Hmmm.....
While catching up with this thread, I was reminded of Transactional Analysis and the Games People Play, in particular the "Why Don't You?, Yes But" game that if you scroll down, is explained here
It vividly comes to life on screen in support forums, where a poster appears to be looking for help, but counters every suggestion with "yes, but....." and then drip feeds more information which is either relevant or not, but which will evoke a reaction in posters.
The point being that the objective of the poster is not to get help or practical suggestions which might change her life, it's to get strokes and attention of some sort. It is firmly based in the child ego state.
The relevance of this is that there are always options in these situations, but psychologically if someone doesn't want to change their position or circumstances, they will either insist that there aren't or that their chosen option has more benefits than disadvantages and that the options rejected are worse than they are in actuality.
It's also a very normal defence mechanism to minimise the negative ramifications of the chosen option e.g. the children aren't unhappy, they don't know how bad things are, an abusive spouse is a good parent, what people don't know can't harm them. But often those insistences get contradicted if another option is suggested. So for example, a woman who is insistent that her emotional abuser is a good parent might contradict this when it no longer supports her choice to stay. So when someone takes the 'good parent' proposition on good faith and suggests that if that's true, her husband can parent effectively after separation, at that point she says "Yes, but I can't trust him not to damage the children when he has them. He's an emotional abuser don't forget!!"
Rarely do choices lack self-interest and it's more honest to acknowledge what those interests are, if only to oneself. But then it becomes much more difficult to defend them if the chosen option potentially causes harm to others e.g. the children, a partner, the OM's wife and family.
So the safest position is to negate the self-interest and present the choice as one that benefits those 'others' - or at least, won't cause them harm. This positions the person as being entirely selfless and suffering for the cause and this earns 'strokes' from incurious others.
I will add that in my personal and professional opinion, unhappy or abusive relationships damage children and it's just the degree of damage caused that differs.