One of lifes great secrets - keeping your trousers on!

[thedaras]

But there's a difference between walking away from an abusive or unhealthy marriage and walking out of a lack lustre marriage because you want to be with someone else regardless of consequences.

Why? It has the same effect on the kids..

And if you are happier with someone else ,it may follow that you will not be miserable in an unhappy marriage,therefore the kids will be happier.

Most children just want happy parents..

 

[Firefly]

Most children just want happy parents..

...under the same roof.

 

[thedaras]

...under the same roof.

No..they just want happy parents..so it is the parents responsibility.
Kids living under the same roof as two unhappy parents as opposed to kids having parents under different roofs but are happy ,would be in a much better position.IMHO.

 

[MANTO]

+1 thedaras

People do genuinely fall out of love. So why stay together? Kids can be perfectly happy with seperated HAPPY parents.

 

[liaconn]

Why? It has the same effect on the kids..

And if you are happier with someone else ,it may follow that you will not be miserable in an unhappy marriage,therefore the kids will be happier.

Most children just want happy parents..

What about a husband walking out on a devastated wife because he's met someone else. Is that good for the children?

 

[Complainer]

Recently heard that 2 people I know, both with young families, could be in the process of shacking up together. Here's hoping it doesnt happen but God I find it very depressing. On the presumption that neither of them is married to an axe murderer, could they not stick it out where they are??

It worked pretty well for the Brady Bunch, didn't it?

I'm not suggesting that people take these decisions lightly, and I'm not even convinced that it is always better for kids when unhappy parents seperate. In the current environment, there are many very practical and financial difficulties that present huge barriers.

But people do have other relationships. It's not really up to any outsider to judge.

 

[Sunny]

What about a husband walking out on a devastated wife because he's met someone else. Is that good for the children?

No but knowing your Father doesn't love your Mother and both are miserable just to protect you can't be any easier.

There is no right answer. I think there are genuinely selfish people out there who don't care about the consequences but the vast majority of people are just human with the same flaws as everyone else. Staying in an unhappy marriage for the sake of the kids doesn't automatically make you a better parent than someone who leaves to try and find happiness elsewhere.

 

[truthseeker]

In most cases I dont think you have 2 unhappy people who decide it would be best for all if they went their seperate ways and found happiness.

I think you mostly have one person who decides they want out leaving the other person hugely upset. Isnt that how most break ups happen?

I think if you have taken the step of actually marrying someone you should be prepared to try everything you can to save the marriage before walking away to be with someone else.

 

[liaconn]

That's it exactly Truthseeker. Yes, there are times when it's better for a couple to separate but there are an awful lot of times when it's better for one person and heartbreaking for their spouse and children. All this noble talk of 'better for the children' is often an excuse used to make the person who walked out feel better.

 

[Betsy Og]

A naive question maybe - but is it possible for a couple that no longer love each other to live in relative normality under the same roof, without it being a big obvious issue for the kids? (ignoring for a minute how and why they got to that position, and whose if anyone's fault it is).

Touch wood I'll never have the experience, but my current thinking would be that if things went drastically wrong with my marriage I'd still live in the family home and not seek solace elsewhere. OK it might be a bit bleak in some respects, but I'd still have my kids every day, no messy interactions with other relationships, "happy families" as much as possible, and then ultimately fly the nest at the same time as the kids. Maybe talk is cheap, and I wouldnt prove myself to be such a "hero" if it came to it (hence my determination not to be in that position in the first place), but has that ever proven possible in the past???

 

[liaconn]

I suspect Betsy Og that those situations happened an awful lot in the past. Our parents generation didn't tend to separate unless things were very very bad and I'm sure many people grew up in 'happy families' completely unaware that their parents' marriage had grown stale, or one partner was no longer in love with the other.

 

[Betsy Og]

It worked pretty well for the Brady Bunch, didn't it?.

lol, werent the other spouses widowed?? Given the rarity with which fathers get custody I'd say the chances of getting both sets of kids into the one household is slim to none. Think of the other spouse, not only did their partner do a legger but took the kids as well, tough going.

 

[Sunny]

That's it exactly Truthseeker. Yes, there are times when it's better for a couple to separate but there are an awful lot of times when it's better for one person and heartbreaking for their spouse and children. All this noble talk of 'better for the children' is often an excuse used to make the person who walked out feel better.

I don't know anyone is proud that their marriage failed. (Other than Americans who seem to need a divorce on their CV before the age of 21!) To be honest, I probably shouldn't comment on this. I am the last of my friends to get married simply because I was never sure it was what I wanted. People used to think there was something wrong with me but I am so glad I did what I did when I look around me. If I had my way, marriage and kids would be banned before the age of 30!

 

[truthseeker]

I know a couple who did that Betsy Og - it affected the youngest child (the one who they stayed together for the sake of) hugely. The mother flew the nest when the youngest was 18. All the children agreed it would have been better if she had left 10 years earlier.

 

[thedaras]

That's it exactly Truthseeker. Yes, there are times when it's better for a couple to separate but there are an awful lot of times when it's better for one person and heartbreaking for their spouse and children. All this noble talk of 'better for the children' is often an excuse used to make the person who walked out feel better.

Lets be real here, it would be a rare case that both people would fall out of love at the same time,so we are talking about in most cases one person ..

If my husband didn't love me,but I loved him,I think I would be rather miserable,I have too much respect for myself and children to stay with someone who didn't want to be around me,And I believe that for someone in that position they would find this fact very difficult to hide,,which in turn is NOT good for the kids.

If my husband didn't want to be with me, I think it would be fairly obvious,for example how would family holidays go?Communions/Confirmations etc etc.I would imagine it would be a huge strain on all involved.

It is not true to say its often an excuse to make the person who walked feel better,because in my experience its often the person who is not loved who decides this is not for them,and who can blame them!

 

[liaconn]

But in fairness, they don't know how they would have felt if that had happened either. I think a break up (while sometimes inevitable and unavoidable) will always affect the children. (Answer to Truthseeker).

 

[truthseeker]

That's it exactly Truthseeker. Yes, there are times when it's better for a couple to separate but there are an awful lot of times when it's better for one person and heartbreaking for their spouse and children. All this noble talk of 'better for the children' is often an excuse used to make the person who walked out feel better.

I have more respect for marriage breakups when the person who walks out actually remains single - I get suspicious when the person who walks out immediately shacks up with someone else or starts partying it up big time. If you are just leaving to get your jollies elsewhere then perhaps you should have thought harder before you got married and/or had kids.

 

[liaconn]

Lets be real here, it would be a rare case that both people would fall out of love at the same time,so we are talking about in most cases one person ..

If my husband didn't love me,but I loved him,I think I would be rather miserable,I have too much respect for myself and children to stay with someone who didn't want to be around me,And I believe that for someone in that position they would find this fact very difficult to hide,,which in turn is NOT good for the kids.

If my husband didn't want to be with me, I think it would be fairly obvious,for example how would family holidays go?Communions/Confirmations etc etc.I would imagine it would be a huge strain on all involved.

It is not true to say its often an excuse to make the person who walked feel better,because in my experience its often the person who is not loved who decides this is not for them,and who can blame them!

But it all depends on the circumstances. I don't think that simply 'falling out of love' with your partner is a good enough reason to walk out and leave your children, but that's my opinion.

 

[liaconn]

i have more respect for marriage breakups when the person who walks out actually remains single - i get suspicious when the person who walks out immediately shacks up with someone else or starts partying it up big time. If you are just leaving to get your jollies elsewhere then perhaps you should have thought harder before you got married and/or had kids.

+1

 

[truthseeker]

But in fairness, they don't know how they would have felt if that had happened either. I think a break up (while sometimes inevitable and unavoidable) will always affect the children. (Answer to Truthseeker).

No they dont and also there was a lot of 'keeping a front for the neighbours but hell breaking loose behind closed doors' in that particular situation - the youngest was worst affected simply by dint of being the one longest living at home through out it all.