Divorce with children

He is married with 3 children.

The above is fine.

Let us say the man in question is divorced.

Would you say the following?

He is divorced with 3 children.

Yes, I think you can - you might put a comma after divorced. I don't think (in this day and age) it is necessary to go the whole explanatory hog and say he is divorced and (/but) has 3 children. But it does depend on the context....

Oros said:

He is married with 3 children.

The above is fine.

Let us say the man in question is divorced.

Would you say the following?

He is divorced with 3 children.

Sure..why not..
He is married and has three children..
He is divorced and has three children..
both are ok..
tg

I believe that the politically correct way to say this now is:

He is a single dad (father) with 3 children.

That way nobody knows whether he is divorced or widowed unless they are rude and ask.

Why would it be rude? is just your marital status, single parents can be called that way if they never been married, same with the rest, divorced with three children, widowed with three kids, separated with three kids whatever, the point is there is no rudeness in calling it what it is. I'd say.

I have a question related to this:

He is divorced with 3 children. - In this sentence, I gather he's divorced and has three children from his marriage, but I can't tell wheter the children live with him or not. Is that so for English natives?

He is a single dad (father) with 3 children. - In this sentence, it is clear to me that the children live with his father, but I can't tell whether he is divorced, widowed or never married at all. Is my interpretation correct?

Thanks in advance.

The key word is "with", but unless you specify the kids are not under the father's custody it's assumed they are with him. That's what I think.

QUIJOTE said:

Why would it be rude? is just your marital status, single parents can be called that way if they never been married, same with the rest, divorced with three children, widowed with three kids, separated with three kids whatever, the point is there is no rudeness in calling it what it is. I'd say.

It would be rude because you would be being nosey trying to get more information about why the person was a single dad.

I have a friend that is divorced and he preferes the term 'single dad' to 'divorced dad' due to the stigma of being divorced. Even though he knows better, he feels that some people veiw you as less because you are incapable of keeping a marriage together.

He is divorced with 3 children. - In this sentence, I gather he's divorced and has three children from his marriage, but I can't tell wheter the children live with him or not. Is that so for English natives? I would agree with your observation.

He is a single dad (father) with 3 children. - In this sentence, it is clear to me that the children live with his father, but I can't tell whether he is divorced, widowed or never married at all. Is my interpretation correct? Yes. I have a friend that prefers to use this over the other because that way it is not so obvious that he is divorced. For him, most people assume he is widowed and do not pry so much into his personal life and ask questions as they would if he was divorced.

I agree with LadyB as well. It might be an age or culture effect, but I would assume that the children of "divorced with three children" lived with their mother; but quite definitely the "single father with three children" is looking after the kids.

daviesri said:

It would be rude because you would be being nosey trying to get more information about why the person was a single dad.

I have a friend that is divorced and he preferes the term 'single dad' to 'divorced dad' due to the stigma of being divorced. Even though he knows better, he feels that some people veiw you as less because you are incapable of keeping a marriage together.

Ah, I see, you are refering as if it is a question but the author (OROS) is saying not asking, I see nothing rude to say what's true unless you say it with bad intentions, still, to ask someone's marital status would be considered rude depending on how close the person asking the question is to the person being asked right?

Your friend considers rude when someone asks or refers to him as divorced, does he write single parent on all forms that ask for marital status?

I agree with you that one has to be sensitive as far as asking not so much when you are saying it. Then again that's just my opinion.

Thanks everybody.

I would like to tell you why I asked this question.

It is correct to say he/she is married with 3 children.

You and I here this everyday. Of course you could say he/she is married and has 3 children.

However, it is common to say he/she is married with 3 children.

I am not a native speaker of English. I thought even the opposite of the words 'married with children' is fine.

I want to know this fact from the native English speakers. I am not sure about the usage. Some of you have touched on the subject of rudness. That is irrelevant to the question, as far as I am concerned.

I would like to know this from people whose mother toungue is English or rather all those who live in Britan, the US and other English speaking countries.


You could say he/she is divorced with 3 children.

However, a native speaker might react in a different way. Non-native speakers, in most cases, are not aware of the usage and the idiom.

Of course it is correct to say he is divorced and has 3 children.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will give you another example.

He has no money. ->This is correct.

He has no wherewithal. -> A native speaker of English would react differently for this. People don't say so though the words are in your dictionary.

Oros said:

I will give you another example.

He has no money. ->This is correct.

He has no wherewithal. -> A native speaker of English would react differently for this. People don't say so though the words are in your dictionary.

The dictionary ought to include a comment that "wherewithal" is archaic

Wherewithal, yes, a bit archaic. He has no means; that might be said but to my ears it suggests 'private means' which is a huge inheritance or such like. More likely - He has no job. He is chronically unemployed. Like the divorce question it depends on context, verbal and social. The concept of nosy questions must exist also in Germany, Oros. It would be rude in general to say to someone "Are you chronically unemployed." If you knew him well enough to ask you would know him well enough to know the answer.