It was not, as the word “emancipation” might suggest to audiences familiar with its historical uses in other contexts, a liberation in a comprehensive sense. It was a legal procedure that changed her relationship to the state and to her parents in specific, defined ways. It gave her the ability to act as an adult in certain legal and financial contexts. It did not give her wisdom, emotional maturity, practical skills, or the support network that a fourteen-year-old actually needs.
It was not a divorce. The term has been used loosely in various accounts of the period — Drew Barrymore “divorcing” her parents — and while the language is emotionally vivid, it is legally imprecise. Emancipation releases a minor from parental authority and parental financial obligation. It does not sever the relationship, eliminate future contact, or resolve the emotional history. Drew’s relationships with both her mother and, eventually, her father continued after the emancipation, in forms that reflected everything those relationships had been and everything they struggled to become.
It was not a universally advisable solution to family conflict, and it is important to note this clearly. The specific circumstances that led to Drew’s emancipation — clinical professionals recommending it, her mother supporting it, a court assessing that her interests were better served by independence — were unusual. The emancipation was appropriate, or at least defensible, in her specific situation. That does not mean it is appropriate in most situations, or even in most situations where a teenager is having a difficult time with her parents. The bar for emancipation, legally and practically, is high for good reasons: most fourteen-year-olds, however troubled their home situations, are not better served by complete legal independence than they would be by more specific and targeted interventions.