 Destroys the sanctity of marriage:

In Arroyo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals 203 SCRA 750 (1991) G.R. No. 96602 November 19,
1991, the Court stressed strongly the need to protect the basic social institutions of
marriage and the family in the preservation of which the State base the strongest interest;
the public policy here involved is of the most fundamental kind. In Article II, Section 12 of
the Constitution there is set forth the following basic state policy:
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect find strengthen the family
as a basic autonomous social institution ...

The same sentiment has been expressed in the Family Code of the Philippines in Article
149:
The family, being the foundation of the ration, is a basic social institution which public
policy cherishes and protects. Consequently, family relations are governed by law and no
custom, practice or agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized or given
effect.

In Tongol v. Tongol G.R. No. 157610 October 19, 2007, the Court recognized that
disagreements on money matters (and other family management matters) would, no
doubt, affect the other aspects of one's marriage as to make the wedlock unsatisfactory.
But such disagreements are common, and even normal, occurrence between husbands
and wives.

Anees Lokhande, Jubail, writer for Arab News, says spouses must understand that
nobody is perfect. In order to live a peaceful life, spouses should not find faults with each
other, and they must learn the art of restraining and ignoring each other’s faults. For the
sake of a healthy marital life, spouses should not make problems over trifles.

Note: Divorce eliminates the permanency of marriage, making marital union just an expensive
dating ceremony. The wife and the husband are discouraged to reconciliation when they know
escape is possible.

 Incompatible with strong family ties

“As far back as our knowledge takes us, human beings have lived in families. We know of no
period where this was not so. We know of no people who have succeeded for long in dissolving
the family or displacing it … Again and again, in spite of proposals for change and actual
experiments, human societies have reaffirmed their dependence on the family as the basic unit
of human living—the family of father, mother and children.” Mead, Margaret and Ken Heyman.
1965. Family. New York: Macmillan. pp. 77-78.

Note: Divorce is a threat to one of the oldest values of the Filipino family - a strong family tie.
Marital problems commonly involving the husband and the wife cannot become a State
responsibility as to deprive the children and other members of the family, like in-laws and 2nd
degree relatives, of the support of the family.
  Physically and mentally unhealthy to members of the family

In a 2009 study conducted by sociologists Linda Waite and Mary Elizabeth Hughes of
University of Chicago involving 8,652 people aged 51 to 61 researched showed that
divorced people have 20% more chronic illnesses such as cancer than those who never
marry. Dr. Linda Waite said divorce or widowhood undermines health because incomes
drop and stress develops over issues such as shared child care.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8170234.stm)

Teenagers in single-parent families and in blended families are three times more likely to
need psychological help within a given year. (Peter Hill “Recent Advances in Selected
Aspects of Adolescent Development” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 1993)

Compared to children from homes disrupted by death, children from divorced homes have
more psychological problems. (Robert E. Emery, Marriage, Divorce and Children’s
Adjustment” Sage Publications, 1988)

 Negative impact on children

A study of children six years after a parental marriage breakup revealed that even after all that
time, these children tended to be “lonely, unhappy, anxious and insecure. (Wallerstein “The Long-
Term Effects of Divorce on Children” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry 1991)

Forty percent of children growing up in America today are being raised without their fathers.
(Wade, Horn and Busy, “Fathers, Marriage and Welfare Reform” Hudson Institute Executive
Briefing, 1997)

Half of all American children will witness the breakup of a parent’s marriage. Of these, close to
half will also see the breakup of a parent’s second marriage.” (Furstenberg, Peterson, Nord, and
Zill, “Life Course”)

Numerous studies have found that parental separation and divorce is associated with a
range of negative outcomes for younger children and adolescents across various domains.
Parental separation/divorce is associated with academic difficulties, including lower
grades and prematurely dropping out of school, and greater disruptive behaviours (e.g.,
being oppositional with authority figures, getting into fights, stealing, and using and
abusing alcohol and illegal drugs). Children and adolescents who experience the divorce
of their parents also have higher rates of depressed mood, lower self-esteem, and
emotional distress.

 Amato PR. Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of
Marriage and Family 2010;72:650-666
  Lansford JE. Parental divorce and child adjustment. Perspectives on Psychological
Science 2009;4:140-152.
 Kelly JB, Emery RE. Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience
perspectives. Family Relations 2003;52:352-362.

US studies show that children of divorced couples often blame themselves for the divorce, which
creates debilitating guilt. They are inevitably hurt financially as the fractured family bears the cost
of maintaining two households. They are more likely to develop behavioural problems, such as
delinquency, and to suffer significantly higher incidences of depression and fear of abandonment.
They are more likely to have learning difficulties and to drop out of high school, and hence less
likely to graduate from university, than are children from “intact homes”, even when compared to
children from families who have lost a father through death. (T.J. Biblarz and G. Gottainer, “Family
structure and children’s success: A comparison of widowed and divorced single-mother families”
(2000) 62 Journal of Marriage and the Family 533.)

Children of divorce are more likely to experience poverty, educational failure, early and risky
sexual activity, non-marital childbirth, earlier marriage, cohabitation, marital discord and divorce.
In fact, emotional problems associated with divorce actually increase during young adulthood.
 Cherlin AJ, Chase-Lansdale PL, McRae C. Effects of parental divorce on mental health
throughout the life course. American Sociological Review 1998;63:239-249.

"So many persons think divorce a panacea for every ill, find out, when they try it, that the remedy
is worse than the disease" (Qtd in Harper 192). Divorce, in any circumstance, rips a child apart,
tossing him/her from one house to another, limiting time spent with his/her parents, and confusing
him/her. There are very few reasons that would prove to be more beneficial for the parent to leave
than to stay and endure his/her marriage. Usually it is more advantageous to children if their
parents work through their differences rather than get a divorce.

One of the biggest problems that divorce imposes on children is the decision of whom to live with.
Usually parents divorce when children are small and the children have no say in where they go.
Since the child cannot choose, this leads to custody battles that end in split custody or joint
custody. Whatever the choice may be between the two types of custody, either will prove
detrimental to the child.

When split custody is the decision, it forces a child to choose (or the court to choose) one parent
to live with, and it limits the quality time the child spends with either parent. When the child only
lives with one parent, the ties with the other parent are severely damaged. According to the
National Survey of Children, close to half of all children with divorced parents had not seen their
nonresidential parent in the past year, and only one in six had weekly contact or better (Whitehead
2). Since the children don’t see both parents often, the parent with whom the child lives is usually
thought upon as strict and no fun because that parent is always there and is always responsible
for disciplining the child. The nonresidential parent is more often viewed as the fun, exciting one
that the child longs to be with. This parent many times showers his/her child with presents, and
money is used in an attempt to buy the child’s love. The child, although often spoiled, does not
usually feel the deep security of having a close family, since he/she is constantly moving from
house to house. Because of the constant movement, the child does not generally receive quality
time from either parent, and it makes it more difficult to feel loved.
Joint custody, on the other hand, proves to be even less successful (Zinmeister 29). This type of
custody is now allowed in half of the states, although, joint custody is very unusual because of
the extreme complications. In California, where divorce is more common than anywhere else,
only eighteen percent of divorced couples have joint custody. Even when the divorced parents
maintain regular contact with their children, truly cooperative child rearing is rare (Zinmeister 29).
Most often, research shows, the estranged parents have no communication or mutual
reinforcement; this leads to very unhealthy parent-child relationships. Joint custody is even worse
on a child because there is even more movement involved. With split custody, the child goes to
the nonresidential parent’s house on a certain schedule. In joint custody, however, the child is
constantly moves back and forth between houses, causing an even greater lack of quality time
between parent and child.

The custody battle can be damaging, but the divorce of a child’s parents can also thoroughly
confuse the child, suggesting that it is better for parents to stay together. The child does not have
a concept as to what commitment really means. Since these children see their parents breaking
vows without a second thought, they begin to believe that what is right for a parent must be the
right thing for them to do as well. Children are shown that they do not have to work out their
problems as long as they can run away. This is one reason that so often today when someone
makes a promise there is really no certainty of whether it will happen or not. According to The
Effects of Divorce on Children, an article written by J. Lynn Rhodes, young adults whose parents
have divorced previously are likely to have social problems and trouble forming and maintaining
intimate relationships (Effects 1). The value of a person’s word has lessened. This is partly
because of the bad examples parents are setting for their children when they get a divorce.

- The Negative Effects of Divorce on Children by Jayna Solinger

According to a well-known study undertaken in 2002 by the Washington-based research body,

Child Trends, it is far better for a child’s development that he or she grows up in the presence of
his or her two biological parents. Unmarried motherhood, divorce, cohabitation and step-parenting
are widely known to fall short in significant developmental domains (such as education,
behavioural outcomes and emotional well-being), due in no small part to the comparative fragility
and instability of such relationships.

 Financial difficulties of the aftermath

It has been shown in the US that women’s standards of living decline approximately 30% post-
divorce as a consequence of divorce, while men’s decline about 10% as validated in a number
of subsequent studies, in the seminal work by Professors Saul D. Hoffman and Greg J. Duncan.
(S.D. Hoffman and G.J. Duncan, “The effect of incomes, wages, and AFDC benefits on marital
disruption” (1995) 30(1) The Journal of Human Resources 19.)

A research carried out by Canberra University National Center for Social and Economic
Modelling indicates that divorce generally leaves both partners worse off economically, although
women tend to experience the greater fall in disposable income.(S. Anon, “Divorce shrinks
income”, Herald Sun (Melbourne), April 6, 2005, p.29.)