things decided ahead of the actual filing. I have made all of the mortgage payments and covered repair and maintenance costs out of my own wallet since we separated. My ex is now saying he wants to add a morality clause to our separation agreement so that no one else may live in the house until his share of equity is paid. I feel this is an unreasonable request and is being done only because I have started seeing someone and he has not found a new relationship. What other arguments can I make against its inclusion?

You’re probably right. Since you’re now in a new relationship, your husband wants to make sure that he controls what happens when you’re with the kids. The bigger question is: what can you do about it?

I have no idea how the judges in Virginia feel about including a morality clause in your divorce judgment. That is definitely a question to ask your lawyer. If the judge won’t order you to include it (and judges in many places won’t force you to include this kind of clause in your divorce papers) then you can simply tell your husband that you disagree with him. You can just say “No, I won’t include a morality clause in our divorce.” If the clause is really that important to you, he can fight about it in court. Obviously this is risky. It may cause a fight. But, it may also call his bluff, if in fact he just wants this, but isn’t willing to go to the mat over it.

You can also negotiate this. What does your husband want? Perhaps you trade. You give him something he wants and he backs off on the morality clause.

If your husband is reasonably self-aware and reflective, you might ask him whether the reason he is doing this is really for the kids, or whether he’s just hurt and wants to control you? I can tell you that if he is asking that no one else live in the house until his share of the equity is paid, that has nothing to do with what’s best for your kids. It has everything to do with his ego.

The last argument you can make is a financial one. If you rented a room in your house, or shared expenses with someone, you would have better cash flow. You would then be able to pay off his equity faster.

I’m not sure whether these arguments will work. But, it’s definitely worth a try!

i have a friend that put in a morality clause thats been divorced for 15yrs now she met someone that she truly loves and wants a life with but the clause is keeping them apart from 10p to 6am can she get it removed without her ex husband agreeing to it.

If her ex husband doesn’t agree, she’ll have to go back to court to take it out. She should talk to a lawyer in her area about it. Although, if she’s been divorced for 15 years, that means that her kids are at least 15 years old, so it really might not be that big of an issue any more. It would be worth her time and money to check with a local lawyer on this.

Me and my wife of 8 years have been separated for over 6 months, and haven’t been together since 8 months ago. And are in the final stages of the divorce paperwork. She wants to put a morality clause in the decree, but I don’t want to feel like I have to marry my next partner just we can live together. I’ve actually been dating a new partner for the last 4 months, and we are extremely happy. Not to mention my 2 children love her and she loves them. My ex also as moved on and gotten a new partner as well so it’s not just me moving on. My question is if my new partner moves in before I sign the paperwork with the morality clause in it. Will is still be in effect, or will it be “grand-fathered” in since she was living with me before the paperwork was final. We both live in Georgia.

You’re going to have to ask a Georgia lawyer that question. But, please, ask your lawyer soon! The last thing you want is to have to kick your new girlfriend out as soon as your divorce is final, just because you left a morality clause in the paperwork!

Good luck! Karen

I had to have a morals clause added into the divorce decree so my kids’ mother would not be moving with my kids from one house to another and back. My question about the morality clause concerns adult siblings. My ex step daughter (ex wife’s daughter from previous marriage) still lives with her mom as she just graduated college and is just starting out in her new career. She has been having boyfriends (with her mother in full knowledge of) stay the night since shortly after our divorce 8 years ago. My kids are fully aware that their sister is not married, but boyfriends are allowed to sleep in her bed all the time. Is this governed by the morals clause?

I can’t say for sure without seeing what was written in your divorce decree,

You have to look at what the morals clause in your divorce decree specifically says. If it says it applies to the sister, it does. If it doesn’t say it applies to the sister, then chances are it probably doesn’t. To be sure, though, you should bring your divorce decree to an attorney in your area and get his/her opinion.

I have a question. My son has this clause in his decree it states that a romantic interest can not reside in the home between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. However does this mean if they are alone with the children. When he has his two daughters we are all together. His girlfriend does not stay the night with him she always stays with me as she lives more than an hour away. So my question is if we are all together as a family until past 8 pm is that a violation? Also does this include birthdays and holidays when we have extened family and friends over. They are not alone in the home with the children. We are a very close family and his exwife causes issues with us over this. We can have them all at our home but the girls like being back at their home which is the home they have always known and they enjoy their rooms and toys. Thank You!

Okay, this is tough. What your son can and can’t do depends on what his divorce decree states. Because I haven’t read that decree, and I’m only licensed to practice law in Illinois, I can’t give you legal advice about what is or is not a violation of his divorce decree. (Sorry.) You’ll have to check with a lawyer in your state about that one.

In general, though, the purpose of these clauses is supposed to be to protect the kids from being exposed to certain things. So, it makes no sense to me that having the whole family over past 8pm would be a problem. That’s not the kind of conduct these clauses were supposed to prohibit. But, again, I can’t tell you that with any certainty because I just don’t know.

Since this is obviously affecting your family, I would suggest that your son first go to a good divorce attorney in your area and get his/her opinion on all the ways this would or wouldn’t hold up in court. Ask the lawyer what the likelihood of getting this changed in court would be. Ask the lawyer how this clause would likely be interpreted. What, exactly, does “reside” mean? (I know this seems picky. But that’s what lawyers do. We analyze every word.) Also ask the lawyer exactly what kinds of things would violate this provision? Do judges in your area tend to enforce these provisions or not?

Paying a lawyer to get this kind of clarity will be the best money you ever spent. (It’s also way better than going back to court and fighting right from the start.) Then you will have a way better idea of what your son can and cannot do.

Hope that helps.

My daughter and her baby daddy never married but they separated when their son was about 4 months old. My daughter now has a boyfriend and they have been talking about moving in together – the baby. There is no morality clause in their parenting agreement but could he take her back to court on moral grounds if they do move in together?

This is America. Anyone can take anyone else to court for a whole lot of things. The more important question is: if he takes her back to court, will he win?

The answer depends on the law of your state and the culture of the court house in the area you live in. I suggest you talk to a divorce lawyer in your area. S/he will be able to answer that question the best for you.

PS I know this may not be what you want to hear, but if your daughter marries her boyfriend, this problem goes away.

So I have a question I am in a relationship with someone that was divoreced a little over a year ago and her ex husband and her didnt have a morality clause in there divorce but he is try to threaten her with filing for one even though there is nothing to substantiate his believe and late has just been doing thing to harass her and cause problems because he’s not getting his way. What can I do if anything can be done.

In order to know whether he has any realistic chance of amending his divorce papers to add a morality clause, you would need to talk to an attorney in your area. Usually, it’s more difficult to add that kind of a clause after the fact, but a lot will depend upon the law in the state you live in and the culture of the courts/judges in your area.

Hi, in this wording how would you interpret “presence”? Would that be in the same house. Or same room? Wondering if i could live with my longtime girlfriend and she just not be in the same room or visually see the child between the specified hours. Or does that mean the entire house? And so then do i need to go back to court to get this changed to be able to live together? Thanks for all the advice you have given! After a divorce is granted, or if the parties were not married, both parties are restrained from having the child on an overnight basis in the presence of an adult party with whom they have a romantic interest or sexual interest. Overnight is defined as from the hours of 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. the following morning.

You’re trying to draw really fine legal distinctions here. Whether those distinctions would ever hold up depends upon what the judge in your case would say. It also depends on the law in your state. I’m afraid you need to consult with an attorney in your area to get an answer to these questions. Sorry.

I like your article. I got divorced 10yrs ago and have the morality clause. I want to move into a live in with my bf. We have been in relationship for 5 yrs. he stays at my place and his and my kids love each other My ex is aware but objects and threaten of court action. I want to inform my ex about moving in with my bf and then talk to my kids but I’m scared that he will bring in the morality clause My ex is purely evil is there anyway I can protect myself. I donot want to get married under pressure. Pls advice

I’m so sorry. Unfortunately, if you have a morality clause in your judgment your only options are:

1. Go to court and get it changed. (Be sure to check with an attorney in your area to find out if this is possible, and what you’d have to do to make it happen. It depends on the law in your state.) 2. Marry your bf. 3. Don’t move in with your bf.

Violating a court order is NOT an option. (Sorry!)

I wish I had better things to say. But those are your only realistic options.

Can I add a morality clause now? We’re divorced apx 4 months now, but my ex is refusing to have alone weekends with his children. In the short time we’ve been divorced he immediately introduced the kids to his long time and MARRIED girlfriend, because she’s polyamorous. Ex has only had 2 weekends alone with the kids. Now the married gf, that has a child of her own but never sees, because she’s living part time with my ex, will be there every weekend he’s supposed to have the kids.

We have 10 kids together and most of the kids themselves refuse to visit him because of her. I’m trying to protect the youngest kids who have little to no voice in the matter.

I know this could affect me later on, but I respect the kids and their wishes. He’s selfish and only thinks of himself.

I would like to have the kids know their father without being parented by another woman who can’t even stand to live with her own child.

It may be possible to add a morality clause in your paperwork now, but that depends on a lot of different things, including the law in the state you live in. Doing that will also probably require you to go back to court, and spend a lot of money in attorney’s fees in the process.

I can totally understand your desire for the kids to know their father alone, but, with all due respect, that’s not something you can control. Even if you end up getting the morality clause you want, all that means is that the other woman couldn’t spend the night with your ex while the kids are there. It doesn’t mean she couldn’t spend every waking hour with them.

IF you’re really interested in adding a morality clause into your divorce judgment, you need to talk with an attorney in your area about that. Although, the bigger issue seems to be your kids’ relationship (or lack thereof) with their father. For that, a family therapist would be the most helpful.

If I moved out 5 months ago and have apposite gender roommate and now I decided to file for divorce but my still husband wanting to do Morality Clause, will my roommate has to move out? and For how long that clause will be on? If I cannot afford place all myself and not able to find female roommate yet who will be agree share with me and my 3 kids. As long I already have my roommate for 5 months and kids are pretty comfortable with him , will it change anything or no matter what one of us have to move out?

I’m afraid you’re asking legal questions I can’t answer online. You’ll have to ask a good divorce lawyer in your area. Sorry.

Is this forum still active because i am jus needing advice

What if You Could Get Exclusive Content, Stories, and Tips Delivered Right to Your Inbox for FREE every week?

[not convinced you want to be on one more email list i get it., here's why this list is different].

"I read every word you put on line and listen to all your podcasts and encourage you to keep up the good work you are doing. I wish I had known about you in the early stages of my divorce as it would have saved me a lot of hell. I have referred numerous friends who are in various stages of going through “divorceland” to your articles. The attorneys do not cover what you do, and in order to lessen the pain your approach is really helpful."

Don't Miss Out. Subscribe Now.

Session expired

Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.