Divorce FAQ: When Extended Family Turns Your Divorce Into a Spectator Sport

Managing Your Cast of Supportive Characters

Article 1 of 10 | Divorced: Bruised-but-not-Broken Series

There is a moment, usually about three weeks into your separation, when you realise something alarming: your divorce no longer belongs to you.

You were busy — sorting out bank accounts, crying in supermarket car parks, googling “can I keep the dog” at 2 am — and while your attention was elsewhere, your extended family quietly convened, elected themselves a crisis committee, and began running the whole operation without you.

Welcome to the Great Divorce Discussion. It is one of the least mentioned, most universally experienced, and frankly most operatically absurd aspects of divorce. Because while everyone focuses on the lawyers, the asset division, and the devastating rewriting of your future, nobody warns you that Aunt Patricia is going to appoint herself Head of Intelligence, your mother is going to accidentally forward your private texts to your brother, and your father-in-law — a man who once spent forty-five minutes at Christmas explaining the plot of a film he had not yet seen — is going to ring you to deliver a verdict on your marriage.

This article is for everyone who has lived through the family divorce discussion extravaganza. The recruiting. The siding. The unsolicited opinions were delivered with the force of papal decrees. The relatives who ring not to check on you but to extract information to relay elsewhere. It is a warm and entirely genuine acknowledgement that dealing with extended family during divorce is, in many ways, harder than dealing with the divorce itself.

And it is also, if you can get just a little bit of distance from it, occasionally very funny.

The Loyalty Network: A Brief and Biased Overview

Every family has a loyalty network. Most of the time, it sits dormant: a kind of emotional infrastructure you don’t notice, like pipes or load-bearing walls. People know whose side they’re on, broadly speaking, but nobody has to act on it because there’s no crisis to activate it.

Divorce activates it.

Within days of separation, the loyalty network springs to life with the energy of a military mobilisation. Calls are made. WhatsApp groups — ones you’re not invited to join — begin to churn with activity. People who haven’t thought about your marriage for years suddenly have very strong feelings about it. Alliances form. Positions are staked. And everyone, without exception, believes they are being entirely reasonable and only wanting what’s best for you.

What makes the loyalty network so exhausting is that it operates on two levels simultaneously. On the surface, everyone is concerned. They are worried about you. They are just trying to help. They are checking in. But underneath, the loyalty system is collecting, categorising and transmitting information with the efficiency of a small intelligence agency — one with terrible operational security and a tendency to CC the wrong people.

The loyalty extraction itself is simple: your relatives want to know what’s happening, who did what to whom, who is the wronged party, and where to place their allegiance. This is human. It is completely understandable. It is also, when you are in the middle of the worst period of your life, absolutely exhausting.

The Cast of Characters

Every divorce produces its own supporting cast, but certain recurring archetypes appear with such regularity that they deserve formal recognition.

First, The Information Broker. This is the family member — often a sibling, sometimes a parent — who has positioned themselves at the centre of the information network. They speak to everyone. They convey messages between parties who are not yet speaking. They brief newcomers. They have heard things, and they want you to know they have heard things, though they will not always say what those things are. The Information Broker means well. They genuinely believe they are helping. They are not helping. They are adding at least three layers of misunderstanding to every communication and enjoying, just a little bit, the sense of importance the role provides.

Then there is The Historian. The Historian has been waiting for this moment. They saw this coming — did they not say, did they not mention, did they not try to tell you back in 2019 that something was not right? The Historian is now available to provide a comprehensive retrospective analysis of everything that led to this point, including incidents you have entirely forgotten and at least one thing that they appear to have made up. The Historian is not malicious. They simply have a deep human need to be right, and your divorce is, for them, a form of vindication.

The Premature Grief Merchant appears next, often clutching something warm to drink. They are heartbroken. More heartbroken, it sometimes seems, than you are. They loved your ex. They cannot believe it has come to this. They keep saying things like “I just keep thinking about the good times” while you are sitting there trying to remember where you put the mortgage documents. The Premature Grief Merchant is mourning on a timeline completely disconnected from yours, and they occasionally make you feel that your own feelings — whatever they are — are the wrong ones.

There is also The Reluctant Spy. This is the relative — your cousin, say, or a sibling-in-law — who is still in contact with your ex, and who you can tell is being pumped for information every time they ring you. The Reluctant Spy is not actually trying to spy. They are in an impossible position and they know it. You can hear it in how carefully they speak, in the slight pause before they answer questions about how things are going, in the way they occasionally say “I can’t really say” and then immediately say it.

And finally, The Well-Meaning Wildcard. This is the family member — an uncle, a grandparent, a cousin you haven’t spoken to in years — who rings out of nowhere to deliver their thoughts. They have a theory about what went wrong. They have advice, largely historical and mostly inapplicable. They once went through something similar, or know someone who did, and they want to tell you about it at some length. They mean absolutely no harm. They are simply doing what humans have always done: reaching toward people in pain and saying whatever comes to mind, regardless of whether it helps.

The Recruitment Drive

One of the stranger experiences of divorce is discovering that someone appears to be running a campaign to get people onto their side — and that person might be you, your ex, or both of you simultaneously, without either of you entirely meaning to.

The recruitment drive is rarely deliberate. Almost nobody sits down and thinks: “I will now systematically lobby my relatives to support my position in this divorce.” What actually happens is subtler and harder to resist. You are in pain. When you are in pain you talk to people you trust. When you talk to people you trust about the pain someone else has caused you, you naturally emphasise the things they did that hurt you. You are not lying. You are not propagandising. You are just telling your story, from your perspective, to people who love you.

The problem is that your ex is doing exactly the same thing, from exactly their perspective, to their people. And within a few weeks, there are two completely different marriages being described in family kitchens across the country, and both descriptions contain enough truth to be convincing and enough omission to be misleading.

What nobody tells you is how unsatisfying the recruitment drive ultimately is. Winning people to your side — and you will, your people will side with you, because that is what people do — doesn’t actually make you feel better. It makes you feel temporarily validated and then, usually quite quickly, trapped. Because now you have an audience. Now there are people who need updates. Now there are relatives who have invested in your narrative and who you have to manage, gently, every time something happens that complicates the story they’ve been told.

The fully-sided relative is not, it turns out, an asset. They are a responsibility.

What It Does to the Children

This is where the warmth and the wit have to pause for a moment, because this part matters a great deal.

Children observe everything. They absorb the temperature of every room they walk into. They notice who whispers when they enter, who asks careful questions, who refers to their other parent in a way that suggests that parent has recently been reclassified. They cannot always name what they are sensing, but they feel it, and they carry it.

When extended family takes sides vigorously — when grandparents make pointed comments, when aunts and uncles become noticeably cool toward one parent, when family gatherings become ideologically charged — children are placed in an impossible bind. They love both their parents. They love both sides of their family. They are not capable of processing, and should not be asked to process, the fact that the adults around them are engaged in a loyalty war.

The research on this is consistent and sobering: children do best in divorce when they are permitted to love both parents without guilt, and when the significant adults in their lives model the possibility of moving forward with dignity. Extended family can either support this or actively undermine it.

The kindest and most difficult thing relatives can do — and some manage it, and they deserve enormous credit — is to keep their opinions about the other parent firmly to themselves when children are present, and sometimes when they are not. To say, if asked, “I know your mum/dad loves you very much.” To resist the temptation of the small dig, the meaningful look, the sigh that speaks volumes.

Children are not referees. They are not comfort objects for the grief of their grandparents. They are people going through something very hard, and they need the adults around them to hold it together, even when holding it together is the last thing anyone feels like doing.

Divorce Information Distribution

Here is a thing that almost nobody who is divorcing realises until it is too late: information shared with family during divorce has a half-life of approximately zero.

This is not because your family is malicious or gossip-hungry (although the odd one might be). It is because divorce is dramatic and significant and the people who love you cannot help discussing it with each other, which means that the thing you told your mother in confidence on Tuesday has been discussed with your aunt by Wednesday, has reached your cousin by Thursday, and has been slightly inaccurately relayed to someone on your ex’s side of the family by the following weekend.

The practical consequence of this is that you should think of anything you tell a family member during divorce as a press release. Not in a cynical way — you need to be able to talk to people, and you should — but with a clear understanding that the information will travel, and that it may travel in a distorted form. Speak carefully. Do not share things that could damage legal proceedings. Do not share things that could reach your children. Do not share things about money, about your ex’s behaviour, about your own behaviour, that you would not be comfortable with a wider audience receiving.

And perhaps most importantly: do not outsource your narrative to people who love you but don’t have full information. The story that gets built in family conversations is almost always simpler, more one-sided, and more emotionally charged than the reality. Living inside that story — being the protagonist of someone else’s version of your divorce — makes it harder, not easier, to see clearly and make good decisions.

When the In-Laws Are the Problem (And When They’re Not)

A special note on in-laws, because they deserve their own consideration.

Your in-laws — particularly if the marriage was long and the relationship was close — are losing something real when it ends. They may be losing a person they genuinely love and will miss. They may be losing a vision of how their family would look in the future. They are almost certainly going to side with their child, because that is what parents do, but that does not mean they are wrong or bad people.

The in-law who is cold to you at a school pick-up, the mother-in-law who has clearly been told a version of events that doesn’t entirely correspond to your own — these people are usually not your enemies. They are frightened people who love their child and are doing what frightened people do, which is rally around and protect.

Where it becomes genuinely problematic is when in-laws take active steps to influence legal proceedings, to interfere in arrangements for children, to poison relationships between children and the departing parent, or to weaponise financial or social power. This is not just painful — it can have real legal and developmental consequences, and if it is happening, it is worth raising with a family lawyer and potentially a family therapist.

But for most in-laws, in most divorces, the answer is not confrontation. It is patience, low expectations, and a firm decision not to take the bait. You do not need to win over your former mother-in-law. You do not need her to understand your side. You need, eventually, to be in the same room with her for school events and milestone occasions, and to do so with sufficient civility that your children do not feel they are watching a standoff. That is enough. That is, frankly, a lot.

What to Actually Do

Having spent considerable time describing the problem, it seems only fair to offer something practical.

The first and most important thing is to identify one or two people — not ten, not a rotating cast — with whom you will actually process the divorce. People who can hold information confidentially. People who will tell you when you’re being unreasonable as well as when you’re not. People who are not so enmeshed in your family system that anything you say will immediately enter the information network. A close friend is often better suited to this role than a family member, for exactly this reason.

The second thing is to give your family a job. Extended family members who feel useful are dramatically less likely to be destructive. Ask your mother to help with childcare on specific days. Ask your brother to be the person who comes over when you need company. Ask your aunt to research family lawyers in your area. People who have tasks are people who feel included without needing to extract information or stake positions.

Third, become comfortable with the phrase “I’d rather not talk about that part.” It sounds simple. It is simple. It is also, somehow, extremely hard to say to people who love you and are looking at you with eyes full of worry and the distinct sense that they are owed information because they care so much. You are allowed to decline to share things. You are allowed to keep parts of your experience private. The loving gaze of a concerned relative is not a legally binding obligation to disclose.

Fourth, and finally: try, when you can, to find it a little bit funny. Not the pain. Not the grief. Not the genuine hardship of what your children are going through. But the sheer operatic absurdity of the cast of characters, the information networks, the competing narratives. The fact that your uncle has opinions. The fact that someone your ex’s mother knows has apparently been telling people something that bears no relationship to anything that actually happened. The elaborate theatre of human loyalty systems is activated around a crisis.

Seen from the right distance, it is kind of extraordinary how much humans do when they love each other and don’t know what else to do.

A Final Word on Being Loved

Most of what extended families do during divorce — the information gathering, the side-taking, the unsolicited opinions, the loyalty rallying — comes from love. Badly deployed love, impractical love, love that makes your life harder rather than easier, love that serves the needs of the person feeling it more than the person it’s directed at. But love.

This doesn’t mean you have to accept all of it graciously. You are allowed to set limits. You are allowed to tell your mother that you need her to stop asking about the settlement. You are allowed to tell your sister that her opinion of your ex is not helpful right now. You are allowed to decline the Historian’s retrospective analysis, the Grief Merchant’s tears, the Wildcard’s theories.

What you might also allow yourself, quietly, is a little gratitude that these imperfect, intrusive, well-meaning people exist. Because the alternative — facing divorce without the noisy, complicated infrastructure of people who love you — is the loneliest war.

They’re infuriating. They mean well. They’re yours. And eventually, when this is over and the dust has settled, many of them will still be there — having mostly forgotten which side they were on, ready to welcome whatever version of your life comes next.

Even Aunt Patricia.

Stress destroys Lives. To find out what you can do to safeguard your sanity by taking my insight-giving quiz, subscribe to my mailing list.