In his last post, Mike wrote about people “staying together for the kids”, and how it often doesn’t turn out to be good for the kids or anyone else involved. I agree, but I think his reasoning (though very common) is way off base. This is an issue I’ve had cause to consider in great depth, because I’m Catholic. As you probably know–even if you know nothing else about Catholicism–the Catholic church does not acknowledge divorce. Doesn’t just frown on it or even forbid it, but sort of shakes its head and says, “Yeah, sorry. You’re still married.” And the number one response/complaint/question I hear with regard to that issue is something along the lines of “Am I supposed to believe that God wants me to be miserable with someone I hate for the rest of my life?”
“Um, no,” the response goes. “God wants both of you to work at letting go of hate and anger and treating each other well and thus not being miserable.” Now, you may or may not believe in God, or believe that God frowns on divorce or care one way or the other. But isn’t the issue somewhat similar?
Mike (and millions of other people) suggest that it’s no good for kids to grow up in a household full of hate and anger and constant conflict and depression and all of the things that can occur in bad marriages. And that’s true. But the place I always stick is the apparent assumption that those are the only two choices. If, in fact, two people are committed enough to the welfare of their children that they’ve truly decided to try to stay together “for the kids”, doesn’t that effort extend a bit further? Don’t they make an effort to find common ground, to stop making each other miserable, to support each other and continue to function as a family unit? If not, they’re lying when they tell you they’re staying together for the kids. Parenting takes work, every day, just like relationships do, and simply remaining in the same house is a far cry from “staying together for the kids”. It’s a lazy, self-congratulatory way to pretend that you’re the victim and the hero without investing any actual effort.
There are, of course, circumstances in which it’s difficult or impossible to live a normal, healthy life with another person. For instance, that person might be physically abusive or addicted to narcotics or seriously mentally ill. But in those cases, it’s hard to imagine that anyone could in good conscience argue that they were staying together for the children–it’s not good for a child to be exposed to violence and drug use.
In the case of two decent people who sincerely care about putting their children first, the answer is often (C); it’s not “split up” or “be miserable together” but simply “choose to work hard at building something that works for all of you.” Maybe you can’t make yourself “fall back in love”, but “we get along well and respect each other but we’re not passionate about each other anymore” is a far cry from “we’re so miserable it’s a bad environment for the kids.”
Excellent!
I’m not Catholic, though I have been married to two(at different times) and I’m not even that religious, but, I completely agree with your assessment. Letting go of anger and resentment is key to a healthy marriage. If you can’t let go of those things, being divorced isn’t going to be any easier and probably more challenging. Part of the problem we have is that most states are now no fault divorce states, you don’t have to give a reason for leaving your spouse, “it just didn’t work out” is good enough. It isn’t and it shouldn’t be.
i was 6 when my parents split. they took me to a counselor and they all sat down and told me and let me ask questions. the counselor was able to word things better than my parents could i guess. it was over 40 years ago and i don’t remember all the details.
I disagree – I think kids can sense when the two people who are closest to them are not truly happy, whether or not mom and dad are loud about it is irrelevant. Do you think those kids benefit from being in a house that is hollow of love? No way… and I would not want them growing up thinking that life is supposed to be like that.