to wonder about the assumption that a wife is just unhappy so leaves husband but also takes the kids

[tangledweb]

I am a 'relationship' thread addict as my marriage isn't knit of the strongest fibre but i am a bit about the assumption that, just because you don't love your husband anymore, you should leave AND get the kids.

Doesn't that mean that men then have much more of an impetus is trying to keep marriages together than women as they don't just lose their partner but the kids too. It just seems imbalanced and of a selfish presumption to me.

I'm not sure what the answer is but it just seems unfair.

Thats nice, youllbewaiting but rarely does the child have a true insight into what is going on in the parents life, and rightly so.

If we as parents could have gotten past the awful thing that tore us apart, we would have been able to stay together. but things didn't happen like that. We chose to shield our child from the circumstances. Our child is happy and carefree child, who knows love and security.

porcamiseria - I just wanted to put the other view. thanks.

Wot Charbon said @ 11:02:34

There's a downside to asking the children what they want. DS4 was under immense pressure from everybody except me to choose to live with his dad. It wasn't what he wanted, but he was trying to be fair to both of us, poor wee fellow. Confused the life out of him.

Exactly Annie my dd is regularly told that I don't love her, that I am useless, that I can't , that I am a tart, whore etc. Yet me the one who constantly bites her tongue to avoid bad mouthing XH for dd's sake (in front of dd that is I have rants on here obviously) am the bad mother shouldn't be allowed to see dd again.

IMHO the default position should be full and thorough investigation of all the facts for each individual case as there can never really be a one size fits all.

I think the DC should spend lots of time with both. DH wasn't allowed to see his dad as his mum punished him for leaving her. She happily accepted maintenence for 18 years though. So I think as much time as possible with both although residence probably with either mum or dad that has done the most care ie SAHM/SAHD to avoid disruption to the child and the status quo that presumably was working OK before the split.

I don't think children are always best placed to decide. I remember my parents talking of divorce once (they didn't in the end) and my dad telling us we'd have to choose who we wanted to live with. I would have waited for my younger sister to decide and then chosen the other one so they didn't feel left out or unloved, regardless of what I really wanted. As it was I just remember crying and begging one of them to apologise.

Someone up thread said, well if men want custody, they need to be the primary carers. Well, guess what, in 1 in 7 households with under 5's, there's a SAHD. This is likely to increase.

The question is whether women who are choosing to be the primary breadwinners and leave these dads to do SAHP are happy to relinquish the parental rights in terms of main custody which to date, have been the right and responsibility of the woman.

I don't say that lightly, having been one of those women and having been horrified that by leaving my husband to care for my dd2, I may have been jeopardizing my opportunity to be her full-time mum later in her life (although given the inherent bias towards awarding custody to the female, I'd have probably been ok).

My husband and I did one stint of SAHP each, and in the back of my mind the issues if I worked full-time and then split, would I be leaving myself open to being the non-resident parent (which I absolutely didn't want).

Some of the view on here about men and the roles they do is like something out of the ark.

We have a dad at school who's DP walked out on him and DD when she was a few months old. He has raised her single handeldy for 9 years now.