Is It Ever Really About the Kids??

[Quiet Storm]

Staying for the kids is a genuine reason, IMO. I would take a bullet for my kids, so I'd can certainly understand someone tolerating a crappy marriage to ensure their kids have the best chance at success.

 

This doesn't mean that it can't also be used as an excuse, though. In most affairs, I don't think it even is a possibility in MM's mind to divorce. He portrays the "conflicted Dad role" to OW, but most intend to remain married. What divorce will do to the kids is never a real worry to them, because they aren't divorcing.

 

Their objective is to keep the family intact, and to also have an OW. So, in MM's toolbox of excuses to keep OW in her role, it's the most believable & understandable. The well being of his kids would probably be a real concern for him, IF he was ever going to divorce. But he's not. (in most cases).

[Striver]

I think the devil is in the details.

 

If I was a MC or trying to help people generally, statistics do matter. There are always exceptions, but certain issues are more common in marriages than others. Saying "I need to be happy" isn't enough. I would look more at "would a rational person be happy" rather than what an individual feels.

 

In my M (W and I are separated) I will give a couple of examples. First night my W spent on the couch where she now resides happened when she stayed out late, past my normal late bedtime. She was mad because I didn't call to check up on her, when I knew where she was and was trying to give her space. She's an adult, she can call me if need be.

 

Recently, after separation, she set up a schedule for child care for the week. W needed to be out on four of the five weeknights. In return, she gave me some extra time on the weekend. When the weekend came around she changed the schedule so she had an extra hour. I merely clarified which schedule was correct, since she changed it (the hour didn't matter that much to me.) She made a snide comment that the original schedule was unfair to her and she deserved the extra hour, at least. But she set up the original schedule, I just agreed to it!

 

These are examples of my W getting mad at me for things she has done herself. In W's mind I am the problem, and she needs to make herself happy by dumping me. In the examples I have given, it's clear that W is her own problem and is just projecting blame on me. So dumping me won't solve her issues, even though she thinks it will.

[jellybean89]

I posted this in one of my other threads, but I'm genuinely interested in hearing insight on this subject. My AP of 1 1/2 years says that the only thing keeping him from leaving his W and being with me is that he can't imagine leaving his children. He IS a very involved father, and I know his kids are his first priority. (As they should be)

 

My question is: is it ever really about the kids, or is that just a common excuse used to keep you strung along?? I also think a lot has to do with the fact his W would take him for all he's worth. (He's mentioned this recently, and they live in California. She'd get half of everything)

 

MM/MW with children.. Have you ever felt stuck in a unhappy M because of your children, or because of being afraid of losing half your assets, home, etc?

 

OM/OW.. Did your MM/MW use this excuse on you as to why they couldn't leave their M??

 

Just curious if he was being honest, or if this is just a common tale.

 

I believe it is used as an excuse vs the truth. The cheating parent is choosing to "give up" time with their kids when engaging in an affair. We see all the time on here OW proclaiming how they are in touch for HOURS every day with the MM. If they aren't texting, emailing or calling, they are trying to figure out F2F time, whether it is for an hour or for a day or for "vacation". This is why I believe it is a excuse used by men to gently let the OW know he isn't leaving and any thoughts she had on him leaving were incorrect thoughts.

 

As for saying it is better to suck it up for 18 years.....I call baloney. Kids are not stupid. Having your parents rarely speak to each other, feeling the constant tension...how is that good for any kid? Why would anyone want their kids to think that is what a relationship/marriage is? Everyone argues...even the happiest and healthiest marriages have disagreements. It is healthy - it also shows kids how to resolve things and how to compromise.

 

Parents need to parent their kids, instead of being buddies. Kids don't get a say so in what the parents decide to do with regards to the marriage and no kid should be saddled with the "responsibility" of holding their parents marriage together. As for divorcing when kids turn 18, I've seen and read several articles about how it can be more damaging for the kids to have their parents split once they graduate or turn 18. Several kids interviewed said it made them question their entire childhood and it made them feel as if they were lied to for their entire childhood.

 

I know of 2 dads who retained physical custody of his children during a divorce. One father was the primary custodian for his daughter since she was 3 and the other was the primary custodian of his 3 kids (2 boys and a girl) since his youngest was 1. If the cheating spouse put even half of the amount of time he spends romancing the OW into his marriage, this whole "missing my kids" line would be less used as an excuse to keep an affair just as affair.

 

Kids shouldn't be an excuse for staying in a bad marriage, and they shouldn't be shoved aside so mommy/daddy have time to go see their affair partner. Sometimes divorce actually helps the relationships between kids and dads - dad has set time tables for spending time with his kids and he can't pawn them off on the mom so he can be in contact with the OW.

 

Additionally, kids should not have "new" girlfriends/boyfriends shoved in their face soon after the parents split. That shows zero respect for the kids feelings and is just wrong, in my view.

 

***My views based on my childhood, my family and my occupation.

[EmptyHeartGirl]

I'll add my two cents. I really do not believe it's about the kids. I think most married men that stay are "comfortable" in their marriages, they may be unhappy for whatever reason, but nothing so much that they would interrupt their current situation. If it was really about their kids they wouldn't be out having an affair they would be at home spending time with the kids they can't bear to be away from.

It's an easy excuse for them because it's something most women wouldn't bear to dispute or even feel guilty about disputing. Would you be so understanding if he said I like my home situation I just need some excitement from time to time or it's actually cheaper to keep her. I remind you to look at their actions and not hold so much truth in the words they say.

[Scarlet2]

Curious to know the excuse when the youngest turns 18. Do they divorce then or does a new excuse pop up?

 

How bad does it have to be before a MM decides to divorce? Do they stick it out forever because it's easier than starting over at the beginning again? Wait for the W to want to divorce them instead?

 

My MM's youngest is 17. We don't discuss his M so I don't know if he's staying for the kids or not or if he ever plans on getting divorced but I come up with assumptions. I feel he's been wanting out for several years but stays to fulfill his parental responsibility and it costs less in the long run to stick it out for another year; no child support.

 

I know he says he looks forward to the day when all his kids are all gone but I don't see how that will improve his marriage. I think he feels he'll get all the attention again from his W when the kids are adults but one had already left and another came back when he started the A with me because his wife changed and she was even more withdrawn from him. I imagine it will get worse when the nest is completely empty because she'll no longer be in mom mode and her wife mode might not be the same as he remembers 20 years ago.

 

I've been pulling away because I don't want to be my MM's crutch. If he's in an unhappy marriage, then he needs to experience it fully without me being the distraction that makes it palatable for him to continue the marriage.

[randomwoman]

I think this is a valid issue. Most men know they would not see their children if they split with their spouse. Traditionally, physical custody is granted to the mother meaning they would be missing out.

I've been the OW and also the married woman and while it sucks, I think it's one of the most respectable reasons not to get divorced. Until the courts treat men and woman equally, they will miss out on their kids' lives if they leave the marriage.

[peaksandvalleys]

I think this is a valid issue. Most men know they would not see their children if they split with their spouse. Traditionally, physical custody is granted to the mother meaning they would be missing out.

I've been the OW and also the married woman and while it sucks, I think it's one of the most respectable reasons not to get divorced. Until the courts treat men and woman equally, they will miss out on their kids' lives if they leave the marriage.

 

:(Maybe a valid reason for some but I think it is far from respectable to stay while having an outside relationship.

[Journee]

I posted this in one of my other threads, but I'm genuinely interested in hearing insight on this subject. My AP of 1 1/2 years says that the only thing keeping him from leaving his W and being with me is that he can't imagine leaving his children. He IS a very involved father, and I know his kids are his first priority. (As they should be)

 

My question is: is it ever really about the kids, or is that just a common excuse used to keep you strung along?? I also think a lot has to do with the fact his W would take him for all he's worth. (He's mentioned this recently, and they live in California. She'd get half of everything)

 

MM/MW with children.. Have you ever felt stuck in a unhappy M because of your children, or because of being afraid of losing half your assets, home, etc?

 

OM/OW.. Did your MM/MW use this excuse on you as to why they couldn't leave their M??

 

Just curious if he was being honest, or if this is just a common tale.

 

 

 

 

 

I do think that many marriages are still together because of the desire to have both parents in the home. On the boards it rubs people the wrong way, especially bs, because who wants to think that their wayward is only with them to maintain the status quo? It surely happens. After my STBxH's many affairs and my own RA the ONLY thing keeping us together was our children...but at the end of the day, we realized that the awful environment we were fostering and growing was worse than our children living in two separate homes. Some marriages need to end. I didn't believe that for a long time. I held on for dear life. While I watched him let go and turn to women. I was the glue. I let go at the beginning of this year. I quit grasping for him. I quit begging him to come to bed with me, to make love to me, to help me with our kids, to help me with the household, to be a partner to me, to be my friend. It was such a lonely time. When I let go he became angry that I wasn't doing the things I used to. I no longer needed anything from him. I wasn't going to beg him anymore to love me nor was I going to wait until his next affair. I had an RA, I fell in love and it's killed what little of myself I thought I had left.

 

My M is in name only and a matter of logistics and paperwork remain. I'm certain it's the case with others.

 

On that same note, I'm sure it's just a line from some people too. It's as individuals as can possibly be, people's reasons for staying in their broken M's.

[Barni]

Hi, i am new to these forums but have been reading them for a long time. I am 33 months into a relationship with a MM. His reason for remaining in the family home is because he does not want to not see his children 24/7. I wont detail the circumstances too much but he is an alcoholic, dry for 4+ years and the guilt makes him feel insecure as to whether if he left now he would have a strong enough bond with his children who are 10 and 13. His wife has no interest in him, they do not share a bedroom or have any relationship except regarding the children and money. They have not had sex for over ten years (and for those doing the math, the children were by IVF). I totally trust him when he tells me the children are the reason he remains for now. I dont relish the waiting around until they leave school but i believe him when he shows and tells me he will divorce when the time is right. There are no arguments in his home, just two people with children who share a space. The conversation has been brought up by me about him divorcing his wife and not the children, that he will always be their dad no matter where he lives, that the children need involved parents not married parents. For him, the time to leave is not now and i accept it. So, please don't always assume the 'i cant leave because of the children' is a cop out or an excuse. Each relationship is different.

[AmyBamy]

I haven't read all of the other posts, but yes, it really is about the kids sometimes. Maybe even most of the time. Think of all the things that adults sacrifice to keep their children safe and happy. Why would this be any different? And, for men, they are usually not the parent that ends up with physical custody - and let's be honest, weekend parenting is NOT the same as living with your children every single day (like their mother will most likely continue to get to do so).

 

This is why I think more women file for divorce than men. Women get the best deal in divorce 99% of the time. They usually get physical custody of the kids, the house, etc. Their lives change very little, they simply don't have their husband around any longer. Men however have to change everything. They usually have to move, give up tons of time with their children, and pay child support and/or alimony. It's not wonder they avoid divorce like the plague.

[dichotomy]

I haven't read all of the other posts, but yes, it really is about the kids sometimes. Maybe even most of the time. Think of all the things that adults sacrifice to keep their children safe and happy. Why would this be any different? And, for men, they are usually not the parent that ends up with physical custody - and let's be honest, weekend parenting is NOT the same as living with your children every single day (like their mother will most likely continue to get to do so).

 

This is why I think more women file for divorce than men. Women get the best deal in divorce 99% of the time. They usually get physical custody of the kids, the house, etc. Their lives change very little, they simply don't have their husband around any longer. Men however have to change everything. They usually have to move, give up tons of time with their children, and pay child support and/or alimony. It's not a wonder they avoid divorce like the plague.

 

 

Edited July 13, 2014 by dichotomy

[goodyblue]

I'm a little disappointed that everyone is saying it is NOT about the kids. Men love their children just like women. When there is a divorce, men get the short end of the stick regarding children. I know several people who stayed in their marriages until the kids are grown and then quietly divorced.

 

Not sure if it is a good thing, I have heard that when that happens kids wonder if their life was a lie... but I know it happens.

 

Of course it is about the kids. If they are not a consideration, that's pretty sad.

[goodyblue]

I believe it is used as an excuse vs the truth. The cheating parent is choosing to "give up" time with their kids when engaging in an affair. We see all the time on here OW proclaiming how they are in touch for HOURS every day with the MM. If they aren't texting, emailing or calling, they are trying to figure out F2F time, whether it is for an hour or for a day or for "vacation". This is why I believe it is a excuse used by men to gently let the OW know he isn't leaving and any thoughts she had on him leaving were incorrect thoughts.

 

As for saying it is better to suck it up for 18 years.....I call baloney. Kids are not stupid. Having your parents rarely speak to each other, feeling the constant tension...how is that good for any kid? Why would anyone want their kids to think that is what a relationship/marriage is? Everyone argues...even the happiest and healthiest marriages have disagreements. It is healthy - it also shows kids how to resolve things and how to compromise.

 

Parents need to parent their kids, instead of being buddies. Kids don't get a say so in what the parents decide to do with regards to the marriage and no kid should be saddled with the "responsibility" of holding their parents marriage together. As for divorcing when kids turn 18, I've seen and read several articles about how it can be more damaging for the kids to have their parents split once they graduate or turn 18. Several kids interviewed said it made them question their entire childhood and it made them feel as if they were lied to for their entire childhood.

 

I know of 2 dads who retained physical custody of his children during a divorce. One father was the primary custodian for his daughter since she was 3 and the other was the primary custodian of his 3 kids (2 boys and a girl) since his youngest was 1. If the cheating spouse put even half of the amount of time he spends romancing the OW into his marriage, this whole "missing my kids" line would be less used as an excuse to keep an affair just as affair.

 

Kids shouldn't be an excuse for staying in a bad marriage, and they shouldn't be shoved aside so mommy/daddy have time to go see their affair partner. Sometimes divorce actually helps the relationships between kids and dads - dad has set time tables for spending time with his kids and he can't pawn them off on the mom so he can be in contact with the OW.

 

Additionally, kids should not have "new" girlfriends/boyfriends shoved in their face soon after the parents split. That shows zero respect for the kids feelings and is just wrong, in my view.

 

***My views based on my childhood, my family and my occupation.

 

 

I don't know what you have seen but in my situation, my guy did not push his kids aside in deference to me. Since his ex was a non entity in their marriage, he had PLENTY of time for his kids, and oodles of time for us.

 

It's not always about a miserable marriage. Sometimes it is about one person being fine with the status quo (the money, the outward appearance of happiness etc) and the other person is simply dying a slow death of loneliness.

 

Sometimes there is not abuse, but just neglect. Sometimes it doesn't SEEM that bad, but to one partner, it IS that bad.

 

My guy is a great dad who is very, very involved (his kids are grown now, and he is still involved in their lives) and I can say, based on how his ex reacted to the divorce and how she tried to poison the children's minds against their father, it would have been horrible if he had left before they were adults. He waited. And it was a good thing.

 

And he stayed for the children.

Edited July 13, 2014 by goodyblue

[cocorico]

I don't know what you have seen but in my situation, my guy did not push his kids aside in deference to me. Since his ex was a non entity in their marriage, he had PLENTY of time for his kids, and oodles of time for us.

 

It's not always about a miserable marriage. Sometimes it is about one person being fine with the status quo (the money, the outward appearance of happiness etc) and the other person is simply dying a slow death of loneliness.

 

Sometimes there is not abuse, but just neglect. Sometimes it doesn't SEEM that bad, but to one partner, it IS that bad.

 

My guy is a great dad who is very, very involved (his kids are grown now, and he is still involved in their lives) and I can say, based on how his ex reacted to the divorce and how she tried to poison the children's minds against their father, it would have been horrible if he had left before they were adults. He waited. And it was a good thing.

 

And he stayed for the children.

 

Yep. Much of that holds true for us, too.

 

Also wanted to comment on the "if they loved their kids they wouldn't have an A because that steals them away from the kids" myth.

 

I've lived through this myself, and so can vouch that during my father's A, he was much *more* available to is kids - not less. During the M up to that point, he had become beaten down, depressed, withdrawn, pretty much checked out of life, there in body only and a hollow presence in the house. He spent his time locked away in his workshop, or lying in a darkened room with migraine, when he wasn't at work. He was around, but he was not accessible. (Not that this was unusual in those days. Few fathers were "hands on" - their job was to earn money.) During his A he was a different person. We did not know why at the time, but it was a transformation. He would be happy when he got home. Even though he interacted no more than previously with our mother, he was suddenly there for us kids. He'd talk to us, play chess with us, allow us into his workshop, show us how to do stuff... He wasn't just a ghost anymore. He responded to things, he smiled and laughed, interacted with us, even ate meals with us. It was so much better.

 

My H's kids report the same kind of things with my H, how things were after he allowed the then-W back after the split, the walking on eggs, depression, gloom, fear... and how different he became later, with the A, much lighter, more himself. And how, as he grew in accessibility to them, her hollowness mattered less and less, until they were happy to have her erased entirely so that they could be around only the light and not the soul-sucking darkness. They a gave them access to their father in a way the M never had. And, once they left her, they had him fully.

[goodyblue]

Yep. Much of that holds true for us, too.

 

Also wanted to comment on the "if they loved their kids they wouldn't have an A because that steals them away from the kids" myth.

 

I've lived through this myself, and so can vouch that during my father's A, he was much *more* available to is kids - not less. During the M up to that point, he had become beaten down, depressed, withdrawn, pretty much checked out of life, there in body only and a hollow presence in the house. He spent his time locked away in his workshop, or lying in a darkened room with migraine, when he wasn't at work. He was around, but he was not accessible. (Not that this was unusual in those days. Few fathers were "hands on" - their job was to earn money.) During his A he was a different person. We did not know why at the time, but it was a transformation. He would be happy when he got home. Even though he interacted no more than previously with our mother, he was suddenly there for us kids. He'd talk to us, play chess with us, allow us into his workshop, show us how to do stuff... He wasn't just a ghost anymore. He responded to things, he smiled and laughed, interacted with us, even ate meals with us. It was so much better.

 

My H's kids report the same kind of things with my H, how things were after he allowed the then-W back after the split, the walking on eggs, depression, gloom, fear... and how different he became later, with the A, much lighter, more himself. And how, as he grew in accessibility to them, her hollowness mattered less and less, until they were happy to have her erased entirely so that they could be around only the light and not the soul-sucking darkness. They a gave them access to their father in a way the M never had. And, once they left her, they had him fully.

 

That was definitely the case with my guy. Just a week ago my guy's aunt told me how much happier he is, how he is more like his younger years. How glad they are that he is no longer in that marriage. Incidentally she also said they didn't realize what kind of woman she was until he left and she showed her true colors to the world rather than just to him.

 

I have had several bs's say 'you don't know what went on in their marriage' but the proof is how she is now. She is exactly as he told me she was, the only difference is we all see it now.

 

Incidentally, his kids have made it clear they think he did the right thing and they have a closer relationship than in the past. He is a happier person abd it shows in every facet of his life.

[Holding-On]

I think this is a valid issue. Most men know they would not see their children if they split with their spouse. Traditionally, physical custody is granted to the mother meaning they would be missing out.

I've been the OW and also the married woman and while it sucks, I think it's one of the most respectable reasons not to get divorced. Until the courts treat men and woman equally, they will miss out on their kids' lives if they leave the marriage.

 

This is frequently brought up but not necessarily true. It is part of popular culture but often the parents decide that the primary parent will remain the primary parent. When fathers fight they very often win.

One study showed that

"Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time. "

 

Anyway I think that sometimes that is the reason. It doesn't mean that once the kids are out the MM will decide to change the status quo. He may find affairs quite easy to come by and certainly easier than leaving his marriage.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Holding-On
To answer the original question!

[cocorico]

This is frequently brought up but not necessarily true. It is part of popular culture but often the parents decide that the primary parent will remain the primary parent. When fathers fight they very often win.

One study showed that

"Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time. "

 

Anyway I think that sometimes that is the reason. It doesn't mean that once the kids are out the MM will decide to change the status quo. He may find affairs quite easy to come by and certainly easier than leaving his marriage.

 

My H also got custody (on paper custody was shared, as per the kids' request; de facto, they lived with us, as per the kids' wishes) but that does not negate that he stayed *for the kids* until the point where they were ready to countenance another split. Just because custody was a theoretical possibility, it did not mean that the kids were ready to have their lives thrown into upheaval again. Staying "for the kids" doesn't just mean someone is afraid they personally will lose time with the kids (even though sat least one parent will lose at least 50% of time with the kids). It means they care enough about the kids' welfare not to want to throw their lives into upheaval at that stage.

[MissBee]

As I posted...I don't think it matters whether or not it's about the kids but it's about whether the MM is willing to change his life, change the status quo, rearrange things and take risks.

 

Kids, house, job whatever it is...if it means sorry, I'm not gonna be able to give you (the OW) what you want and need because all these others things are more important (and OF COURSE the kids should be more important)...isn't that the ONLY point that matters? And then if you know he can't leave for his kids, his dogs, his job, his money or whatever YOU choose what to do based on knowing this?

 

This is in any relationship. Feelings aren't what relationships are about. Relationships are about choices, sometimes hard ones, but choices that allow you to be together, stay together and create a life together. That's what relationships are. In serious relationships you take your partner into account in terms of jobs, kids, moving etc...and if in your relationship everything else has to come before you or if for whatever reason the right choice for your partner means things won't be well for the relationship, that's why people break up and find other people whose lives and choices mesh better with their own.

 

I would never expect a man to choose me over his kids...but it's not about choosing over. People have children and relationships end and lots of people make the choice to end the romantic relationship and still be there for their children. FOR ME...I want to be married and have my own family and OPEN relationship. Therefore, if I were an OW right now again, I would have some very STRICT parameters for what is and is not acceptable. If my MM says I have to stay for 10 more years until my kids are 18 or I can't ever leave because of them or what have you....okay, great, I respect your choice and you need to respect mine that this is an impasse for us and I need to move on to a relationship where our choices are going in similar directions and where we can actually be together openly soon as this one won't work.

 

That's what it boils down to IMO. I see no point in theorizing about if it's "really" about the kids...because if it is or isn't the bottom line, esp for OW waiting for an open relationship with MM, is that if it's the kids legitimately, it legitimately means he isn't leaving and the point is: are you okay with this or no? If you are...be okay with it. If you aren't, realize like ALL relationships, things may start off well but sometimes you get to a point where it's a crossroads and you realize you have to separate as you don't want the same things or circumstances mean the person CANNOT give you the relationship you want. You accept this and move on or you stay in denial or for years not getting what you really want and hoping things will change....

Edited July 15, 2014 by MissBee

[IMsodumb]

I respect the fact that my MM has never forsaken his time with his children to be with me. I couldn't always accommodate his schedule but he was willing to accommodate mine the odd time and it truly is hard for him so I appreciated it. He speaks VERY highly of his children and is very involved in their lives. He is an exceptional father and I believe that while he does care about his wife, he largely stays for his children. I stay for mine so, I get it. Where will I be in 10 yrs.....who knows, but for now, as much as I would love to have him with me for the long haul, I respect his choice as a father. I don't look at his kids as an excuse.....they are the "reason", and a very good one.

[Nattie]

It is absolutely 100% about the kids for my MOM and I. At first, it wasn't, but two years in, we would without a doubt be together by now if there weren't children in the picture. His are older than mine, and he's come to the realization that witnessing his miserable marriage is just as damaging to them, if not more so, than a divorce would be. He's left it in my hands for the time being, but I compartmentalize better than he does. I would be destroying a perfect happy family (from an outsider's perspective). Eventually something has to give.