I need two terms that would describe (1) a family in which the parents are living together, and rearing the children together, and (2) a family in which the parents are no longer together, and are arguing in court about who has what kind and degree of control over the childrearing. The terms need to be (A) precise, (B) instantly comprehensible, (C) not legalese, and (D) as unjudgmental, noninflammatory, and unloaded as possible.
"Married couple" and "divorced couple" are probably fine on B, C, and D, but they're unfortunately too imprecise: The issues I describe arise even with families in which the parents were never married (whether they're an unmarried heterosexual couple raising their biological children, or an unmarried homosexual couple raising an adopted child or a child who is the biological child of one of the partners).
Another option is "intact family" and "broken family," a pair that likely satisfies A, B, and C; but one reader opined that "broken family" might come across as too loaded and negative, a circumstance I'd like to avoid if it's indeed a realistic concern. I don't mind controversy, but I don't want needless controversy. My point here is to describe the families, not to be seen as badmouthing one sort.
A third option is "intact family" and "non-intact family," an option that likely satisfies A and D, but that seems too legalese and perhaps a bit harder to understand.
If you can (1) tell me whether you think "intact family" and "broken family" are satisfactory or whether they are too loaded or negative, (2) tell me whether you think "intact family" and "non-intact family" are satisfactory or whether they are too legalese, (3) give me a suggestion that you think is better, if you have one, I'd be much obliged. Many thanks!
"Broken" sounds too much like "broken home" which many divorces don't result in.
or
Cooperative Parenting and Independent Parenting
Either way, making "arguing in court about who has what kind and degree of control over the childrearing" anything less than a tragedy comes off as a whitewash.
"Together family" is a little awkward, however, and if "family that is together" is too long, the best I could come up with is "joint family"--but that might have technical family law meanings that should be avoided.
Still, I like "split family" for (2).
It is somewhat difficult to find non-offensive terms for family disputes-- so emotional, even neutral sounding terms can really tweak someone.
Scipio: Your terminology is obviously the best one -- I'll do the global search and replace right away.
Everyone: Many thanks for the feedback, and please keep it coming!
Also, consider "contested" instead of "divided", though "contested" is better used to refer to custody arrangements or parental rights than to the family itself.
Both good and clinical, IMO. According to Google, "Split-custody family" has been used before.
"Unified family" is great. But it doesn't have a good counterpart - "Divided" and "separated" aren't bad, but have a whiff of negativity. "Bifurcated" won't be clear to every audience.
I think "fissioning family" would be more accurate.
Am I also the only person who gets a chuckle when someone reports that "residents of the Gulf Coast were ordered to evacuate"?
I also like united and divided; nice Lincoln-esque imagery.
(2) "Non-Cohabitating, Uncooperative Parents" to specify parents who are no longer living together, and not working together to parent jointly.
Google "intact family" and you'll see some of the alternatives that have been used in family law literature.
For my two cents I would endorse:
Cohabiting family versus dispersed family
(following, for the most part, Jim F's example.)
I suggest "two parent intact family" and "two parent, two household family." The phrases are a bit cumbersome, but they precisely describe the situations.
intact vs ligating family
I sort of like:
nuclear family, factionalized family
So, if you mean two-home vs. one-home, then intact and divorced/separated are the usual terms. If you want only to single out custodial disputes, then add "litigating custody" where appropriate.
From my wasted youth studying chemistry:
(covalently) bonded and ionic?
Atomic and plasma? (plasmic?)
solid and dissolved?
Since you have to, though, why not try "whole" and "dissolving," since a divorce is a dissolution of a marriage and it's not as loaded as "damaged" or "broken," while making clear this isn't simply the "division" that might result from a temporary separation (that might be resolved.)
(for the original question: "non-intact" sounds stupid to me, which I guess means it's legalese; "broken" fits perfectly in the ears of this person who's been shipped across country 20 times before the age of 18 to satisfy parental desires, but those parents might be just a little distressed.)
"Families whose kids will never be my clients" and "families whose kids might be my clients."
My experience is limited to felonies, so a PD who handled misdemeanors would have a different experience.
I also admit that my slice of the system is skewed--I deal mostly with poor people already convicted of a felony.
But this is a thread-jack, so I'll do my best to refrain from responding to other comments on this off-topic point.
I'm sorry.
(comma usage systematic)
If you understand the difference between your one sliver of experience and the greater reality, fine. If not, I recommend a google or two on "anecdata", "plural of anecdote", etc. etc.
But I stand by the general thrust of my statement. Anyone who has spent any time doing indigent defense (or prosecution) at any level will verify it. A hugely disproportionate number of defendants come from families where the biological parents are not at home with their kids.
You call that "anecdotal." People who are in the system call it a "sad fact."
Incidentally, I think that whole and split do the job: they are descriptive and carry no external connotations (intact seems to leaglistic to me).
in Berkeley:
separated: "intactically challenged"
together: "less intactically challenged"
in the LA region:
separated: "split"
together: "not split yet"
By contrast, "separated" accurately implies that the family is dispersed without commenting on how well the separated family functions.
The problem I see with all these "unified" and "separated" choices is that they don't focus on the specific important criterion; that is, whether the children are in one home with both parents or in > 1 home with parents who do not live together. A third term, "disputed-custody," deals with a case in which the parents dispute custody, whether or not they live together and/or with one or more of the kids.
The comment suggesting cohabitating/non-cohabitating cooperating/noncooperating seems to satisfy all the conditions. The former indicates whether the couple is or is not living together, the latter whether they are or are not coopoerating on child rearing, and eliminates confusion about the case not mentioned - non-cohabitating cooperating families (the vast majority of "separated" or "split" or "broken" families in my experience) where the parents do not live together but cooperate more or less on child rearing.
Covenant family: A Covenant marriage with children.
Fragmented marriage/family: When Covenant marriage/family does not apply.
======================================================
Such a sad topic. My family (husband, wife, 4 children in a Covenant family) went to Destin, Florida for a vacation. My wife's uncle has a condo and large boat. He let us stay i the condo and arranged a fishing trip for us.
We were having great fun just fishing for the bait that if that was the only thing we did it would have been enough. I was helping one of my kids reel-in a catch of bait fish when I overheard the Captain radio a friend. The Captain reported to his friend that he had a family, a real family on board for a fishing trip.
My wife overheard the comment also and I do not think that I will ever forget those words.
Go focus on your own damn family, religious fanatic.
And I am the one being called a fanatic? Yeesh.
And, yes, I focus on my own family. That is why it is still whole.
I wonder what guilt fires your light?