As the countdown to the 28 May referendum continues in earnest, the use of children in the divorce debate is becoming more and more blatant. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the billboards unveiled by both the pro- and anti-divorce lobbies.
The pro-divorce lobby got off to a bad start with the use of a photo of an unhappy baby and the derogatory word ‘bastards’ (bgħula) referring to children born out of wedlock. The point they were trying to make (that these children should not be discriminated against) was completely lost by the use of that harsh word. It simply was not necessary and the whole idea backfired.
The anti-divorce lobby also used a minor in the billboard which bears the slogan Flimkien Għal Uliedna (together for our children).
As images go it is a powerful, effective one: A young happy child poised between his beaming parents as he caresses their faces. It portrays the ideal family; the kind of family which is in most people’s minds when they first get married full of hopes and dreams and embark on the joyful path of parenthood. Who does not want that ideal? Who does not yearn for this image to be the one which their children will carry throughout their childhood until they grow up and it is then their turn to start a family?
The facts which stare us in the face every day, however, paint a very different picture. The halls of the Family Court are filled with couples who file for separation, entering into often bitter disputes over the custody of their offspring. What was once one home is split into two separate residences and the child’s life is invariably splintered as he or she commutes between the mother and father on weekdays and weekends, depending on the terms of the agreement. Joint celebrations such as birthdays, Christmas and Easter have to be negotiated with care and diligence so that (all things being equal) both parents can share these occasions with their child.
Inevitably, when two adults with children have concluded that they can no longer bear to live together under the same roof, their decision to part ways will have a profound impact on that ideal family portrait, fracturing it beyond repair. And yet, as has been said countless times, the absence of divorce legislation has not prevented that portrait from being fractured.
In an ideal world, no child should have to suffer the pain and trauma of a broken home, and all parents would stick together for the sake of their children. But the ideal is, by definition, not reality. There are, in fact, many instances in which parents sacrifice their own contentment and put aside their personal feelings, waiting until the children have grown up to finally call it a day. One needs to ask however whether this softens the blow in any way, or whether it has the opposite effect on the now grown up children who are unwittingly made to feel guilty that they have been the obstacle to their parents’ happiness.
Solid marriages and happy families are obviously preferable to the fracas and sadness which follow a marital breakdown – but the constant reminder through that billboard of what “could be” rather than what “is”, is simply twisting the knife in the wounds of those parents and children for whom that portrait no longer exists.