Article

Nordic Journal of Nursing Research

2016, Vol. 36(3) 161–167
! The Author(s) 2016
To be in between: The meaning of PIS-divorce Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
groups for children from divorced families DOI: 10.1177/2057158516638275
njn.sagepub.com

Grethe Aarreberg Lofthus1 and Frode Skorpen2

Abstract
The aim of this study was to gain increased understanding about lived experiences of teenagers participating in PIS-divorce
groups (programme for implementation of divorce groups in school). From the perspective of caring science and based on an
ontological assumption of human interdependence, as well as earlier research that showed lack of consensus on the effect of
divorce on children, the question that we felt needed to be asked was how teenagers experienced PIS-divorce groups, and the
meaning of this experience in the time after. The methodological approach was phenomenological-hermeneutical. The sample is
based on interviews with five teenagers. The analysis uncovered two themes: To be in between and To be there for each other.
Teenagers viewed the offer of support as important. PIS-divorce groups enabled them to increase their understanding of their
life situation. The caring science concepts of suffering, love, and interdependence have contributed to give new and deeper
understanding to teenagers’ lived experience.

Keywords
interdependence, love, phenomenological-hermeneutical, PIS-divorce group, suffering

Accepted: 19 February 2016

Introduction
Each year more than 30,000 children in Norway experience
divorce. A Norwegian television programme entitled
Divorced, broadcast in March 2015, discussed the issue of
helping children cope with their parents’ divorce.1 As
divorce has become so common, one question that needs
to be asked is whether teenagers have developed skills to
cope with their new situation.2 In a survey on dropping out
of high school, 50 out of 100 youngsters cited their parents’
divorce, or the acquisition by their parents of new partners,
as a reason for dropping out.3 Divorce is one of the two
most common reasons why children contact the
Ombudsman for children in Norway.4
It has been asked what family and society can do to help
children cope with their new life in divorced families.5 Based
on caring science and the ontological assumption about
human interdependence we live in a world depending on
each other, and caring is in focus.6–10 Health is the aim of
caring and can be understood as experiencing feeling good.11
PIS-groups (programme for implementation of divorce
groups in school), which are on offer in some schools will
give children an opportunity to express and discuss their
experiences regarding their parents’ divorce. Over a period
of six weeks 4–6 pupils meet in the group for an hour,
together with a special educator and the school nurse.
After half a year there is a follow-up meeting.12
Earlier research
Størkesen found that divorce groups for children were
beneficial.5 Egge further demonstrated that divorce
groups were important for health promotion.13 The experi-
ence of being together with other children who had experi-
enced divorce had a positive health impact. The children
found someone to identify with, experienced openness, and
were supported by each other. Divorce support groups
resulted in increased safety and confidence and enhanced
understanding of divorce and of parents/step parents.
Some children also managed to see a positive outcome
from divorce.13
Thuen observed that there was no consensus in the ear-
lier research on the effect of divorce on children, a short-
coming which has resulted in ongoing heated debate about
the extent to which divorce actually hurts children.14
Researchers have agreed that the children of divorced par-
ents reported significantly more psychological hurt; how-
ever, where parents cooperated with each other, children
were then better able to find coherence and meaning in
life.14 Teenagers who experienced divorce after the age of
15 years did not suffer more than other children.15
However, Ahrons found that 20 years after the experience
of divorce, the quality of children’s family systems was
affected. New relationships had challenged many.
Therefore, she insists that children’s voices must be heard
because they are different from adults.16
1
Karmøy Kommune, Norway
2
University College Stord/Haugesund, Norway
Corresponding author:
Grethe Aarreberg Lofthus, Ramsdalskleiva 3, 5519 Haugesund, Norway.
Email: grethel@haugnett.no
162
Teenagers of divorced parents reported more symptoms
of anxiety and depression, lower subjective experience of
wellness and more school-related problems.5 According to
Amato et al.,17 earlier research18–20 has validated the
hypothesis of ‘the good divorce’. Amato et al., however,
refute the notion of ‘the good divorce’ as a panacea for
ensuring that children thrive in divorced families.17 Butler
et al. found that children experienced divorce as an
ongoing crisis and that they reported problems sourcing
information about divorce, which could have helped
them better understand their own situation.21 According
to Emery, the pain related to divorce never disappears,
even for the most resilient children, and it hurts children
if the parents do not allow them to have their own painful
feelings.22 Marschall found that children who moved
between their parents weekly tried their best to adjust to
their new situations and to develop strategies to cope with
the loss and grief they suffered from the absence of the
parent they were apart from.23
Aim
The aim was to gain increased understanding about lived
experiences of teenagers who participated in PIS-divorce
groups.
Design and methods
A phenomenological-hermeneutical research method was
adopted for the purpose of the study. This method gives
the opportunity to increase understanding of a phenom-
enon, in this case the experiences of teenagers participating
in PIS-divorce groups. The method was designed to afford
increased insight into the meaning that emerges from the
interviewees’ lived experiences.
Design
This is a qualitative study, based on semi-structured inter-
views. An interview guide containing two main questions
and follow-up questions was used. The participants were
asked about their experience participating in the PIS-
divorce group in school and what the PIS-divorce group
meant for them in the time after. Focus during follow-up
questions was on what the teenagers found important to
talk about.
Selection
To make the participants’ experience being interviewed as
safe as possible, the selection was limited to pupils the
interviewer as school nurse had met in earlier PIS-
groups. The interviewer had not been in contact with the
teenagers in the period between participating in the PIS-
group and being interviewed. The pool from which the
selection was made comprised 36 teenagers. Two boys
and three girls, aged 13 to 15 years, who had participated
in different divorce groups in the 4th to 7th grades in pri-
mary school, were interviewed. The interviews were
Nordic Journal of Nursing Research 36(3)
conducted in 2014. Each interview lasted between 25 and
55 minutes, was tape-recorded and subsequently tran-
scribed. All interviews, the transcription of which totalled
109 pages of text, were included in the analysis.
Ethics
The study was approved by the Norwegian Data
Protection Agency (reg.38911/3/JSL). Written consent
was obtained both from teenagers and the parent with par-
ental responsibility. All parties were provided with verbal
and written information about the study, which included a
statement of the right of the children to withdraw from
participation at any time. To ensure confidentiality, per-
sonal information, the tape-recorder, and transcriptions of
the interviews were stored separately and kept under lock.
The participants were given fictive names, regardless of
gender. Quotes were not attributed to their authors. This
was a follow-up study of an existing programme and, by
virtue of the Regional Committee for Medical Research
Ethics in Western Norway (12.03.2014 reg.2014/507) fur-
ther approval was not required.
Data analyses
The phenomenological-hermeneutical method developed
by Lindseth and Norberg was adopted for the study.24
From a phenomenological perspective, the focus was on
understanding the meaning of the lived experiences of the
informants communicating with the interviewer. Narrative
interviews were transcribed and hermeneutically inter-
preted. Initially, a naive understanding was formulated.
Then the text was divided into meaning units that were
condensed and divided into themes and sub-themes and
compared with the naive understanding. Then the text
was read again and a comprehensive understanding was
formulated.
Findings
Naive understanding
Teenagers considered the offer to participate in a PIS-
divorce group as important. They remembered a surpris-
ingly great deal from their time in the group, even five
years on. They spoke openly, and communicated with
empathy on how the PIS-divorce group had influenced
their own lives, and what it meant to be a child in divorced
families. Everyone remarked that his or her daily life was
affected by having divorced parents, even those who were
unable to remember how their lives were before divorce.
The teenagers related the different themes of the PIS-
divorce group to their own real-life experiences. Even
though the research questions were about the PIS-divorce
groups all the teenagers in the interviews talked also about
their own life experiences being a child in a divorce family.
Pivotal issues were tough choices in relation to visitation
arrangements, Christmas and vacations, new family mem-
bers, loss, and thoughts of guilt. The teenagers needed to
Lofthus and Skorpen 163

know that there was someone there for them, someone to where four meaning units related to the sub-themes are
talk to, and someone to listen to and to understand them. presented.
The teenagers stated that the PIS-divorce group offer was To be in between was about the teenagers’ thoughts on
as important to middle school as to primary school pupils. being torn between, to miss, to have thoughts of own guilt,
They mentioned that they would recommend it to others and to be in need of love. Sub-theme one was To be torn
and suggested that we extend the group offer. between. One teenager said: ‘You become like a separated
soul. One part belonged to the one [parent], the second
part belonged to the other [parent]’.
Structural analysis The teenagers relayed their experiences on tough choices
The thematic analysis resulted in 127 meaning units, 127 in relation to everyday life, holidays and vacations. Issues
condensed meaning units, eight sub-themes and two arising in this context related to the choice of home and
themes. The first theme (see Table 1), To be in between, contact arrangements, weekly packing, and coordination
became visible from four sub-themes: To be torn between, of holidays and vacations. Everyday life was affected for
To miss, To have thoughts of own guilt and To be in need of many years following the parents’ divorce but the conse-
love. The second theme (see Table 1), To be there for each quences were experienced differently. One teenager said:
other, appeared from four sub-themes: To experience being ‘It affects everything in my life. I am back and forth.
safe, To be met, To be there for each other and To experi- I almost live in a suitcase’. Another teenager remarked
ence new understanding. The condensation-abstraction pro- that everyday life had changed dramatically after experien-
cess for the theme To be in between is illustrated in Table 2, cing a second divorce. Another described everyday life as
quite normal but experienced the weekly packing of lug-
gage a challenge. Choice of home and contact arrange-
ments were tough. The task of choosing between parents,
Table 1. Results of thematic analysis, identification of sub-themes based on their own needs, was hard. One commented:
and themes for to be in between and to be there for each other. ‘You are torn at both ends of your arm . . . and soon one
Sub-theme Theme had to let go . . . it was a very . . . like . . . creepy feeling . . . on
behalf of them . . . in a way’.
To be torn between To be in between One teenager found the experience of autonomy as both
To miss positive and problematic, venturing that dividing time
To have thoughts of own guilt between parents on a 50-50 basis was an optimal solution.
To be in need of love Another interviewee had looked for a 50-50 arrangement
To experience being safe To be there for each other for a long time and had finally experienced being listened
To be met to. A third teenager experienced relief in not having to
To be there for each other choose between parents, as one parent had been given par-
To experience new understanding ental responsibility by the court. Another observed:
‘Hardest . . . that has been . . . trial . . . THAT time was very

Table 2. Example of condensation-abstraction process for the theme To be in between.

Meaning unit Condensed meaning unit Sub-theme

‘There might be many thoughts in the beginning . . . it To experience being torn at both To be torn between
is wrong against dad that I will stay with mum ends of the arm.
and only be at his place in the weekends. How
does he feel about that? Does he hurt? Or should
I move to him, but then mum will hurt? . . . You get
torn at both ends of your arm . . . and soon one of
them had to let go . . . It was a very . . . creepy
feeling . . . on their behalf. . .’
‘I really think it is best with one week at both places. To experience it as best living To miss
[There are many youngsters wishing for one place one week at both places.
to live the most?] No, not me. Because then I miss To live in one place the most
them too much.’ would cause a huge loss.
‘It . . . is difficult sometimes . . . have been thinking a Hard to accept it, and difficult To have thoughts of own guilt
lot about accepting it. Was it me being thoughts of own guilt.
born . . . then it fell apart . . .?’
‘They can feel they get less attention from both, The parents’ conflict over- To be in need of love
because they spend more time on hate than on shadows the children’s need
love.’ for love.
164
hard . . . it was creepy everything . . . I did not like it, I did
not like that they were arguing’.
One teenager remembered very well that holidays were a
contentious issue, and commented that they were still
posing a challenge. In a similar vein, another teenager
stated that he had never experienced a holiday together
with one of his parents.
Sub-theme two was To miss. To choose one means to
miss the other. To choose a 50-50 arrangement was a way
of reducing deprivation. One of the teenagers remarked:
‘One misses life as it was, in spite of understanding that
one’s earlier life is not possible’, and one said: ‘I do not
know if I would have my parents together . . . but at the
same time I would have them together. I would have a
unity’.
Sub-theme three, To have thoughts of own guilt, was
often mentioned in the narratives. One reported that she
experienced it as tough thoughts: ‘Was it my fault?? THAT
is what I often was thinking’, ‘I was very like . . . why . . . it
goes intense . . . you go around and think . . . why? Was it
me? Didn’t they want me? . . . Was that the reason why
there was quarrelling?’. She remarked that participation
in group conversation made it possible for her to quash
these types of thoughts.
Sub-theme four was To be in need of love. On the topic
of what children of divorced parents needed, one
declaimed spontaneously: ‘LOVE!’ children need love
from everyone, she emphasised. She added that children
can feel that they are given less attention by both parents,
as parents are paying more attention to hating each other.
One teenager commented that it was difficult to understand
what love was, in the way adults talked about it. Teenagers
did not understand how parents could say they still loved
each other, when they were with new partners.
The teenagers discussed why their parents divorced.
Two reported that their parents did not fit together.
Another said that his/her parents did not like each other
anymore, and two cited multiple conflicts as the reason.
Also, the experience of their stepparents cooperating
with their ex-partners gave rise to new questions. One com-
mented: ‘Then I started wondering why my mother and
father did not manage to cooperate . . . My mother did
not manage to put words on it, neither did my dad’.
Another ventured that what was good also hurt: ‘It is
really hard thinking of your parents not being . . . together.
At the same time, I do not want to think about it
either . . . then I would not have got new siblings and
stuff’. Love is also about responsibility for parents and
one’s new family. One of the teenagers said that you do
your best to make it work. Another confided: ‘I do not
want to leave my mother, even if she is . . . may be . . . not
quite able to stand on her own feet’.
The second theme To be there for each other was about
the group offer, how the teenagers experienced it, and what
it meant to them. To be there for each other meant to feel
safe, to be met, to be there for each other, and to experi-
ence new understanding. Sub-theme five, To experience
being safe, was about feeling safe in the group, about
safety in common experiences, and about the perception
Nordic Journal of Nursing Research 36(3)
that feeling safe was the foundation for opening up to one
another. To experience, rather than being alone in the
world with one’s experiences, a sense of community with
others in the same situation, was important for the teen-
agers. One expressed it as follows: ‘It is very okay going in
such group, because . . . when you hear that others’ stories
as are much the same as your own, then you get like . . . I
am not alone . . . I have people who have experienced get-
ting through the same’. The teenagers experienced a feeling
of safety in the group and one commented: ‘I felt a little
free when I got the opportunity to talk about it. There are
really not many I can talk about it to’.
Some teenagers welcomed the fact that there were not
more than six children in each group. They would have
had more difficulty talking openly in larger groups. Also,
some found participation difficult due to the presence of
peers from their own school class, whereas one teenager
felt safe knowing most of the other children in the group.
Being there for each other was also about the possibility of
speaking when feeling ready to speak, of not being pushed
to speak, and of having the right to decide when and what
to talk about. One teenager remembered first being wor-
ried about speaking in the group, but felt confident about
speaking when she recognised her own experiences in the
group themes. One said: ‘I remember that confidentiality
was important, because then I could say everything, with-
out anything muting me’.
Sub-theme six, To be met, was about having someone
who sees you, talks to you, listens to you, takes you ser-
iously, understands you, and communicates trustworthi-
ness when you need it. It may be a friend, a parent, a
teacher or a neighbour. What is important is, not the per-
son’s profession, but that that person understands you and
takes you seriously. Many people can see, if they only open
their eyes: ‘What I think is important is that people should
bother to care’ one commented.
One of the teenagers said: ‘parents think a little more of
themselves . . . I understand it in a way, because it is them
who get most affected’. Another participant had the experi-
ence where one parent understood that it was hard to be a
child of divorce, whereas the other parent saw only possi-
bilities and solutions in the situation.
One teenager ventured that when parents do not take
their children’s needs seriously, it is important that other
adults help the children to be understood. Another view
expressed was that a school nurse should be more visible in
schools, consulting the pupils regularly and enquiring
about their welfare. One participant observed that when
someone is suffering it is important that another cares.
She reported an experience of feeling cared: ‘I see you
are suffering. Do you feel like talking about it? . . . if not,
you should know that I am here . . . Those are very nice
words to hear’.
Sub-theme three is to be there for each other. One said:
‘The fact that you know you have someone, that you are
not alone in the world’. The teenagers had thoughts about
being there for each other, about talking and listening to
each other, and about doing things together. All of them
found it important having a good friend. The PIS-divorce
Lofthus and Skorpen
group was emphasised as being important in primary
school and as an option that should be on offer in
middle school. The consensus was that individual conver-
sations with a school nurse could not replace the PIS-
divorce group, which gave them the experience of a
sense of community with others in the same situation.
The PIS-divorce group gave them meaning in their life
for a time afterwards. One of them said it was difficult
to encapsulate in words, but recalled that the group offer
was comforting. The teenagers suggested more meetings
over a longer time-period and more time to talk about
themselves. A follow-up group half a year later was,
according to the teenagers, also important. Everyone
wanted to recommend the group offer to others in the
same situation. One said: ‘I think it can help a lot of
people coming out of the little shell they are hiding
inside’.
Sub-theme eight was To experience new understanding.
The teenagers spoke about questioning their past and
about how participating in the group had resulted in
increased understanding. One said: ‘It was much that
dawned for me. I felt it became easier for me’. According
to another, involvement in the group made it possible for
the teenagers to move on with their lives, knowing that it
was not their fault that their parents had divorced.
Involvement in the PIS-divorce group also deepened the
participants’ understanding, giving them both a feeling of
relief and a meaning which was conducive to their health
and enjoyment of life.
Comprehensive understanding and discussion
The themes To be in between and To be there for each other
summarise the essence of the structural analysis and will be
discussed applying a caring science perspective.6–10 Being a
child from a divorced family may be understood as to be in
between and is about experiencing being torn between par-
ents, missing one, having thoughts of guilt, and being in
need of love. Divorce is a common phenomenon in our
society and narratives from both this study and earlier
research14,16 show that divorce affects teenagers’ health.
Both our professional understanding as school nurses,
and the understanding of other professionals, affect how
the needs of children of divorce will be met. We need to
listen to children’s voices as their experiences differ from
adults’ experiences.16 Both this study and earlier research21
show that teenage children of divorced couples suffer in
their daily lives for many years following the divorce.
Egge takes the view that the group offer can make it
easier for teenagers to see the positive effects of divorce;13
however, such beneficial effects were not evident in the
teenagers’ stories. Only one of the teenagers referred to
the positive experience of gaining new siblings, conceding,
at the same time, however, that it was difficult thinking
about parents not being together. There was also a
thread of ambivalence and double thinking running
through the teenagers’ stories which may be understood
as being in between. To choose one means to relegate the
other. Experiencing happiness by being with one parent
165
means missing the other. Also, even where the parents do
their best to cooperate, teenagers may still experience being
in between. According to Amato et al. this may be inter-
preted as meaning that ‘good’ divorce does not necessarily
mean that children are necessarily happy in divorced
families.17
In this study, choosing contact arrangements was, for
the teenagers, to choose between their parents. To opt for a
50-50 arrangement was about reducing deprivation.
Marschall described such measures as adaptation strategies
children deploy to deal with the deprivation and grief
caused by the absence of the parent from whom they are
separated.23
The single word ‘Love!’ used by one of the teenagers,
represented the teenagers’ need for love. Tolerance, interest
and caring are everyday expressions of love.9 Also, assum-
ing responsibility for one’s parents and new families may
be interpreted as expressions of love. According to Arman
and Rehnsfeldt,9 love as a concept is not used in everyday
language, but, in this study, the teenagers were concerned
about love and expressed it in words. The youngsters com-
mented, reflecting the view of Ahrons,16 that parents were
challenged by the acquisition of a new partner. As one
noted, the children were liable to experience a diminution
in attention from their parents when one parent acquired a
new partner and conflicts between the parents increased:
‘they use more time on hate than on love’. One way to
understand this experience is as being in between, not
experiencing the love one is looking for.
The second theme was about the meaning of the group
offer. The group offer increased the teenagers’ experience
of meaning and coherence which, according to Dahlberg
and Segersten, is important for children’s health.11 As one
interviewee said: ‘It was then much that it came clear
for me. I felt it became easier for me afterwards’. Egge
reported similar findings.13
The teenagers’ stories also shed light on another way of
understanding the value of the group offer. To be there for
each other is the essence of the PIS-divorce group offer. It
is about being met when you are suffering, having someone
open their eyes and be willing to see you, and being taken
seriously. It is, therefore, about the existential conditions
of life and the revelation that we are all dependent on each
other – it is about imparting an interdependence perspec-
tive.6 Suffering is a natural part of human life, and in line
with Rehnsfeldt and Arman,10 suffering is compatible with
health. What is important is that the suffering experiences
are being met. As the teenagers say, being met makes you
feel better, and this is important to health.11
The teenagers emphasised that there are times when the
children of divorced parents needed someone to talk to and
someone to understand them. This need for a sense of
community with others was understandable and in line
with the views of Løgstrup6 and Martinsen7 that, as
humans, we live in a common world, are dependent on
each other, and play a part in each other’s lives. Egge
noted that, for children who experienced divorce, commu-
nity with other children produced the same result as a
health promotion effect.13
166
The teenagers also emphasised the need to feel safe in the
group and to be able to share their thoughts and feelings
with each other: ‘I felt a little free when I could talk about it.
There are not that many I can talk to about it’. The group
was, therefore, about trust. Løgstrup ventured that human
life is about meeting each other in natural trust.6
The teenagers described themselves as wondering about
the past and about why life was the way it was. This con-
cerned existential questions, which, some said, they were
not accustomed to talking about with friends and parents.
Martinsen commented that, in our busy society, there is no
room for these types of reflections.7 The group offer can be
a forum for such conversation and reflection.
Another way of understanding the meaning of the
group offer is in light of the ethics of life. According to
Løgstrup, if your understanding of life is that other
humans are important in your life, this understanding
will translate into your taking care of the others in your
life.6 With regard to the teenagers’ understanding of their
lives, their views were framed with reference to their family
lives and the experiences of being in between. The teenagers
emphasised the importance of being in communion with
each other. They also understood that their parents had
different levels of ability to understand and to take their
challenges seriously, which they attributed to their parents’
experiences in life. These thoughts showed the youngsters’
depth and maturity, but also their need for understanding
in their lives. The group offer was capable of providing a
sense of community and experience of common meaning
and understanding of life.9
The teenagers’ experience of the group offer was about
the meaning of being met. One way of understanding this is
to reflect on the thoughts they shared about the loss of love
and not being seen. May be talking about ‘being there for
each other’ was the reason why the teenagers opened up to
discuss their thoughts of what is missing in the experience of
being in between, which came up as the first theme. The
group gave them something they missed: love and being
seen. This can be understood in line with what has been
described earlier: that children of divorced parents reported
significantly more psychological hurt.14 Suffering has a
health impact,10 and the teenagers put words on the mean-
ing of experiencing love and being seen when suffering.
Caregivers should be aware that, according to Løgstrup,6
in every meeting between humans there is an ethical
demand. When a person in trust puts more or less of his
life in the hands of other people, then there is a demand
for others to take care of the suffering human being. One
could ask why caregivers do not see the one suffering. The
teenagers point out their need of being met and experiencing
dignity through their experiences being taken seriously:
‘There are many who can see, if they only open their eyes’.
Maybe this is about taking their responsibility as a human in
communion with another human.
Critical considerations
The purpose of using a phenomenological-hermeneutical
method is to uncover essential meaning in the world.
Nordic Journal of Nursing Research 36(3)
What we found in the interpretation of the text was not
just one, and only one, meaning.24 The questions about
validity and reliability are different in qualitative than in
quantitative research. In qualitative research the question
focuses on the extent to which the researcher is consistent
and aware throughout the research process. The fact that
the interviewer had met the informants as a school nurse in
PIS-divorce groups could have affected both the conduct
of the interview and the interpretation of the results. To
what extent it is possible to put one’s own pre-understand-
ing aside could be discussed, but both when doing the
interviews and in the process of analysis one was aware
of these challenges. In the interviews the focus was on
the teenagers’ experiences, and the interpretation of the
text was from the perspective of caring science.
Conclusions
The study showed that PIS-divorce groups were viewed by
the teenagers as an important offer. The study also brought
to light new understandings of teenagers’ experiences of
life. To be children from divorced families may be under-
stood as to be in between, which means having ambivalent
thoughts and contradictory feelings, to be torn between
parents and to be in need of love. To be there for each
other was the essence in the teenagers’ stories about the
meaning of the group offer, which meant being safe,
being met and experiencing new understanding. The
caring science concepts of suffering, love and interdepend-
ence have contributed to new and deeper understanding of
the teenagers’ lived experiences.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency
in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
References
1. Ljøen H. Skilsmisseuken ‘Skilt’ på NRK Super [‘Divorced’
on NRK Super], http://www.nrk.no/presse/skilsmisseuken-
_skilt_-pa-nrk-super-1.12251328 (2015, accessed 25 March
2015)..
2. Bakken H. Ungdom takler skilsmisse helt greit [Teenagers
manage fine after divorce], http://www.aftenposten.no/
familie-og-oppvekst-old/Ungdom-takler-skilsmisse-helt-greit-
7699664.html (2014, accessed 17 March 2015).
3. Terjesen M. Skilsmisser årsaker til skolefrafall: NRK
Rogaland [Divorces reasons to drop out of school: NRK
Rogaland], www.nrk.no/rogaland/skilsmisser-arsak-til-skole-
frafall-1.11797223 (2014, accessed 27 June 2014).
4. Nordland E. Barnas stemmer blir borte i stormen [The chil-
dren’s voices disappear in the storm], http://www.dagsavisen.
no/innenriks/barnas-stemme-blir-borte-i-stormen-1.305162
(2014, accessed 28 January 2015).
5. Størkesen I. Parental divorce: psychological distress and adjust-
ment in adolescent and adult offspring. Submitted PhD Thesis,
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences,
University of Oslo, Norway, 2006.
Lofthus and Skorpen
6. Løgstrup KE. Den etiske fordring [The ethical demand]. 4th
ed. Århus: Forlaget Klim, 2010.
7. Martinsen K. Løgstrup og sykepleien [Løgstrup and nursing].
Oslo: Akribe AS, 2012.
8. Arman M and Rehnsfeldt A. DEF-Det existentiella
Førbandet: existentiellt omhendertagande efter katastrof
[DEF – The existential dressing: existential caring after catas-
trophes]. Stockholm: Liber, 2012.
9. Arman M and Rehnsfeldt A. Vårdande som lindrar lidande:
etik i vårdandet [Caring that helps on suffering: ethics in
caring]. Stockholm: Liber AB, 2006.
10. Rehnsfeldt A and Arman M. Significance of close relation-
ships after the tsunami disaster in connection with existential
health: a qualitative interpretive study. Scand J Caring Sci
2012; 20(3): 537–545.
11. Dahlberg K and Segersten K. Helsa och vårdande: i teori og
praxis [Health and caring: In theory and practice]. Stockholm:
Natur og Kultur, 2010.
12. Voksne for barn. Informasjon om PIS-skilsmissegrupper
[Information about PIS-divorce groups], http://www.vfb.no/
no/vi_tilbyr/skilsmisse_i_familien/skilsmissegrupper/skils-
missegrupper_i_barneskolen/ (accessed 24 April 2015).
13. Egge H. ‘Du er ikke alene’: samtalegrupper som helsefrem-
mende tiltak for skilsmissebarn. En grounded studie [‘You are
not alone’: conversation groups as a health promotion offer for
children of divorce. A grounded theory study]. Master of Public
Health Thesis, Nordic School of Public Health, NHV,
Gothenburg, Sweden, 2012.
14. Thuen FI. Barn og skilsmisser: en gjennomgang av forskning
på feltet [Children and divorce: a summary of research]. In:
Dyregrov A (ed) Et liv for barn: utfordringer, omsorg og hjel-
petiltak [A life for children: challenges, caring and aid mea-
sures]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, 2001, pp. 159–172.
167
15. Zeratsion H, Dalsklev M, Bjertness E, et al. Parental divorce
in late adolescence does not seem to increase mental health
problems: a population study from Norway. BMC Pub
Health 2013. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-413.
16. Ahrons CR. Family ties after divorce: long-term implications
for children. Fam Process 2006; 46(1): 53–65.
17. Amato PR, Kane JB and James S. Reconsidering the ‘good
divorce’. Fam Relat 2011; 60(5): 511–524.
18. Booth A and Amato PR. Parental predivorce relations and
offspring postdivorce well-being. J Marriage Fam 2001;
63: 197–212.
19. Jekielek SM. Parental conflict, marital disruption and chil-
dren’s emotional well-being. Social Forces 1998; 8: 39–66.
20. Strohnschein L. Parental divorce and child mental health
trajectories. J Marriage Fam 2005; 67: 1286–1300.
21. Butler I, Scanlan L and Robinson M. Divorcing children:
children’s experience of their parents’ divorce. London:
Jessica Kingsley, 2003.
22. Emery ER. The truth about children and divorce: dealing with
the emotions so you and your children can thrive. New York:
Penguin, 2006.
23. Marschall A. The time-shared child: exploring children’s per-
spectives on everyday life with two households. PhD Thesis,
Faculty of social sciences, University of Copenhagen,
Denmark, 2014. ISBN: 978-87-7611-785-6.
24. Lindseth A and Norberg A. A phenomenological hermeneut-
ical method for researching lived experience. Scand J Caring
Sci 2004; 18: 145–153.