to think that having 8 DC by 3 different fathers may well have a detrimental impact on the DCs?

[StuckForAUserName]

Especially as the first two fathers are not in the picture anymore so the 3rd husband is bringing up someone else's 6 DC and then a further 2 have been added to the household .

The mother is effectively a single parent anyway as the latest DH is away a lot in the military. The oldest 3 are in boarding school though so there is only 5 DC full time at home. This is a middle class family btw not a family of 'benefit scroungers'. The mother states that 'her kids have a decent dad and will all be fine'. AIBU in thinking that it's terrible?

Paiviaso good points. Some on here seem to ignore those facts. Probably because they don't think the woman should be judged which is fine and true, but you can still acknowledge that its not a perfect situation and it may have a detrimental affect on some children and still not be a big judgey judgmental pants at the same time.

i think its incredibly sad that people make assumptions that all children from broken homes must be sad and have gone through some sort of truama and are being shuffled between their parents homes!

i also think its outrageous to assume this woman hasnt learnt from past mistakes because she has had 3 partners! people do fall out of love you know, its doesnt make them bad people, doesnt mean the whole relationship was a mistake!

good points my arse, judgy points yes

Of course it may not be an ideal situation. Do we know that she chose to split up?

And again, do we know that all children in "unbroken" homes live in ideal situations? You only have to read relationship threads on here for a few minutes to realise that divorce is not necessarily the worst thing that can happen to a child.

I don't know the circumstances of the OP's aunt nuff said

Fuckadoodle, my repsonse to you wasn't about you arguing the OP's case (whether you agree with her or not is totally matterless to me), it was about the fact that whether she is 'benefit scrounger' or not adds nothing to the post, nothing to the OP's argument and is not needed. It is COMPLETELY irrelevant and therefore the point of it being included is not obvious. Even after your comments I still can't find a reason for it being made, the fact in other posts it may be noted does not mean it contributes to this one - no-one needs to know the financial situation after all.

Letmeatthewine. no-one needs to know the financial situation after all.

No i agree, but it would have been mentioned anyway, probably A LOT. So i think the op only mentioned it to avoid it turning into the predictable "large broken families equals out of work benefit scroungers" debate that it always turns into anyway.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one! As I have already said - her social class is irrelevant to whether the number of fathers will have an detrimental affect on the children and I still massively oppose the term 'scroungers' that was used, which I would have done even if that information was relevant. Perhaps because of my own view of the statements (lack of) importance/relevance I cannot understand why anyone would have brought it up if it had not been mentioned. Stereotyping people who have children to more than one father is unfair in all cases, as is sterotyping people who recieve benefits.
I have also just realised that it has annoyed me that much, I haven't actually addressed (or even thought about) to OP's initial point. Am off to mull this over...

i think the op only mentioned the middle class thing to avoid the 'well i hope they are supportng all those children themselves and not letting the state pay for them' posts

even though i hate the term middle class and i know plenty of 'middle class' people who are on benefits

The title of this OP can be roughly translated as saying that having numerous children by several different fathers is indicative of:

Poor judgement (repeatedly choosing poor fathers)
Self absorption (putting your own needs for a partnership and cementing it with more children before the needs of any existing children)
Chaotic home life (characterised by serial relationship breakdown and the fall out that usually ensues, particularly for the children).

Sadly, I think that's probably true in more cases than it isn't. But it would be a mistake to assume that it applies in all or even most cases. There are too many variables at play to make a blanket judgement.

Ironically, the sort of mother who has several children by several fathers without actually having a long-term, cohabiting/married relationship with any of them, is offering a more stable existence for her children because the primary relationships they will have will be with their mother and each other - and that won't change. Given that nearly half of all relationships (married and cohabiting combined) in which children are produced go on to fail, perhaps we should model the ideal family on the single mother. I can just imagine the frothing that statement will produce though.

I'm a mum to three with 2 different dads...I guess it puts me in the category too.

If judgey pants are on, do I get extra points if I reveal I was also a teen mum too?

I was a teen mum too, the children are doomed!

I think the thing that always strikes me as nonsensical about this sort of thing is that family is always compared to the lofty mum/dad/2.4 DC 'happy' family ideal.

The trouble is, many of these 'ideal' nuclear families are hiding their own dysfunctions - DV and infidelity to name just two huge ones that are rife and yet don't always result in relationship breakdown.

IMO, a happy, stable family is one where the members all interact with each other in a healthy way, and where everyone is encouraged to pursue their own individual happiness but also to pull together for the greater good of the family overall. That can happen despite divorce, death, moving house, new siblings (by a different father) and all sort of numerous other 'traumas'.

Whereas a mother who has more children with a serial abuser/adulterer/irresponsible father may look to the outside world as though she's more stable, but she'll certainly be putting her children at more risk of emotional harm than the mother who left a bad relationship (so modelling self-reliance and good boundaries) and then went on to form a new, healthy relationship and then had another child.

That said, a mother who is on her third or fourth abusive/unfaithful partner should certainly be questioning whether her judgement needs some working on, although it's also worth asking what it is about society that places the responsibility for this on the mother, rather than the father who abuses/cheats/fails to take responsibility.

No Dahlen,

The fact that 'we' have been modelling the ideal family on the single mother is the reason for many of societies problems today.

What are you on about? So societies problems are due to single mothers?

What are you on about? So societies problems are due to single mothers?

HillaryClitoris Fri 25-Jan-13 15:33:56
"No Dahlen,

The fact that 'we' have been modelling the ideal family on the single mother is the reason for many of societies problems today."

Oooh, this gives me an opportunity for my first WTF ever!

WTF!

or fatherless children

I'm happy to shre your excitement cory

My friend's dd refused to leave her abusive partner. He killed her. Society's problem solved then?

A child in dd's school was severely disturbed from having actually watched his father kill his mother. But of course it would have been a lot worse if she had left him. At least, she wasn't a single mother...

Another friend of mine has never been able to trust a man having spent her childhood observing how her father's serial cheating was covered up by the family.

My mother told my father when they got engaged that you will have to let me go if I find it doesn't work for me. It has been a very happy marriage for over 50 years.

Another family friend was devastated having found out in his late teens that what he thought was the stable relationship of his parents was in fact a sham: they fell apart when he was in the womb and never had a working relationship after that- they just never told him (or any of us). His ideas of what a marriage looks like must be pretty skewed.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

I have not said the people should not leave abusive relationships.

You may not be able to bring your children up on your own without them causing problems for society, doesn't mean everyone else is the same

What about unhappy ones? Like in my last post. The man was not abusive but for 16 years it was not a relationship either. What do you think it feels like to find out in your teens like actually you thought we had a marriage like everybody else, but we were just telling a story? Would you feel like you could trust people after that?