Staying for the kids - explain why please

[dorky]

Why do couples stay together for the sake of the kids?

Isn't it poor role modelling to accept a relationship that you would not like for your kids?

Isn't it unfair on a partner to stay for finances, and convenience?

I really don't understand why people in a less than happy marriage think it's better than going it alone... please enlighten me

This is quite fascinating. I am suprised at how many lone-parent steroetypes there are, especially regarding finances... in my experience children of single parents tend to be well behaved, undemanding of the latest gadget, and generally considerate.

Most of the answers here seem to imply people tend to stay for convenince (although fear of leaving must be part of that). And they have interestingly largely ignore the modelling side of the question.

So, why do parents role model a relationship where they can't be themselves (in a relationship where things are tense rather than abusive)?

I think a large part of it is that society is geared to 'families' i.e. couples with children. I can't remember politicians banging on about anything other than what they are going to do for 'the family' and how important families are.

So, couple that with the Prince Charming myth,the way big weddings have become commonplace and something to aspire to, together with a natural desire most women have to be mothers, I think we face a very toxic mix of circumstances which makes a lot of people think any relationship is better than no relationship or I MUST be married before I'm 30 etc, etc.

I know that is what I felt, and to some extent I still feel it as I get a defininte message from the media, other couples that I am somehow 'less' because I am not coupled up.

Plus it can be a financial and practical nightmare to consider breaking up a home.

I am not surprised people limp on and on in unhappy and unhealthy relationships.

Absolutely Spero... totally agree, 'we' [society, women, everybody] are conditioned.

By the time somebody even thinks about leaving you can bet it's already awful and has been for a long time.

My parents definitely treat me with less respect when I am not in an established couple. I am sort of lumped in as "one of the kids". . It pisses me off so I tend to just stay away, thus becoming even more isolated and "single".

Socially Couples tend to converse together and I am pretty much the odd wheel. I don't really mind all that much, I have always liked my own company but sometimes I get a bit down about it and I can see that for someone who is very social, leaving a couple could be even more difficult because of that reason.

Oh yes, my mother was shocked that I wanted to sleep in a double bed. She actually thought that I would go back to sleeping in a single bed. The head-shaking and eye-brow raising. I mean, can't slag her off as she has been a great help to me, and she's not a negative person, she's good-humoured, but to her, a single woman insisting on a double bed is quite ... uppity or something. But come ON!! I can take a lot, but I'm not going back to sleeping in a single bed. I don't mind having the whole bed to myself at all.

I don't mind my own company either, I am happy (too happy) chilling out doing very little, but I like chatting to people as well.

There is a link(below) to a frightening report by Civitas.
I'm sure that some will exclaim that they "don't believe it", or hint that it was probably cobbled together by some right-wingers on a day release from the Nasty Party.
It doesn't make for pleasant or easy reading:

www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php#children

As a society, we have been force fed a message that the individual is all-important, and that consumption, whether that be of goods, food or even relationships is always a good thing.
Don't like your partner? Trade 'em in, get a nice shiny new one. Get bored with that one? Rinse and repeat. Ad nauseum.
We live in a disposable society, which is in generational moral and spiritual decline.
Imagine this generation being asked to make self-sacrificing decisions like the ones made by our elders during the two world wars? It's a joke, isn't it? Yet look at the comparative advantages which we take for granted, such as universal health care, social security benefits and 150 channels of utter crap on the tele.

A salient point from the report:

"More than half of divorces occur in low-conflict marriages ? what can be called ?good enough? marriages ? which have a high potential for being salvaged (in one study, 64% of the couples who said they were unhappy, but stayed together and worked on their relationship, reported being happy five years later). Divorces in these low-conflict marriages can be very damaging to children."

Just had a quick skim of that site. Nasty right-wing rubbish. Next!

arfarfa, I agree to some extent, but I also think of the misery and suffering that went on for generations when men and women weren't allowed to divorce. Neither extreme is a happy one.

I have skimmed the Civitas thingie, and again it looks like vast majority of problems are due to poverty not 'lone' parenting per se.

Spero-But from where does the poverty suddenly spring? Also, should society be constantly called upon to bail people out of the crap via the benefits system?
I think that there are two levels of commitment;
-Firstly, the commitment to another person when you settle down/marry them.
-But the second level, which utterly dwarfs the first, is when you make the choice to start a family, and the degree of commitment at that point in time should be irreversible, except in the most extreme and dire of circumstances.
Or don't have children. It's not a right, it's a privilege, and it comes with huge responsibilities attached.

My brother stays with his wife in a loveless and embittered marriage because he say otherwise, he would never see his kids again, and second, they ought to be brought up regularly seeing one normal parent. He felt if he divorced his wife his chances of ever seeing them would be almost zero and they would be warped by his wife's views.

Thus his children have spent many years in a home that is a battleground, whose parents have no friends and where all family have been banned from visiting.

My brother plans to file for divorce when the kids go to uni in 3 years time.

Although the situation is grim, it is better than the kids being alone with an alcoholic and unstable mother for many years.

Perhaps a long court battle over parental fitness between the paretns 10 years ago would have been preferable? Who can say. It's not a situation where anyone really wins and hte children suffer most.

For me it could not and did not work we tried temporary split but he was meant to have dc on day of my dads funeral .I called to see where was and he got his mum to answer the phone to say he had a really bad headache and could not come

I ended up taking dc to the funeral while supporting my mum ,my granparents my dads and my 2 younger foster sisters and having to hold it together watching my grandad sobbing goodbye son broke my heart

that was day I decided it was defintley over knew could never forgive him

No way I could have gone on living with himF

Because it's not always as simple to leave as it sounds .

I would love to leave. In lots of ways, I still really love my OH, but he treats me like shit sometimes and I would definitely have left if it werent for the kids. Is a lazy arse round the house, has joined dating sites, sites for those who are married and looking for sex, and goodness knows what else. Will try stuff in bed he knows I hate just to try and get away with it. Not good all round.

We seem genuinely happy to the outside world. We get along well without major arguments (except when I find out about his latest escapades - he begs for forgiveness and promises to improve but never keeps the promises long term). I do still love him and I think that comes across and is a stabilising influence for the children - I just wish he was the person I thought he was when I first met him. People would be shocked and think I was the selfish one if I left him - only my mum knows the true story. Despite still having feelings for him, if I could, I would leave now. I'd be a complete mug not to.

But...this is where it isn't so easy. I only work part time and would be plunged into immediate poverty without him. The children's education is such that it would be irrevocably changed if I was alone. The children do expensive out of school activities - which my eldest looks like she will make a career of. All this would stop. I could not work full time because of reasons I won't give here for fear of identifying myself.

So, the children's lives would be irrevocably changed for the worse if I left, their future probably shattered. Not only that, he doesn't have much patience with them and is far better with me there as a moderating influence on his short temper than if he had access alone.

So, I stay. I am planning my exit and trying to build up savings. I plan to leave in 5 years when my youngest is 16, if I can't get the finances to do it before. No time is going to be good for the children, but my eldest is about to go into Year 10 and start GCSEs, so now would be awful. I really, really wish I'd had the courage to leave when they were young, but I didn't, so for now I think I am stuck. I have talked to my eldest who has a bit of an understanding of the situation, and she says she is happiest with us together, if possible.

I would never make my children feel I sacrificed my happiness for them, because it is my choice to stay. No one is making me and if I ever felt I or they were in danger, I would go tomorrow.

But you asked why people stay - and I wanted to say that because it isn't always easy to leave without seriously impacting on the lives of your children.

My parents stayed together for about 3 years longer than they should have. From a child's point of view, it was hell and we didn't even live with them full time. It was a relief when it eventually ended but not easy.
I also stayed with my ex for longer than I should have because I thought my son ought to be with his dad. What a mistake (had a real eye- opener recently :(). If a relationship is that unhappy, end it, children aren't oblivious and they learn from the way we conduct our relationships.

arfarfa - poverty doesn't 'suddenly spring' from anywhere. For a lot of couples, it is always just around the corner, and splitting up to form two households, two lots of rent/mortgage, utility bills etc will push a lot of couples over the finanical edge.

As stayingfor now faces.

I don't disagree with you that people who decide to have children should recognise this for the awesome committment it is and ideally no one should have a child if they can't afford it.

But back in the real world for a second - what are you really advocating?? A return to the days when Thomas Coram got fed up of tripping over dead babies in the gutters of London and thus set up the first home for foundlings??

I think a lot depends on your perspective. My personal perspective is that in relationships separation/divorce is, as I heard someone say regarding child protection, a question of the least worst option.

I am the child of a bipolar manic depressive father and an immature depressive emotionally manipulative mother. I don't think anyone would consider that their separation wasn't in our best interests but it has still left its scars. It may have been the 'least worst' option but it was not without its down sides.

As a consequence, I entered marriage and parenthood with eyes extremely wide open. We hit problems but they didn't seem insummountable and even seemed quite reasonable in the circumstances - death, small children, changes in jobs, moves etc. It was only once the external stresses settled down that it became very apparent that the issues were within the marriage.

But, given my history, I still strived to make my marriage work. I guess you would say I was wilfully optimistic in the circumstances. I would have made it work too, I did believe that I could sacrifice my own needs for that of my DCs right up until the point when I realised that I couldn't. Even then, it took recognising that not only did my H no longer want to be with me but that he had been questioning the relationship for over 15 years! My determination to make things work had blinkered me to the blindingly obvious.

So, I tried to make things work for the DCs and, ultimately for myself as I felt my most important role was to ensure they were raised in a stable family. But I have failed on all counts. I'm no longer with my H, the DCs are older and find the separation very painful and difficult, I feel I have wasted years of my life and have made decisions I now have to live with which I would not have made had I known my H wanted out. I am exhausted with the effort of keeping everything together but now have to dig even deeper to support my DCs.

Had I not had DCs, I would have left years ago and I suspect that's what people mean when they talk about staying together for the sake of the DCs. That and the fact that once out it's never really over. Unlike any other relationship, once you have DCs together you are really linked for life. In no other circumstances are you expected to have regular and consistent contact with an ex.

Lacking what exactly do you mean by 'good arranged marriages' and what happens with them?

I agree with lacking

So well put.

@ migsie

your brother could easily see his children again and if he is so miserable then he should leave or perhaps he doesn't want to loose his 'investement'. If he never wanted to see his children again then the law as it currently stands states there is no enforcement regarding a parent to see or care for their children. If a parent wants to see thier child then it's easy to gain access via the courts, despite what you may read on the internet.

Stayingfornow, I feel so bad for you. You are trapped between a rock and a hard place. I am so glad I left when the children were still young. I knwo that 3 years down the line with them both in school it would be harder.

Could your parents help you? or have they any idea how bad things have become?

Arfarfa, you really need to have tried it before you can spout. I, for example, got married on exactly the basis you describe - for life - and had children, intending that they should be as secure as two loving parents can make them. My husband had Issues which got worse over the years and impacted very badly on my own mental health. There were a few indicators early on that I didn't pick up on, sure, and a few which of course I thought I could help him with, as you do. I just didn't think leaving was an option. I thought staying and working it out was the right thing to do, and for a while sometimes I thought it was working, then it was back to the madness, in a constant cycle for a quarter century.

It took 25 years to get smart and get out. I just so totally wish I had done it years earlier. I don't know about him, but the rest of us would have been better off financially without his hopeless idea of business and his addiction to buying needless junk. Yes I am on benefits now, but not because I'm a single parent; it's because I lost my job due to the depression caused by living with a loony. Had I left him years ago, likely I would still be employed and not troubling the benefits system, as well as being a bit happier in my own skin. He, on the other hand, would have either found some other woman to sponge off, or actually engaged with Planet Earth before he got too old and mad to make a go of it.

Tired of him? Reneging on my commitment? He never knocked me about, as far as I know he never cheated, he always brought me a cup of tea in the morning and encouraged me to put my feet up when I got home in the evening. Sometimes we had a laugh together and we had a reasonably active sex life for around 23 years. So were things "extreme" enough to merit leaving? Hell yeah. You needed to live in that house, you needed to be a fly on the wall in our bedroom, you needed to see inside my poor head to know just why that marriage was A Bad Thing.

Oh, and youngest DC is still getting over the emotional problems caused by living with his biological father, as that stupid article puts it. The school had to involve social services to ensure DC lived with me only, because they were so concerned about the effect on the poor mite. Again, his father never physically abused nor starved him, but showed him affection and made sure he got to school on time. Extreme enough? The professionals certainly thought so, and we all breathed a sigh of relief when I brought my precious boy home for good. He does still see his father, but in small doses that shouldn't do too much harm.

Do not presume to pronounce on what other people should be doing until you have walked a mile in their shoes.

Btw, as a side issue, having children is neither a right nor a privilege. It is a biological function. For some, I would go so far as to say, it is a biological imperative. A stable, monogamous relationship is a good way to bring up children but it isn't the only way (thank God).

giveitago - I mean ones where both partners treat eachother with respect and kindness. I am well aware that often that doesn't happen, but you do read about arranged marriages where both partners just agree to try to get on, and they find themselves finding a profound sort of love with eachother eventually, even though the marriage was clearly not begun in love.

celticfairy-
"If a parent wants to see thier child then it's easy to gain access via the courts, despite what you may read on the internet."
I honestly don't think I have ever read ANYTHING which is so hopelessly inaccurate! I can see that you have obviously not had personal experience of the horrors of the Family Courts!
If the present Family Law system were turned on it's head, and there was a notion that the 'Paramountcy of the Child' was somehow irreversibly tied to what the father wants/needs, there would be feminist RIOTS on Parliament Green!

Spero-
Exactly. CHOOSING to split up pushes the family finances over the edge. What happens next? We(the State) pay the tab. Excuse me if I don't think that this is a very fair notion.

Annie-
Tried it, done it, bought the t-shirt and shed the tears whilst walking that mile.
And if you are going to argue that reproduction is a 'biological imperative', then you have to allow the other, corresponding side of the argument, too. I.e., that men have a 'biological imperative' to spray their seed around everywhere. Except it's nonsense, isn't it? Which is exactly what the original proposition was.

So what are you suggesting arfarfa, stay together, grit your teeth, sob in private, hope the children don't pick up on the tension, hope they don't hear the rows, or hope they don't notice various bruises/empty bottles.....?

You can't pull a happy atmosphere out of a bag if it's not there.

The only way to fix misery is to do something pro-active.

As for the 'we' the state that 'picks up the tab', is that the real priority for you? Abolish the welfare state ey? Supporting vulnerable people is unfair?!?

My children's father never, ever contributes to their upbringing to me but he does pay about 40 thousands pounds in tax every year. He is on a very good salary. I paid tax myself for about 13 years. I could be on benefits for 20 years and not even come close to recouping the amount of money I have paid out in taxes.

But paying taxes doesn't give somebody additional human rights, and anybody in our society who needs help receives it thank goodness. this is not the third World. Personally, I'm glad of that.

some other thoughts about OPs question.

• if you are the sole (or major) breadwinner providing financially for your family then splitting up is to walk away from that particular responsibility you have taken on. Abandoning them to financial chaos and hardship does seem like taking the first place in the lifeboat (if you are going to be OK yourself) or setting fire to your own barn (if you are all going to end up penniless)

• if you are the man then even splitting up amicably will almost invariably mean no longer living with your children, and only seeing them at pre-arranged weekends. That's a reason for men to stay. And if you split up with acrimony and conflict you may not even see them that much.

Valium-Are there always constant big rows? Is there such dreadful tension? Is it utter and abject misery? It's always the extremes which catch the eye. Much more frequently, it isn't a case of extremes, though, it's more a long, slow, soul-numbing demise. Often one where the children are blissfully unaware of it, too. Working at a relationship seems to be a lost art nowadays. 'It' either works or 'it' doesn't.
Perhaps trying to fix the misery without killing the entire relationship is sometimes an option, too? You can't just pull a happy atmosphere out of the bag, but you can damn well get off your arse and try to create one. And keep right on trying until you can try no longer. And then try some more...
Supporting vulnerable people is always the right thing to do, but supporting anybody who has created their own 'vulnerability' whilst calculating how much they can screw out of the state in the process? Sorry, no. There's enough people who genuinely need help, without giving it to those who end up in need through their own capricious nature.