By Lauren Kross
For heterosexual couples, divorce has become normalized. If
a marriage no longer works, a divorce is a solution to the
problem. In addition to helping the
couple split on legal terms, divorce provides legal steps for child custody,
visitation, child support, etc. Also, there are many social services, books,
and articles to help families navigate the emotional and physical trauma of a
parent separation.
But what happens when LGBT families split? In the article, “Ambiguous
Loss After Lesbian Couples With Children Break Up: A Case Study for Same-Gender
Divorce,” Katherine Allen discusses what happens to LGBT families after a split and the lack of discussion about LGBT family breakups. Because LGBT couples lack the federal rights
that come with marriage, they also lack divorce benefits.
Any breakup presents challenges, but breakups with children
become more complicated when one person is given the power to control the
situation. Because there are no laws stating that partners have equal access to
their children after a split, one partner can decide to completely close off
the relationship. If this decision is made, the partner who is closed off can
no longer see that child. This causes ambiguous
loss, an ongoing stressor caused by someone or something outside of one’s
control (Allen 176). It is more severe
because the pain and suffering does not stop and cannot be stopped by the
person affected.
Allen discusses the loss of her son after breaking up with
her partner of 12 years. She struggled to cope with losing access to her family
and son that she helped parent for so many years. Even though Allen and her
partner set up safeguards in case of a split, there was nothing to protect
their agreements legally. They were not obligated to honor these promises to
one another anymore. Currently, this same situation can happen and is happening
to LGBT families across the US.
The focus on marriage equality has been highly energized in
the past few years and during recent presidential, state, and local elections.
However, the less exciting and glamorous side of legal relationship rights
amongst LGBT people—divorce—has received little attention in media and policy.
If we are fighting for marriage equality, we must also fight for divorce
equality because it allows for fair parent-child relationships.
For information about Katherine Allen, visit: http://www.humandevelopment.vt.edu/allen.html
For information about family equality and LGBT family resources, visit: http://www.familyequality.org/
One of the most intriguing parts of “Ambiguous Loss After Lesbian Couples with Children Break Up: A case for Same-Gender Divorce” for me occurred near the end of the article on page 180. Katherine Allen stated that her biological son’s definition of family was different from her own. Her son’s definition of family only included himself and his biological mom. Allen states, “The discovery of a new hope is that we do not need to have the same definition of who is in our family” (Allen, 180). This demonstrates the fluidity of familial definitions and how people can define family beyond the image of a biological family unit. I believe that an individual’s ability to define family on their own terms can be a big step in empowering individuals or help heal them after trauma. This empowerment occurs when a person can remove family members who are toxic in their lives or they can add non-biological individuals to their definition of family. While it wasn’t the focus of the article, I feel this idea can contribute to meaningful research in family studies.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe Allen did good job explaining the value of the reflexive personal narrative, I wished she would have compared her experience with ambiguous loss compared to her son’s experience. Allen states on page 178, “The losses are compounded and ongoing-the mothers do not see each other’s children and the children do not see each other.” However she does not explain in detail how this divorce affected her son, the readers are left to their own assumptions. I found myself wanting to hear her son’s voice and his own reasoning. I believing hearing his side of his grief would make the case stronger for same gender divorce because it would show how both parents and children would benefit from LGBT family rights. This article focused on a mother’s grief which is very important, but I wanted to hear how children are affected by ambiguous loss and how could manifest differently in a child rather than someone well versed in ambiguous loss because of his or her profession. I understand that adding her son’s voice would change her methodology and weaken her argument for the importance of reflexive personal narrative. Still, I feel giving space for her biological son to speak would only better highlight why LGBT family need legal protections for their family members.
I think that the best part of this article was the methodology in which Allen chose to use. On page 177 Allen states that she is using a reflective personal narrative to help situate herself within the topic of ambiguous loss. By choosing this methodology, Allen is able to discuss her firsthand experiences with ambiguous loss and how she attempted to cope with the loss of her partner and nonbiological son. This form of methodology makes it possible for Allen to use statements such as "I felt...inadequate" and "I was...frozen in grief" (pp. 178-179). These emotionally charged statements helped me, the reader, understand more fully what Allen was experiencing with her ambiguous loss.
ReplyDeleteThe part of the article that I found most troublesome was the idea that going through the six transformative phases will help with ambiguous loss but will never give closure because closure is not attainable (p. 177, 182). The first problem I have with this is the idea that closure is impossible. Although closure may seem as though it is indeed "impossible" for many people, I do not think that closure in general is impossible to achieve. Secondly, I have my doubts about the ambiguous loss framework. I would like to see more empirical evidence about the effectiveness of the six transformative phases. With limited knowledge about Boss's theory of ambiguous loss, it is hard for me to judge it without seeing any concrete data. I would hope that individuals who are going through the six phases are guided by a mental health practitioner.
I like the way the article acknowledges that external factors affect the family unit. Allen (2007) states that ambiguous loss cannot be compared to other situations as post traumatic stress disorder that affects individual because external factors contribute to the stress too (p.176). Institutional structures and regulations can contribute to stressful situations in cases where they are loop holes in the legal procedures; such as legal custodians of non-biological children in same sex marriages. Allen gives a personal narrative to serve as an example of some of the gaps in laws affecting the family unit.
ReplyDeleteAllen (2007) explains that heterosexual parents get compensation in cases like divorce when the need arise but this serves as a temporary solution to “LGBT couples when in a mutual agreement”. When the agreement is terminated, legal protection is required the same way as it works in heterosexual settings (p.179). Allen is making a comparison and forming a binary division. She wants heterosexual laws of marriage and divorce to be applied in same sex marriages. What she does not address is if the laws are beneficial to the couples or children, or which group benefits more. I find it problematic by forming dualities when addressing a problem. Perhaps Allen would have suggested on some of the ways to reform the family law to incorporate federal rights of all couples despite the gender.
The article “Ambiguous Loss After Lesbian Couples with Children Break Up: A case for Same-Gender Divorce” made me think about prospective to consider a family. Question arises in my mind what is family means to me? Is the only biological mother, father, son and daughter relationship to consider as a family? For me family means beyond biological relationship I consider the members of household who share values and emotionally attached.
ReplyDeleteTelling personal stories is so powerful to aware people in our society. Allen did good job addressing same- gender breakups problems through her intimate story. I liked the way she tried to connect with her audience using personal narrative method to grab attention of people to hear her voice. Allen mentioned “ Educators, as well, who work through their own experiences of ambiguous loss are more free to teach the subject matter and not to be as distracted by what is not in their control to resolve” (p 182). It explains that an individual can teach people through their own experience who have faced similar kind of problem. The problem might be justified and clear to someone who has gone through same situation. In this case story telling might play vital role even though there might be some circumstances that individual have no control over.
Allen mentioned that she was fighting for her nonbiological child “the legal advice was to walk away”(p180). Community stated “ He isn’t really your son, why can’t you just let go? “ Why don’t you just concentrate on raising the son you still have at home”? (P180). At the end she had to focus on her biological son. Being a woman and a mother she sacrificed her desire to see her son and took care of her biological son. Legal definition and community concept of family is just a biological relationship. I think family is where people live together in a household share and have emotion attached. Most of the time people ignore the emotional connection between individuals. Allen emotions with her nonbiological son were ignored and not justified compare to her biological son. Not only in the Lesbian family relationship, but also in all families the definition of family should be redefine.