Do kids benefit from a loveless marriage?

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Kids don't tend to rebel against their peers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, they do, but they do it by trading them in for new ones. If you look at kids age 10-12, they drop old friends and pick up lots of new ones.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kids don't tend to rebel against their peers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, they do, but they do it by trading them in for new ones. If you look at kids age 10-12, they drop old friends and pick up lots of new ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that's about the Jr High years isn't it? Which is a big time of change in their lives. I don't think it's as much rebellion at that age against their peers as it is just growing in a different direction. I think alot of that direction is a result from what was manifested in them as kids by their parents.

The root of how they handle situations is still (usually)influenced by what they learned from their parents earlier on. That early development tends to domino through their lives for awhile.

b

[ski]

I think I was only slightly better off when my parents were together. They say they stayed together for the kids.

I think its very possible to get divorced and not abandon your kids.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I was only slightly better off when my parents were together. They say they stayed together for the kids.

I think its very possible to get divorced and not abandon your kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's possible but i think it would be extremely difficult to maintain a normal/strong relationship, especially from the child's perspective.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I was only slightly better off when my parents were together. They say they stayed together for the kids.

I think its very possible to get divorced and not abandon your kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a key point.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I was only slightly better off when my parents were together. They say they stayed together for the kids.

I think its very possible to get divorced and not abandon your kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's possible but i think it would be extremely difficult to maintain a normal/strong relationship, especially from the child's perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that depends on the parents consistency with each other. But too often other factors of the parents sabatoge that.

b

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I was only slightly better off when my parents were together. They say they stayed together for the kids.

I think its very possible to get divorced and not abandon your kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's possible but i think it would be extremely difficult to maintain a normal/strong relationship, especially from the child's perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that depends on the parents consistency with each other. But too often other factors of the parents sabatoge that.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

i see what you mean, but i'm really talking about the child being able to adjust to the fact that the parent is not in their life on a daily basis. spending every other weekend w/your the parent does not replicate a normal relationship and i could see how a child may find it difficult to remain close the parent.

[T-God]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think alot of this has to do with people getting married and having kids at too young an age these days. They just aren't ready maturity-wise to be married, much less have kids.

[/ QUOTE ]
Aren't people on average getting married at historically the oldest age ever? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're maturing alot slower than in the past. It seems common for people to be living with their parents into their mid-20's. That might even things out. Just because people are getting married later in life doesn't mean they're more ready for it.

As for the OP, I think that having divorced parents who are civil and happier alone is much better than having married parents who don't get along. Even if they pretend to get along I think the kids will catch on.

My parents got divorced late in my life (I was 17) and while I missed seeing my dad as often, I think it was better for me. Not that my parents get along at all, but I guess them not interacting with one another is better than them fighting.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if the parents are still respectful and actually still like one another, I think it benefits the kids. (The parents are another matter!) But if there is acrimony and disrespect then, no.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is the nub of it. If the parents are otherwise fine and not bitter/fighting and can conduct themselves as if all was fine - and couples can be happy in this setup, believe me - staying together is fine. IF they fight, then it is perhaps better to separate after attempts to make it work have all failed.

That's what my brain says.

My heart says that parents should do whatever they have to that best benefits their children, and I mean in terms of making their children well-adjusted, confident and independent people. Anything else is immature and selfish. Once you have children, I think you have a responsibility to really try and make it work - stuff which is deep-down 'well if I do stuff that'll make me happy, that'll dripfeed happiness down to my kids' is a childish and self-indulgent view of things.

[MrMon]

Although it's possible for both parents to remain in their children's lives after a divorce, sometimes that's not so great either. My wife and her ex have joint custody of their daughter, with time split between them over a two weeks period of eight days vs. six. He lives close by, so her school is not interrupted, although friends are.

The way things have been going lately, with the daughter being 11 and the dad being a religious fanatic and control freak, wife/daughter wish he would go away, or she could see him less.

Sometimes, having only one parent is better.