We will write a custom Research Paper on Ethics of Divorce: Deontology and Utilitarianism specifically for you
301 certified writers online
While couples subscribe to the religious moral perspective of remaining married until death separates them, cases of divorce and adultery commonplace. Where could have people gone wrong? Are they becoming more unethical in their decision-making process on matters of marriage? These two questions are intriguing while analyzing the social fabric of marriage. Therefore, the paper finds the topic on ethics and divorce incredibly important since it may help in establishing a paradigm of influencing people’s decision-making processes on matters of divorce. This paper’s findings will help in building more healthy and long-term marriage relationships, which are conducive for growth and development of children. Before analyzing the ethics of divorce, the paper first introduces the subject of ethics followed by the theme of divorce in the contemporary societal settings.
Divorce constitutes a legal or criminal action that takes place between married people who seek to dissolve a marriage relationship. It terminates marriage before the death of either party. As Mohd asserts, in the process of terminating the marriage, laws that are applicable to a given jurisdiction are applied following the sanction by a court of law or upon the application of any legal process.1 Concerning divorce, issues of child maintenance and support, parenting time, and property distribution and sharing may have to be considered. The couple may also have to share debt and gain permission to remarry. However, some nations do not permit divorce. Such nations include Vatican City and Philippines. Others have just recently made divorce a legal move. For example, Malta legalized divorce in 2011 while Chile endorsed it in 2004.
For some couples, divorce comprises a stressful experience that influences their finances, schedule, and parenting roles. It also influences their living arrangements and children life outcomes. According to Rappaport, children of divorced parents may also fail to grow or progress through their developmental stages when compared to other children for non-divorced parents.2 This finding suggests that divorce costs both the couple filing it and the children who comprise an important stakeholder in the decision to dissolve a marriage. However, amid the costs, some situations that lead to divorce may be costly to one or both partners and the children. A good example of such situation is domestic violence or domestic battering.
Domestic abuse or violence involves the expression of certain patterns of behaviors that are abusive towards one’s partner in a relationship that involves marriage, cohabitation, dating, or a familial affair. As Mogford observes, domestic violence is acerbated in a number of ways, including physical attack, emotional maltreatment, sexual exploitation, economic deficiency, domineering, and threats among other forms of personal oppressions.3
However, it is not constrained to actions entailing physical and emotional abuse. It also implies criminal coercion, illegitimate incarceration, and kidnapping. Considering these ways of acerbating domestic violence, the question of whether reasonable and a morally thinking person may undertake such actions emerges. Should one continue clinging on abuse marriage in avoidance of costs of divorce?
Domestic violence, which is the root of divorce, is meant to acquire total control of a person. To achieve this goal, abusers deploy tactics of instilling fear, shame, and guilt coupled with intimidation to wear down their targets physically and emotionally.4 In this sense, the abusers impede the ability of their targets to reason rationally and/or exercise self-control as one of the important areas of focus in ethics. One of the fundamental characteristic of domestic violence is that it does not discriminate various people in the society. It occurs among heterosexual partners, homosexual partners, and among people of various ages, different economic status, and even across all ethnic backgrounds as Awang and Hariharan confirm.5 Therefore, it remains a leading cause of divorce.
Women are found to be the major victims of domestic violence while men also are abused in other situations, especially emotionally or verbally while not negating physically in some instances. Nevertheless, whatever the source of domestic violence, the behavior is very unacceptable within a society. Unfortunately, domestic violence is still prevalent among various societies. It continues to influence divorce decisions. Consequently, in analyzing ethics of divorce, it is also important to discuss the morals behind its causes such as domestic violence so that a decision to take divorce is informed by balancing the cost and benefits of the divorce and its causes.
Ethics recommends certain ways of doing things that are acceptable at individual and societal levels. It refers to standards of behaviors. According to Lafollette, it involves assessing individual values, having knowledge on some common principles, and individual standards.6 It also entails the development of the capability to make well-informed choices and the realization of the impacts of the choices made in the short and long-term basis. Where the choices result in unjustified repercussions that may harm another person or individual’s achievement of pre-set standards of conduct, codes of ethics recommend such persons to take the responsibility of the aftermaths of their choices.
While selecting an appropriate course of action that may be considered ethically right, people may apply different schools of thought that prescribe both ethical and moral principles. One theoretical school of thought, namely the utilitarianism, holds that all conducts of people in the larger society must guarantee the most favorable gain to the larger number of people.7
Therefore, actions are ethically right if all people who are likely to be influenced by the consequences gain the greatest good. Hence, actions are ethically justified if they have the capacity to result in the greatest happiness among all people. Natural laws that are applicable within a given nation may also help in influencing people’s actions. Therefore, people may utilize the laws in making decisions that influence individual actions based on what is permissible and/or not tolerable under the doctrine.
Bentham Jeremy first developed the utilitarian ethical perspective in the 18th century. Later, Stuart Mill refined it. According to Ketz, it postulates that citizens need to look far beyond their individual gains and interests in the effort to enhance maximum good for all people who are likely to be influenced by their actions.8 In the context of divorce, it emphasizes the significance of evaluating divorce decisions to ensure that they do not harm parties through the consequences of the decisions made.
The utilitarian ethical perspective is perhaps more important while making divorce decisions that involve marriage and children. One partner can tempt the children to justify a divorce decision without considering the implications of the decision. From the ethical perspective, people have an ethical responsibility to consider the susceptibility of other parties to negative implications of their decisions. The perspective maintains that the best way of determining the appropriateness of an action is through the assessment of the benefits and its costs.
Hence, it becomes possible to determine, the actions that are right or wrong. Lafollette supports this argument by claiming that the utilitarian principle maintains that actions are right when the sum of results of the action is higher in comparison with the sum of the results of other alternative actions.9 This theory underlines the principle of act utilitarian. The principle states that people need to select an action from a set of possible actions that result in overall good for the largest number of people.10
Ethics of divorce may also be analyzed from the context of deontology. Alternatively called the rule and duty or natural law, the deontological school of thought is associated with Immanuel Kant. It argues that complying with the right set of rules and guidelines stands out as a better mechanism for determining the appropriate course of action, as opposed to over-relying on achieving the most desired impacts. Hence, ethical actions originate from accomplishing one’s duty, which is defined by rationality in the evaluation of the action. With reference to Kant’s arguments, duties are universal and owed to all people. Divorce decisions are appropriate upon the evaluation and universalization of actions to guarantee equality among all people likely to suffer because of the divorce.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
Machiavellian point of view comprises an important ethical perspective, which may help in evaluating and analyzing the moral values of divorce decisions. Singhapakdi asserts that Machiavellianism constitutes the personality orientation that is defined as any general strategy embraced while handling people, particularly the degree to which one believes that people will be manipulated in situations of interpersonal relationships.11 The ethical perspective originated from Machiavelli’s works titled The Prince and The Discourses.
From the context of Machiavellianism, compliance with ethical behaviors requires manipulation and influence. Hence, ethical divorce decisions can only come from the need to fulfill some established set of rules and regulations, which influence married people to adopt certain behaviors, which secure the marriage relationship in the long-term. In this context, couples base their decision-making processes on forces that compel them to act in a given way. These forces are extrinsic from the personality of the parties to a marriage.
Machiavellians aim at achieving a certain goal without necessarily getting emotionally involved in the outcomes of one’s acts on another party. Thus, ethical decisions are realized following the Machiavellian perspective subject to the existence of influencing factors such as values, knowledge, and attitudes as Jones and Paulhus assert.12 Hence, decisions are ethical if they do not violate these interacting factors with individuals who make divorce decisions. In the case of divorce, such compelling forces may emanate from religious values, moral ideals, and cultural principles among other guidelines that preserve the institution of marriage from collapsing.
Ethics of Divorce
The field of marriage is undergoing tremendous changes. Under Christian theology, divorce is seen as an unethical practice, unless where some special circumstances apply. For example, Kubai recognizes the Book of Mathew, which permits divorce under circumstances of adultery.13 Nevertheless, people continue to engage in multiple relationships as different nations recognize in their laws the sexual rights for all people. An important question arises concerning whether people should choose out of their own free will to divorce and/or engage in another relationship with another person simply because they have the right to choose who to marry or when to terminate the relationship.
In the discussion of the concept of ethics and divorce, it emerges that the question of when a couple should take a divorce or not attracts a scholarly dilemma. This dilemma emerges from the difficulties in justifying it based on different ethical schools of thought. According to Sandel, “some moral dilemmas arise from conflicting moral principles”.14 This approach is perhaps the case, considering that the causes of a decision to take divorce such as domestic violence also poses an ethical question on the appropriateness of behaviors that lead to abusing one’s partner in marriage. In this section, the paper argues that the ethicalness of divorce depends on the circumstances that lead to it and its costs to stakeholders who suffer because of the divorce decisions.
When analyzed from the utilitarian ethical perspective, divorce is inappropriate. It exerts costs on children and in some circumstances the divorcing couples. However, Strong, DeVault, and Cohen report the increasing cases of divorce in churches, an issue which is now touching on the clergy, who supposedly offer guidance on how avoid it.15 The phenomenon emerges as a direct contrast to an African traditional understanding of marriage. Indeed, Zartler, Heinz-Martin, and Arránz claim that the doctrine of marriage was and is still a rite of passage in African traditional settings.16 All normal people were expected to undergo it as part of life in an attempt to guarantee continuity of kinship. Marriage is an issue of concern not only to the couples but also to the society.
Consequently, marriage needs to remain intact for societies in the African traditional settings to remain stable and consistent with the societal values and norms.17 However, as Sandel puts it, “A moral reflection (about divorce) arises naturally from an encounter with a hard moral question (about marriage”.18 Hence, the increasing cases of divorce across the globe are inconsistent with traditional values and norms of different societies. Where such values and norms form the basis of ethical decision-making, according to Machiavellian ethical perspective, such forces clearly indicate that a decision to take a divorce is unethical.
From a religious perspective, divorce is less welcomed by religious teachings. For example, in the Christianity theology, the Bible provides an understanding of the issue of divorce. For example, the book of genesis establishes the intention of God in the institution of marriage. Jesus Christ noted that an understanding of relationships that should exist between men and their wives should be interpreted with reference to Genesis chapters 1 and 2.19
The Book of Genesis chapter 2 verses 18 to 24 offers an in-depth analysis of the relationships that exit between a man and woman. According to the verses, when God created man, he (the man) named all birds of the air and the beasts, and everything else that God had created. Unfortunately, these creations could not form a good companion for the man. Hence, God made him to fall in deep sleep.
He took one of his ribs. God then proceeded to make a woman from the rib. When the man saw the woman, he declared the creature a part of his flesh.20 For this reason, the book of Genesis states that men will have to depart their parents to bond with wives as one flesh. This kind of union implies that the two different entities become inseparable upon marriage. In this sense, divorce is not only unjustified under the Christian religious theology based on the teachings of the book of Genesis but also unethical.
The question on the ethicalness of divorce based on values and norms that influence one’s decision-making process is intriguing. This challenge is enormous to the extent that Christian religious teachings offer situations in which the morals of the book of Genesis may not imply. For example, the book of Deuteronomy provides a guideline on when couples should consider taking a divorce. Deuteronomy 24 verse 1 to 14 notes that when a man issues a divorce certificate to a woman upon finding displeasing issues in her, thus sending her out of his house, in case she marries another man who does likewise, then the first man should not remarry her. This observation indicates the permission for divorce, but prohibition of remarrying a partner that one had already divorced.
Under the Christian religious theology, ethical issues in marriage and divorce emerge from interpretation of the phrase, ‘realizing something offensive in a spouse.’ For example, teachers who followed the interpretation of Rabbi Shammai understood the phrase to mean that a wife would be divorced on grounds of adultery.21 However, people who followed Hillel’s interpretations of the phrase approved divorce on the ground of some trivial offenses, including wife’s habit of over-salting food or in case one discovered more appealing women.
The different understanding and interpretation of the ventilations for divorce provided in the book of Deuteronomy gives rise to various multiple grounds for authenticating divorce as an ethical conduct under the Christian theology. However, if divorce would be granted based on Hillel’s interpretations, then no marriage would stand. When should one consider divorce and justify it as an ethical decision under the Christian religious teachings?
From the teachings of Jesus Christ, there is no suitable time when one should consider divorce as an ethical decision. The arguments in the books of Mark and Mathew indicate a clear objection to divorce, irrespective of the circumstances facing married people. For example, in Mark Chapter 10 verse 1 to 12, Jesus provides no room for divorce. In Mathew chapter 19 verses 1 to 12, the teachings of Jesus Christ forbid divorce.
This prohibition is further noted in Mathew Chapter 5 verses 27 to 32 when Jesus confirmed that God prohibited divorce when He commanded that people should not engage in adulterous acts.22 However, Mathew Chapter 19 verse 32 and Mathew Chapter 19 verse 9 provide an exception to the prohibition by limiting divorce to situations of sexual unfaithfulness. According to the Bible, the only other exception provided in the book of Corinthians Chapter 7 verse 15 is when a pagan partner insists to divorce.
Unlike in Christianity, Islamic religious teachings provide a clearer understanding of when it is ethical to divorce. After a marriage is solemnized under Islam, a man may dissolve the marriage in case problems and challenges in the marriage arise. According to Mohd, Islam condemns Talaq together with divorce.23 On issues of Talaq-Ul-Biddat, it is critical to note that Biddat means disapproval or an undesirable act.
Under Islam, when problems emerge in a marriage, the couple needs to consider reconciliation first with the help of family members. In case the couple considers peace, Allah can cause the reconciliation to occur. Therefore, under Islam and Christian religious teachings, the institution of marriage is highly valued. Parties to it are not permitted to consider quitting at will or simply pronouncing the word Talaq three times.
Even after considering divorce from a religious perspective, amid its prohibition, divorce still occurs at increasing rates as Strong, DeVault, and Cohen confirm.24 Therefore, it is important to turn to ethical issues in divorce from other contemporary schools of thought. The issues can be discussed from the basis of unilateral divorce or bilateral separation. According to Rappaport, under bilateral divorce arrangements, both parties to marriage come to a consensus that divorce entails the best decision for everyone involved, including children.25
Where children are likely to face negative consequences, arrangements are made for parenting time and children support. Under the unilateral marriage dissolution, one party initiates the process of divorce, as opposed to the wish of the other partner. This process may occur in the event of one partner engaging in adultery. Besides, under the unilateral divorce, one partner may seek divorce in search of romantic sexual relationships with other people, as opposed to clinging on marriage while engaging in adultery. Each of these situations attracts different ethical considerations.
From deontological school of thought, it is unethical to divorce. Deontologists will argue that divorce violates the vows made during marriage that one would remain married to a partner at all cost. What then should violate this duty? From a deontological school of thought, irrespective of the consequences of not divorcing, the obligation to respect promises made to the partner makes divorce unethical. However, this assertion may be challenged by circumstances that lead to the consideration of divorce such as domestic violence.
Reasoning from the perspective that any action constitutes an immoral or unethical act if it denies general good to other people (utilitarianism school of thought), research provides the evidence that domestic violence influences children negatively as Kitzmann et al. confirm.26 The researchers conducted a meta-analysis study involving 118 studies on psychosocial implications for exposing children to domestic violence. The research indicated a relationship between psychological problems in children and exposure to domestic violence. Another group of comparative studies indicated that witnessing violence produced severe psychological problems in comparison with non-witnessing.
Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, and Kenny’s findings raise a question concerning the most unethical and immoral domestic violence.27 Any ethical act, which the most reasonable person would do, must not have negative consequences. Put differently, Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, and Kenny’s research tends to imply that if domestic violence is acerbated without children witnessing it, then it has lesser negative psychological consequences. Thus, it is less harmful and better than in a situation where children witness divorce happening.
Considering a subjective test based on whether the action is right or wrong, critical thinkers would contend that divorce is not right since it has negative implications to children. Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, and Kenny would perhaps respond that its degree of wrongness depends on the context of its execution. Domestic violence is one of the key antecedents while pushing for a divorce.28 It has negative implications to children and the abused partner. Should the deontological argument that divorce is unethical due to the need to respect and keep marriage vows hold?
Whether it is bilateral or unilateral divorce, utilitarianism constitutes an important perspective for determining the ethicalness of divorce. Using an example of domestic violence as an influence for making a decision to take a divorce, research on the effects of domestic violence on the ability of women to work indicates negative consequences for not escaping from the abuse through divorce. For instance, Audra and Shannon show that women who are abused have a minimal probability of choosing to work than women who have not experienced domestic violence that might lead to divorce.29
Hence, battering influences the capacity of women to look for means of bettering their economic status. The situation makes them even more dependent on the perpetrators of domestic violence. In this context, economic independency is a subtle mechanism for reducing the risk of exposure to domestic violence among women. Women who suffer divorce due to domestic violence have an unemployment rate of 20 percent or even less in comparison with those who are not abused in their marriages.30 Considering these negative consequences for withstanding domestic violence on an individual’s collective progress, it sounds ethical to consider a divorce.
The utilitarianism holds that any act that hurts physically, emotionally, or psychologically one’s partner and other parties to a marriage, including children, would be considered morally wrong and unethical. Thus, domestic violence is wrong. What is the situation for people who escape such violence through unilateral divorce? Would divorce be ethically right as a solution to domestic violence? Utilitarians assert that the morality of any action is a function of the created utilities. According to Lafollette, this claim may be theorized in terms of seminal utilities such as enjoyment and throbbing.31
From such a perspective, one action becomes better compared to the other if it has higher seminal utility gains. Hence, if divorce may lead to increased pleasure and a reduction of emotional, physical, and psychological pain, it is then morally and ethically right. Therefore, a bilateral divorce seems okay and ethical, considering that partners will have arrived at a collective decision that it is the best thing for everyone involved in the marriage, including children. However, in determining the extreme circumstance, which may make divorce ethical under utilitarianism, it is important to consider the principle of reversibility in decision-making process.
Reversibility requires the assumption that one takes the position of another party who would likely be impacted by another person’s decisions.32 Universalizing actions to determine their ethicalness while making divorce decisions preludes the principle of doing what an individual filing a divorce expects another party in the same position to do. In this sense, despite the existence of ethical guidelines and laws to regulate divorce, adopting the deontology perspectives would ensure that people who seek divorce segregate ethical actions from the unethical ones when it comes to a quest of filing a divorce.
Ethics defines the acceptable codes of behavior and norms. The religious theological perspective of divorce holds that divorce is inappropriate and not recommended after the solemnization of marriage. Hence, the ethicalness of divorce from the religious perspective can only be analyzed from the provided ventilations under which divorce may occur. Drawing from both Islamic and Christian religious teachings, the paper argued that the religious perspectives only permit divorce in case challenges emerge in a marriage.
The Machiavellianism school of thought holds that compliance with ethical behavior requires manipulations coupled with influence. Such influence may emanate from religious norms and values, or even traditional social values that guide the institution of marriage. Much similar to the religious perspective, in the traditional settings, a marriage was considered an important rite of passage. The society expected it to last until death separated the partners. Consequently, divorce was considered unethical.
Considering both traditional and religious perspectives on the ethicalness of divorce, an emerging question is whether one should remain clinging on a marriage that is detrimental to his or her physical, mental, social, and psychological wellbeing and growth. For example, should one not consider divorce where one partner turns out abusive and adulterous? While evaluating whether divorce is ethical in such circumstances, the paper recommended utilizing deontological and utilitarian ethical theories in arriving at an appropriate ethical decision.
The deontological and utilitarian schools of thought argue in almost similar paradigms when evaluating the appropriate ethical decisions with regard to the issue of divorce. The two theories will only permit it under extreme circumstances. However, the schools differ in their prediction and determination of the extreme circumstances under which divorce may become the ethical thing to do. Utilitarianism requires the evaluation and analysis of its impacts in terms of costs. The best decision is the one, which delivers utmost good result to the wider number of people.
In the context of marriage and divorce, the wider group of people may imply the society, children, and even one’s partner. The deontological perspective provides exceptions from much-easier-to-identify personal circumstances. For instance, one knows when he or she is breaching marriage vows, but only guesses the implications of divorce. Thus, domestic violence or any other divorce causes that have negative emotional, physical, mental, and psychological implications for parties to a marriage make divorce ethical.
Audra, Bowlus, and Seitz Shannon. “Domestic Violence, Employment, and Divorce.” International Economic Review 47.4 (2006): 1113-1149. Print.
Awang, Halimah, and Sharon Hariharan. “Determinants of Domestic Violence: Evidence from Malaysia.” Journal of Family Violence 26.6(2011): 459-464. Print.
Jones, Daniel, and Delroy Paulhus. Machiavellianism: Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior, New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2009. Print.
Ketz, Edward. Accounting Ethics: Theories of Accounting Ethics and their Dissemination, New York, NY: Taylor & Francis US, 2006. Print.
Kitzmann, Katherine, Noni Gaylord, Aimee Holt, and Erin Kenny. “Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 71.2(2003): 339-352. Print.
Kubai, Isaac. “Divorce and remarriage: an ethical challenge to the contemporary Methodist church in Kenya.” International Journal of Current Research 3.12(2011): 377-384. Print.
Lafollette, Hugh. Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2014. Print.
Mogford, Elizabeth. “When Status Hurts: Dimensions of Women’s Status and Domestic Abuse in Rural Northern India.” Violence against Women 17.7(2011): 835-857. Print.
Mohd, Lal. Marriage and divorce in Islam, 2014. Web.
Rappaport, Sol. “Deconstructing the Impact of Divorce on Children.” Family Law Quarterly 47.3 (2013): 353–377. Print.
Sandel, Michael. Justice: What is the Right thing to do, New York: Farrah, Staus & Giroux, 2005. Print.
Singhapakdi, Anusorn. “Ethical Perception of Marketers: The Interaction Effects of Machiavellianism and Organizational Ethical Culture.” Journal of Business Ethics 12.4(2003): 407-418. Print.
Strong, Bryan, Christine DeVault, and Theodore Cohen. The Marriage and Family Experience: Intimate Relationships in a Changing Society, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.
Zartler, Ulrike, Valerie Heinz-Martin, and Becker Arránz. Family Dynamics after Separation: A Life Course Perspective on Post-Divorce Families, Opladen/Toronto: Barbara Budrich, 2015. Print.
- Lal Mohd, Marriage and divorce in Islam, 2014, Web.
- Sol Rappaport, “Deconstructing the Impact of Divorce on Children.” Family Law Quarterly 47.3 (2013), p. 356.
- Elizabeth Mogford, “When Status Hurts: Dimensions of Women’s Status and Domestic Abuse in Rural Northern India.” Violence against Women 17.7(2011), p. 835.
- Elizabeth Mogford, p 835.
- Halimah Awang, and Sharon Hariharan, “Determinants of Domestic Violence: Evidence from Malaysia,” Journal of Family Violence 26.6(2011), p.460.
- Hugh Lafollette, Ethics in Practice: An Anthology (Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2014), p. 31.
- Hugh Lafollette, p. 39.
- Edward Ketz, Accounting Ethics: Theories of Accounting Ethics and their Dissemination (New York, NY: Taylor & Francis US, 2006), p. 164.
- Hugh Lafollette, p. 77.
- Edward Ketz, p. 164.
- Anusorn Singhapakdi, “Ethical Perception of Marketers: The Interaction Effects of Machiavellianism and Organizational Ethical Culture.” Journal of Business Ethics 12.4(2003), p. 407.
- Daniel Jones, and Delroy Paulhus, Machiavellianism: Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2009), p. 259.
- Isaac Kubai, “Divorce and remarriage: an ethical challenge to the contemporary Methodist church in Kenya.” International Journal of Current Research 3.12(2011), p. 377.
- Michael Sandel, Justice: What is the Right thing to do (New York: Farrah, Staus & Giroux, 2005), p. 18.
- Bryan Strong, Christine DeVault, and Theodore Cohen, The Marriage and Family Experience: Intimate Relationships in a Changing Society (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011), p. 41.
- Ulrike Zartler, Valerie Heinz-Martin, and Becker Arránz, Family Dynamics after Separation: A Life Course Perspective on Post-Divorce Families (Opladen/Toronto: Barbara Budrich, 2015), p. 105.
- Isaac Kubai, p. 377.
- Michael Sandel, p. 18.
- Ibid, p. 377.
- Ibid, p. 377
- Isaac Kubai, p. 378.
- Ibid, p. 379.
- Lal Mohd, par.7.
- Bryan Strong, Christine DeVault, and Theodore Cohen, p. 53.
- Sol Rappaport, p. 353.
- Katherine Kitzmann, Noni Gaylord, Aimee Holt, and Erin Kenny. “Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 71.2(2003), p.339.
- Ibid, p. 340.
- Ibid, p. 341.
- Bowlus Audra, and Seitz Shannon, “Domestic Violence, Employment, and Divorce.” International Economic Review 47.4 (2006), p. 1119.
- Bowlus Audra, and Seitz Shannon, p. 1120.
- Hugh Lafollette, p. 75.
- Ibid, p. 104.