ABU DHABI // Institutional support is needed for families affected by divorce in a society where the issue is still stigmatised, experts say.

The key problem lay in the way parents and children of divorce were perceived in Arab society, said Rima al Sabban, an associate professor of sociology at Zayed University.

"Many families discriminate and don't accept the child of a separated family," Ms Sabban said. "The government needs to establish institutions to address these issues. They need to be tackled more in the social development aspect of education."

___________

More

• Divorced parents make talk of marriage tough

Also

• More Emirati women marrying foreigners
• Young couples need more support
• Divorce problems hit close to home
• Marriages to foreigners bring some unique cultural and legal hurdles

___________

Wedad Lootah, a family counsellor with the Dubai Courts, said there is no governmental support for the families of divorce.

Both called for institutions that analyse divorce cases and determine the needs of families. They also called for specialised counsellors in schools that can help children cope, and urged that marriage counselling be better promoted both before and after marriage.

However, Ms Lootah said in terms of financial assistance the personal status law of 2005 stipulates that the husband is required to pay spousal support, which includes child support of Dh600 to Dh1,000 per month and maid salaries. He must either provide a home or pay the rental fees for one, and provide a driver if the wife does not drive.

 Should parents have decided previously the children will attend private schools, the husband must pay the tuition.

The Ministry of Social Affairs does provide financial support of Dh4,250 per month in certain cases, such as when the husband is imprisoned, Ms Lootah added.

In 2010, nearly one in five marriages in the UAE ended in divorce, with 44 per cent of couples calling it quits less than a year after tying the knot. Last year, 1,486 divorce certificates were issued for Emirati couples.

Ms Lootah said infidelity was a common reason for divorce for middle- to upper-class families. Other causes cited were hectic lifestyles and long absences from the home due to business. The main reasons among the lower class, meanwhile, involved financial problems and outside interference. While a broken marriage was a struggle for the parents, experts said it was worse for the children. "The kids need support and encouragement, but there is no one to provide this, not even in schools," Ms Lootah said.

 "Many become feeble and weak, especially when they compare themselves to other children. Some become very sensitive and cry a lot - or they become violent and delinquent."

Other children develop stress-induced illnesses, such as loss of hair or eczema, Ms Lootah said.

Sharing preliminary results from an academic study during the recent Counselling Arabia conference in Sharjah, Dr Fakir al Gharaibeh, a sociology professor at the American University of Sharjah, said that among children of divorced parents, 45 per cent demonstrated low academic performance and social withdrawal, while almost one-third had eating disorders.

"Age also plays a huge factor," he said. "Divorce at a later stage may demotivate these children to marry in the future, while at a younger stage it may make children vulnerable since the parental relationship is taken away from such an early stage."

However, divorce did not always have a negative impact on children, Ms Sabban said.

In fact, if the relationship between the parents cannot be saved, it may be better for the child in the long run if the parents split.

Custody laws follow Sharia, which states that the mother retains custody of the children until her sons are 11 and her daughters 13, after which they live with the father. However, experts said that custody battles had lately taken an unexpected turn.

"I don't know what's happening these days," Ms Lootah said. "Mothers don't want custody of their children and neither do fathers. It's like their kids are a burden they went to get rid of."

She continued to be an advocate for children of divorce, but said governmental support would be crucial.

"Last year, I filed a request saying we need experts and specialised institutions to deal with these cases because they are deeply affecting our society.

But the project was spiked because of formalities," she said. "I'm not afraid of field work, but I can't find anyone to help me and I can't do it on my own."

mismail@thenational.ae

1. Mother shoots and kills mother-in-law and shoots sleeping husband three times, permanently disabling him.
2. Mother is acquitted by reason of insanity
3. Mother is being relased from custody and can now spend time with their son but father, who has never been found cuplable of any wrongdoing, cannot.

Peter Spitz's ex-wife Teresa got up in the wee hours of one morning in 2004, bundled up their young son and took him to a neighbor’s.  She then returned to her house, put a pillow over her sleeping husband’s head and shot him with a .38.  But he wasn’t dead, so she shot him two more times.  Then she murdered his mother who lived with them.

Despite all that, Peter lived.  He’s permanently blinded and has lost his sense of smell.

Peter is an ex-marine and an all around stand-up guy.  So when Teresa was tried for murdering his mother and attempting to murder him, he testified on her behalf.  He thought she was insane and said so under oath.  She was acquitted of the charges by reason of insanity.

That was less than seven years ago and the doctors in the psychiatric facility to which she was committed have decided that Teresa is no longer insane.  By itself, that’s a trifle odd because apparently they don’t agree on her diagnosis or even if her mental condition rendered her incapable of appreciating the wrongness of her deeds.  Read the update here (Westwood.com, 4/4/11). It’s also odd because a few years ago Teresa may have sent a letter to a friend promising to “finish the job” when she was released.  The letter can’t be found, but a person who once had the letter claims that it said “she wants Peter dead, simple as that.”

Given that, Spitz is none too enthusiastic about her release, but released she will shortly be.  That will proceed gradually through a series of unsupervised trips away from the psychiatric facility leading eventually to “community placement.”

In fact, that’s already begun, which brings up the part of the story that’s more outrageous than the first part.  Teresa, you see, has more contact with their son than Peter does.  Yes, the woman who tried to murder his father, did murder his grandmother and considered drowning the child in the bathtub gets to visit with him regularly. 

The man who barely escaped death, who managed to call 911 on his own behalf and who stood up in court, in the darkness of his blind world to testify for the woman who tried to take his life, is being denied all access to his son.

Why?  Well, it seems that while Peter was convalescing from his wounds, the court appointed a couple to be the child’s guardians, they still have custody of the boy and Peter isn’t allowed to see him.

Does Peter’s disability prevent him from being a good, loving and capable father?  It does not.  He’s worked hard to get to a point where he can function normally in daily life and friends, neighbors and relatives uniformly testify to his capabilities. 

Maybe he’s been abusive to the child?  No, there’s no evidence of that and, as far as I know, no allegations.

At this point, if there is any reason why Peter Spitz doesn’t have sole custody of his son, I don’t know what it is.  But he has no contact at all. The guardians have the boy full-time except of course for the supervised visitation Teresa has.

But that’s not all.  It seems the guardians, who are long-time friends of Teresa's, want to adopt the boy.  Peter of course opposes that, but they’re going ahead with their action anyway.  And I’ll give you one guess who supports their bid to take Peter Spitz’s son from him.  Yep, you’re right.  That one was too easy.  Teresa thinks Peter shouldn’t have custody of their child...