To ask should people stay together for the kids?

[Thereistoomuchconfusion]

Me, dh and a Friend were debating last night about this all taking a very different stance.

The debate came about after learning one of our mutual friends (a married couple) have separated for the second time this year they have 3 children.

So i would love to hear what others think about whether people should stay together for the kids? (Excluding any kind of abusive relationships or infidelity, should two people who have fallen out of love stay together? Until the kids are grown ups?)

My parents stayed together for the sake of us kids, and in hindsight I wish they'd just split up when they realised they no longer loved each other. Our house was not a nice place to live for several years.

Oddly enough, DH had a very similar experience with his parents.

We have vowed that if things ever get to that point between us, we'll just go our separate ways and support the DCs together but apart (if that makes sense?!)

In some situations yes, in some no.

It depends on how well two people can get on with each other and their own lives while still putting their children first.

If they can split amicably and always prioritise the children, then I don't see the point in staying together. But in some relationships, splitting just causes an already tense situation to be come even worse, and I think sometimes children can be better off having stability, even if their parents aren't in love, than they would be if the split became messy and full of resentments and arguments that involve the children.

It really depends on the couple IMO, but either way, parents have an obligation to put their children first.

It depends so much on the circumstances.

If the home is filled with rows (or worse) and the "sticking together" means prolonging an unhealthy atmosphere, then it's wrong.

If on the other hand there is still some level of respect and healthier functioning, and both parents are committed to the family unit and are really going to use a shared belief in that family unit as a spur to reconcile and rebuild, it can work. That's not an easy path though.

I agree that it makes an unhappy environment and also I think if my dd's were feeling unhappy in a marriage I would hate them to live there life like that. If me and dh fell out of love I would like to set an example that its ok to ensure your own happiness if that makes sense!

But dh and friend were adamant that people should stick it out and not give up so easily and generations ago people didn't get divorced so much because they didn't give up and they put the kids first.

Now I cannot stop going over it in my head they have me questioning what I think maybe kids should be put first and not people's love for one another, but that just does not fit right some how.

Nope. I think if the parents are miserable, it will show and it will make the kids miserable. Two seperated, happy parents are much better than married, miserable parents.

It depends on how you define fallen out of love, depends on how you get on otherwise, depends on what kind of atmosphere there is in your home.

Two miserable parents who hate each other = bad for everybody.

Two parents who have lost the first flush of love but are very good friends and generally enjoy each other's company = probably less bad.

Two seperated, happy parents are much better than married, miserable parents.

This is true, but it works on the assumption that both parents will automatically be happier if they are apart, when the reality is that they may not be, and could be significantly worse off. One person often loses out financially in a divorce, which can have a negative effect on the children. Sometimes one parent is ok in the relationship but the other isn't, and a split just switches the upset from one parent to the other and therefor has no real benefit to the children.

A split can make two people more miserable than they were before as they try to rebuild their lives separately as well as coming to the right arrangements with the children. In circumstances where this will happen and children will have to see one parent suffer financially, I do think it's better to stay together until the children are less dependant on their parents.

YABU.

I think the general consensus now is that children are just as happy with parents who are no longer romantically involved, but are still more than capable of co parenting harmoniously and responsibly together.

It's the problems caused by a bad break up such as arguments/aggression, poverty, not seeing the NRP enough, etc that do the damage.

No, martyring yourself 'for the sake of the children' is never a good idea. It is also not really sending a good message to children as to what a relationship really is.

I can only relay my experience so this is by no means a one-size-fits-all view.
I grew up in a household where neither parent had any respect for each other and both have admitted that they would have split had it not been for my brother and me.

It unfortunately created a very toxic environment to grow up in. It drove them both to drink and other people's beds repeatedly. My brother and I both had the displeasure at discovering that one was cheating then had to break the news to the other. They then split up literally the day after I'd arranged to move out.

My relationship with my dad never recovered and it took years for me to be able to have a good relationship with my mum.

I'd certainly not recommended staying together for the children. I think you can set a much better example splitting and living happy lives apart while both putting their all into parenting. I know I would have much preferred that.

My parents did this and it fucked me up big time. My whole childhood was a lie. They finally split a couple of weeks before I turned 18. I don't have anything to do with my dad now.

I agree with Meditrina. Parents that hate and snipe at each other = no good. But parents that can carry on amicably and live side by side (like siblings maybe?) = better.

I've always thought, 'two happy parents apart is better that two unhappy parents together'.

I think that generally an unhappy partnership should split - two happy but separate parents are better than two miserable, argumentative shouty parents.

The only exception I make to this is while children are going through the brain bit of puberty around 12-17 when I think parents should stay together. Most of the people I know whose parents split up before or after those ages although they have some issues (many have no issues) are not as badly affected as those whose parents split up while they were going through puberty. Puberty is such an unstable time for a child I think it's probably better not to destabilise them further unless the parents can absolutely not be civil while they wait until the children have at least finished school.

I don't think it's healthy to stay together for the children.

If you're good enough mates to live together harmoniously and co-parent in a supportive, loving fashion then I don't see any basis for ending that marriage.

If you don't get on well enough to want to stay married then it will be reflected in your relationships with the children, however much you might think it isn't. And subjugating your own happiness and relationships for your children, who will one day leave home and live their own lives, is not healthy either. That doesn't mean your feelings override theirs but IMO living in an unfulfilling and unsatisfactory relationship will impact on your parenting.

As young as nine you'll look to your mate's parents and see the stolen kisses and sitting close on the sofa and just feel the love they have for each other. It's a different dynamic that you can sense even on a play date or going on holiday with your friends or staying over there for a weekend. Much more different than two people who just have respect for each other.

^^this. I feel the guilt too.

I agree with all of the above really. But I think some people assume that the alternative to '2 unhappy parents together' is '2 happy parents separated' In fact I think it's more likely to be '1 happy parent and 1 unhappy parent separated' or '2 unhappy parents separated'.

My ex left me for OW when our ds was 12 (he's now 20). Ex appears to be happy with someone else (not OW). We have remained mostly amicable and ds coped well with it, but ex's relationship with our ds went downhill from the time he left because of how he behaved towards ds. Most of the years since then have been the unhappiest of my life, getting better over the past year since we sold the family home and moved away to start a new life. So ds has lived with 1 unhappy parent whilst the other parent has simply lived the life of a childless man with a new partner, not a 'happy parent separated', not a parent at all.

I know of 2 couples who are doing this, and whilst I can understand their reasoning, I do think it's a huge mistake.