'Staying together for the sake of the children'

[BaaSheep]

Hello All,

This is my first time on MN (long time lurker), and I could do with some wisdom.

I'll try and keep it brief. A very dear friend of mine's marriage is on the rocks. Well, slightly worse than that, it has been agreed that the marriage is all but over, and if it wasn't for the sake of the (1) DC then they would have separated.

The issue is, that friend is convincing / torturing themself that they ought to be staying together for the sake of the child (who is almost 12 months old). I would be grateful to hear any stories, from any perspective, which might help the various thought processes.

Many thanks in anticipation.

Does your friend think that a child being raised, almost from birth, in an atmosphere of resentment, probably arguments, likely affairs and an almost inevitable split in the future is good for it?

I'd say call it quits now, move on and learn to be decent separate parents. It'll give them both a chance to find good relationships which are a better model for the child.

What Bant says, for the next 16 years or more.

If a marriage is over I'd argue DC of 1yr old is probably the best time of any in the next 16 years to split from the DC's pov.

Depends on whether this friend is telling the truth about his/her marriage really and his/her real reasons for staying in it.

In this gender neutral post, there are lots of possible scenarios.

If this is a proper mate and you've got no vested interest in their break-up, or involvement in their marital problems, then this person is probably telling the truth and so the only advice is that loveless marriages end up damaging both parties and their children.

On the other hand, if you're an OM or an OW to this person, chances are you are being spun a line about this person's marriage being as bad as described and are being told lies about him/her 'staying together for the sake of the children'.

Generally speaking, people stay in relationships to suit themselves and not just their children, but kids are often used as a smokescreen to hide what are adult choices.

From somebody whose parents stayed together for the kids, I wish they had separated much earlier. It's not great growing up in a house with 2 people who don't like each other.

I tend to think, when someone says they are staying together for the sake of the children, it's not the full story. There are a lot of more selfish reasons for not calling time on a bad marriage, some less edifying than others. Money is a big one, for example, but few people will openly admit that they are 'staying together for the money'... or the lifestyle, or the house, or because they're nervous about setting up solo, or social pressure, sense of personal failure etc. If your ear is being bent by this 'all over if it wasn't for the baby' friend maybe that's something you can explore?

What Bant writes.

Staying for the sake of the child is never a good idea as doing so teaches the child that their parents relationship was based on a lie. The child should not be used as glue to bind the parents failed relationship together.

As someone mentioned above, I would do it before the baby has any recollection of his/her parents being together. My son's 2 and a half and absolutely obsessed with his dad (my partner) and would break my heart having to separate then if we chose to split up. Even worse if I'd of had the chance to do it earlier when my son was younger, and not remember his parents together.
Also, I remember being younger and my parents constantly arguing because they basically chose to stay together because of me and my brother. I hated the tension, dreaded coming home from school knowing there would be arguments galore etc.... Made my childhood hell.
The longer you're together out of necessity the more the resentment builds up. This makes it harder when you finally do split up to maintain a civil relationship for the sake of the child.

I know you friend's hearts in the right place but do think she's being slightly naive. Does she honestly think in the future that if her partner met someone else he would take it no further because he's with someone out of necessity (your friend). And there's going to be more heartbreak then when he finally does move on.

Do it now!!

So much depends on what has been going on.

And whether this story is being used to indicate a genuine attempt at reconciliation (might be worth a try, if both partners mean it).

And what the home atmosphere is like. If non-stop suppressed tension/misery, then generally better ended. But it's often not that simple.

Whatever line is spun, it really serves to (try to) keep a couple together through the crisis time with the hope that a satisfactory future can be found. It might all fall apart later, especially if the original stressors remain and/or if one party is markedly less committed than the other. But if both value the marriage and use the crisis to work on it, then it may well lead to a good outcome.

Oh, and it's usually not the full story, especially if infidelity has occurred; almost a classic line, and therefore shouldn't be taken literally.

There is research that shows if a child learns as a teen or young adult, that his parents stayed together for the child it brings huge guilt. Also resentment that what he thought was a happy family scenario was a sham.

Best to end now & hopefully co parent in a civil fashion while baby is so young.

I have a close friend whose relationship ended when the youngest was 3, eldest 8. They didn't love each other any more, in fact they hated each other. There were no shouting or rows (for the sake of the children) just coldness and miscommunication. It was a horrible atmosphere for the kids and while the eldest was initially upset, long term they are both so much happier and well-adjusted and relaxed. It does help that custody is equally shared and they know they are put first by both parents.
On the other hand, I believe that if you have 'fallen out of love' but there is no anger or acrimony around the split, you should do your level best to keep the children secure and happy. 12 months is very young to not see one of your parents every night. If I was in that situation, if there was no DV or OW/OM, we would stay living in the same house and try to co-parent until the DC were a bit older. There are lots of different types of family, but the most important ingredient is that the children know they are loved and prioritised.

My parents split whenI was 2, it caused me far less trauma than my cousin whose parents split when she was 7. And far less trauma than a friend whose parents split (without telling him as he was out of the country) when he was 21.

If you just read some of the threads about how people feel about their parents who should have split when they were children, you will see that staying together can be far more traumatic.

Yes, it means no one way round is best. And it's a headline, not the blueprint nor the eventual story.

Some make a go of it (because they grasp the importance of restoring a good relationship and providing a functioning home) and some don't (just stay stuck and miserable, and having an appalling impact).

Thanks all. Some v interesting food for thought.

Cogito - you are spot on. Friend will be NRP (Badinage - genuine friend here) and feels hugely guilty, like he is abandoning DC, and a failure. Not sure how that can be worked through...

At the stage they're at there is really no good outcome whether they stay or split. So it's a case of finding the least worst solution. If it's definitely finished then, rather than trying to flog a dead horse, they should shift heaven and earth to make a good split with all that entails. i.e. putting the child first, making a fair financial settlement, co-parenting equally, staying civil with each other.

However, it's easy to say that and difficult for those involved to do it. It's also bordering on foolish to get in the middle of someone else's marital problems. For that reason, however genuine a friend this man is, I'd suggest you take a step back from the details.

Baasheep, your friend should consider how much time they spend with, and how much they do for, their child at this point. There would be no reason to feel they were 'abandoning' the child if there was a fairly even split in terms of contact post split. If he/she has been an involved hands on parent, then that should continue in the event of a split.

Why does he have to be the NRP? There could be a 50/50 split or mum could be the NRP.

More info needed to advise properly. I'm not sure why you are being so guarded about this friend's gender, for example?

This could be a couple who are simply experiencing the after effects of the grenade that exploded when their baby was born. The first year can be a nightmare and can test even the strongest relationship.

Or this could be a couple that were mismatched from the start and should never have started a family.

Is there anyone else involved?

What's your role in this and how long have you been friends?

My parents stayed together for the sake of my brother and I.

What a million layers of hell for all of us. Every day I wish they'd split up as early as possible and some days I wish they'd never met.

it seems to be very sudden. presumably it wasn't 'almost over' twenty one months ago, or they would hardly have started a baby. How has it come to 'almost over' in such a short time? And are they really sure they are going to be happier apart? How are they going to cope with raising the child etc?